In-Sight Publishing

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/06/05

Jonathan Engel, J.D. is the President of the Secular Humanist Society of New York. Here we talk about Bill de Blasio and ultra-Orthodox political currency.

*Interview conducted on May 4, 2020.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Bill de Blasio, Mayor of the “Big Apple,” what is the case with some of the Orthodox Hasidic community and the change in tone over the last week with him?

Jonathan Engel: He finally took a stand on something. The ultra-Orthodox community in New York City concentrated in Brooklyn has, historically, had a lot of political power because they are a powerful voting bloc. They tend to be a powerful voting group and vote as a bloc. The top rabbis will say, “This is who I am supporting.” The congregations will go out and vote for them. The politicians will court them, “If you can get the rabbi to say you’re the guy, then you’ve got the bloc.” De Blasio has been different than his predecessor Bloomberg. He has really bent over backwards. I will give some quick examples of him not doing what he should have done. With the ritual, believe or not, of the bris, Jewish boys are born. There is a ceremony involving the circumcision. So very few, but some ultra-Orthodox, part of the ceremony, it is going to sound weird, because it sounds weird to me. And I grew up Reformed Jewish. The mohel, the guy who does the circumcision puts his lips to the penis to suck out some of the blood. It is weird. Yes, okay, it also raises the chances of the mohel passing herpes to the child if the mohel has herpes. It can lead to devastating effects, including death.

So, when Bloomberg was mayor, the Department of Health issued an edict, “You cannot do this.” A small amount of Hasidic people were up in arms. De Blasio says, “Okay, we’re going to give you advice not to do it. We won’t issue an order, but just advice.” It’s like, “Man, you are putting the public health over this. You are putting the health of small children at risk over this.”

Jacobsen: The elephant in the room is a religious practice, a religious cultural practice.

Engel: That’s right. Another example is in the Department of Education with ultra-Orthodox kids raised in religious schools called yeshivas. There have been reports. I have heard it from people who graduated from yeshivas. A woman said that she graduated and could barely do high school mathematics and science. All she was taught was about religion.

Jacobsen: I have heard from friends who left.

Engel: Yeah! The state education department, there are some things for every private school, whether religious or not. You still have to follow state guidelines. When reports were coming out, de Blasio was supposed to have the city Department of Education investigate. He really, really dragged his feet. It was left to the state education department to do real legwork to get this stuff done. With that kind of background with Bill de Blasio, I was pleased that he took a different track on a similar issue. It was a senior rabbi who died. When a senior rabbi dies, it is a big deal. They are attended by hundreds and thousands of people with streets blocked off. During the pandemic, you can’t do that. People did organize the funeral to try to make it so people would social distance. They lost control of it. So, you had a whole bunch of people mostly not wearing masks crowded shoulder to shoulder. De Blasio, this time, said, “I cannot allow this. We’ve got thousands and thousands of people dying in New York City.” He said, “Enough,” and sent in the police to break it up. The Police Commissioner was upset by the whole thing. 10% of the police force was out recovering from coronavirus to risk their lives while trying to break this thing up. It’s been interesting.

Jacobsen: To a fair point question, are there any other religious or non-religious groups not only in Brooklyn but in New York state where this happened? A large gathering grounded in a belief system, religious or cultural, where there was required or a need for breaking it up.

Engel: Not that I know of, I am not going to say, “It hasn’t happened,” but not that I know. The churches and synagogues have been doing virtual stuff. This is a very small minority of Jews, even in New York City. Most Jews are not ultra-Orthodox or Hasidic. Jewish congregations are doing the same things as churches and mosques, which is holding their services online, doing virtual services, and so on. I have not heard of anything. One of the reasons for this being an interesting question is the Hasidic and non-Hasidic groups of being borderline anti-Semitic for doing this or for what he said afterwards, which, in my view, was really ridiculous. He said, ‘You can’t do this. I am not going to make some separate exemption for Jewish people. You can’t do this.’ Some said, ‘Oh! You lumped all Jewish people together. We are only a small group.’ De Blasio said, ‘No, I didn’t!’ He’s right in this case. I am attuned to anti-Semitism. I can tell you, “This wasn’t it.”

Jacobsen: In the United Kingdom, mostly women running this particular campaign, but it’s also some men too. All are mostly around the identity of former Muslims. They have the campaign One Law for All. They have the issue around separate Islamic courts in the U.K., which creates a secular law for all, as per standard issue of the legal system, and then a distinct secondary legal system based on some interpretations of “religious law.” I believe the same campaign spirit of interpretation can be applied to New York. It is one country, one state. It’s one law for all. If you exclude yourself, then you are considering yourself above the law as a religio-cultural group.

Engel: It is fascinating. If you applied that to the United States, we have freedom of religion, but there are restrictions on it. This is coming up mostly in the most religious parts of the country, like in Brooklyn in Borough Park where Hasidic Jews dominate the area. But some states in the South in the United States; you have some Christian denominations that are larger swathes of those states. You have some pushback by some people saying that they want to hold a service. There was one guy named Tony Spell in Louisiana, who has been under house arrest!

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Engel: Because he has been telling congregates to “come on out!” It is a very interesting thing, in my view, because a lot of this comes down to “How much do you really believe this stuff?” I supposed: if you are really a true believer, why not come out?! “Jesus and God will protect me.” We are hearing this all the time here. “God will protect me, and us. Why shouldn’t we go into church and have our services?”

Jacobsen: If God is always open for business, why the need to close the buildings?

Engel: That’s a good question.

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Engel: “If they go out, they’re only risking their own lives.” Yeah, but they are going to go home and go to the store! If only adults of age could go there and only risk their own lives, I still wouldn’t like it. But that’s the problem. Because you’re risking a lot of people’s lives when you do that, including hospital workers and medical workers. They are already overwhelmed. If you get sick, then you will want them to treat you, right? We have a First Amendment, which allows freedom of religion. Yes, we do. It does allow freedom of religion. There are always limits. In a national emergency, that’s when you see real limits nationally. In our country, it is a very religious country in spots. You are seeing people saying, “Our freedom of religion says…” or similar to what you say about Sharia, “I answer to a higher authority than the civil, secular law.” The problem is, you get to pick the authority and what it says – don’t you? If it says to kill someone, are we supposed to follow that too? No, you can worship in synagogues and mosques, but not many follow the law. Once again, your right to believe in your religion ends when my health is involved. Your right to swing your arm around ends at my nose.

Jacobsen: Jon, thanks as always.

Engel: Okay, and thank you too, Scott, and stay healthy!

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/06/04

Rev. Jim Parrish is the Minister of the UU Fellowship of Fayetteville, AR. Here we talk about coming to Unitarian Universalism, community, and philosophy.

*Interview conducted on June 3, 2020.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, my line of questions tend to set a tone about a story. We are our stories. Our stories will live on after us. Therefore, as a species, narrative is more important than anything in our lives. We build our sense of self around them. In your own family background, was there any sense of Unitarian Universalism? Or was this something that developed as you grew up and became more independent?

Rev. Jim Parrish: I came across Unitarian Universalist philosophy early in life. I grew up on a farm in Kansas. The upbringing was that of equity and caring for people. The small town that I grew up in had a Methodist Church and a Mennonite Church too. Probably, the largest population was Mennonite. We were part of the Methodist Church. I went through the classes and everything to join the church. To me, the classes, in some ways, created more questions, especially when it came to learning creed. I read a lot. I was a child of the World Book Encyclopedia. I went through it several times. This was back in the 60s and 70s. Looking for information, it was a time of change. It was a time still of the space race. We were going to the moon, which was a huge thing. I was a science and, probably, theology nerd. I read a lot of literature. When it came time to ask the questions between the two, theology and science, for example, I used my barn on the farm. If I laid down in front of my house and looked south, back in the day, the clear Kansas sky in the night, the Milky Way would be shining. I would be looking at Sagittarius in the south. We were learning more and more about the universe that we lived in. It was the center of our Milky Way. It was set towards Sagittarius.

The question came to me, “If the God of my Methodism, the Methodist Church, was the God of all of this too, what I was being taught and narrowly sold, was not big enough, the God was not holding onto all of the people of the planet. There were wars. There were famines. There was a conflict in Northern Ireland. My best friend who wasn’t Methodist meant we couldn’t be friends. Religion was not stepping in and saying, ‘No, no, wait, this is about one thing.’ Why are we are war with each other? Why aren’t we stopping wars?” It wasn’t what was being taught. I was going to have to find out what religion was all about because, obviously, it was not good enough for me at that time. I kept reading. I would go to school. Eventually, I did find Unitarian Universalism mentioned in a book in the libraries. I continued to search. I thought, “The description of UU, this is probably what I am. But in Kansas, I have little in the way of resources.” I went to college, eventually, in engineering. I went to the Unitarian Universalist fellowship in Manhattan, Kansas. They were the liberal, where you could ask questions about religion, folks. The fellowship was full of professors. I didn’t hang out with professors. They were pretty boring. it would be later on when I would finish university. 

Also, in college, I found a book called The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels. These were the gospels rejected by Constantine’s church, who, basically, formed a church because he wanted the power to wield. These books were rejected because they would not provide a platform for that. Religion had another dimension. It was like, “This is a very human power and politics thing. Religions are intermixed.” It answered a few other questions. Going to getting out of school, going to get a job in Rockford, Illinois, where I went to and found a modest to large-sized Unitarian group of 500 or so people, this was home. This was where I found my religious self. I went to classes there. I did engineering for 25-ish years in Rockford. I decided it was a young person’s game. I had been through the hierarchy in the Unitarian church there. I decided to become a UU minister. I retired from engineering. I went to the seminary at Meadville Lombard Theological School in Chicago. I was ordained and graduated there in 2012. I have been ministering since. I went to interim ministry in Topeka, Kansas for two years. Then I was called to the UU Fellowship of Fayetteville, AR. That’s the mini-bio [Laughing].

Jacobsen: [Laughing] Now, if you’re talking all of this life experience and training in the philosophy and lifestance of Unitarian Universalism, what does a service look like? In other words, the important points of contact and the ways of conveying this philosophy to a community who make a conscious choice to attend a service and listen intently to a rendition of communal values, where they agree, fundamentally, with the ideas and concepts, and the feeling, coming from said values.

Parrish: Let’s step back into the central piece of Unitarian Universalism, the principles, they are our history evolved. Have you seen the book on the principles? It is a small book. Track it down, if you haven’t seen it, it’s about the history of the principles. Basically, the principles, every decade or longer will change. We will have a new set of principles. The principles were formed in the beginning when the UUA formed. They were going to be creeds to declare who they were. As Unitarianism and Universalists had their own thing going, until they joined with us in 1961, Unitarians, as they evolved, would change the principles. Transcendentalism changed Unitarianism early on. Transcendentalism about thinking outside of the box to a degree where that’s our opening to developing Humanism, eventually, allowing feminist philosophy joins with Unitarianism, allow Universalists and others, and the movements for abolition and suffrage. We were open to it. We had the good. We had the principles. What can change the world for the good, people are good. We have to embrace more and more ways of being. We did it badly sometimes, but we were always trying to do it. I will jump ahead to when Humanism came along. It was quite the fight of Liberal Christianity and the non-theism of Humanism and way of being and religion. 

The ability to survive that and to create a space for more feminism, who created the sources and insisted: after the Unitarians and the Universalists came together, the principles formed at the time were still not respecting women, children, and men. It was all very patriarchal. The principles were hammered out over several committees and general assemblies. To me, they are still open. In fact, what is happening today, it tells me. There is a huge opening again. Circling back to the meaning of the sources, it is fascinating and wonderful. One of the things that I and other worshippers try to do is worship around the meaning of the principles, “How do we understand them? How do we practice them?” We vary the sources within the services. We leave open spaces. So, people of different sources. I have pagans. I have humanists. I have mostly those two. I have Buddhists who practice Asian philosophy, including Daoism, etc. 

There are some who I am missing. Others who do not want to state while accepting the principles. For me, and for my community of worship, we have a message that “here’s what is happening in the world. Here is how Unitarians might look at that.” We bring people in to speak on different areas like Islam. What is happening in Islam? Someone who lives out the religion. The other spaces around it are left neutral for folks to be who they are within them based on choices and concerns. We have a silent prayer. The music from our hymnal, we try to create a worship that allows folks to be who they are, where they are, within Unitarian Universalist religious being. Also, it is to challenge then within the source as well. I ask, “Do you know as a UU Christian has meaning to a lot of UUs? It helps inform their lives as a UU humanist. Do you understand how that works? Are you in conversation with that?” I believe religious naturalism is a development of Humanism and Paganism coming together. The pagan world is about the natural world and science. I love science. But it can be kind of dry and uninspiring. So, paying attention to the evolutions is fascinating.

Jacobsen: There is an interesting phrase from a deceased writer-philosopher. He said, paraphrasing, ‘If we are alone in the universe, or if there are extraterrestrial civilizations in the universe, then either is a terrifying fact’ [Laughing].

Parrish: [Laughing].

Jacobsen: Similarly, we live in a very big place at any reasonable scale relative to human beings. So, a religious sensibility, by which I mean one in which you either imply a sense of awe and wonder about the universe or a basis for moral and ethical teachings, can provide a foundation for more communal solidarity more than the dry quasi-liturgical statements coming from a scientific textbook. Outside of the works of Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson or the late Carl Sagan with a gift for words. It can be a dry presentation. Sometimes, or many times, individuals who accept all of the foundational facts and theoretical frameworks for understanding the natural world, adding a sense of awe in a formal communal framework can be a lovely addition to one’s life. 

Parrish: Yes.

Jacobsen: If I look at the decline in a lot of fundamentalist religion in some of the developed world, then I believe the Satanists, the Ethical Culturalists, the Ethical Society people, the Humanists, the Unitarian Universalists, and others, are important for providing an alternative, a healthy and productive alternative, for a social species. So, for individuals who might be looking, searching, in transition out of a traditional religious framework or questioning one, or out of one and just floating, how can they get involved and find a Unitarian Universalist online group or physical space from which to build a new and conscious community for themselves?

Parrish: If they’re looking for one, it is oddly more accessible, as it is all over Facebook and social media, and the UUA website. It is really a great resource for connection, especially to the churches nearby. Church of the Larger Fellowship is an online version, which does great work of allowing folks to tap in. Right now, all of our services are online. You can find out how to join the services. You don’t have to try; you can be in Oklahoma, Missouri, anywhere. You don’t have to be in Arkansas. That’s the way it is for a lot of places now. I would say all of those are really good resources. 

Jacobsen: If individuals have a change of mind about the religious upbringing or the religion in mind for them, what about books or authors who articulate the Unitarian Universalist vision well? Any recommendations along those lines?

Parrish: It is interesting. As a youth, I read a lot of science fiction. There was a lot of Unitarian Universalist philosophy in science fiction. It has changed. Science fiction has evolved too. I am reading a lot more science fiction from women of colour and other cultures. It is fascinating. The answer is, “Books” [Laughing].

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Parrish: I look on my shelf here. If you want to try an African American humanist, Anthony Pinn, he’s a little academic, The End of God-Talk: An African American Humanist Theology. The book which I have dragged with me for decades. It is The Values of Belonging: Rediscovering Balance, Mutuality, Intuition, and Wholeness in a Competitive World of Carol Flinders. What that gave me, it was a sense of what religion was about. Religion, if you go back beyond the agricultural era, agriculture is where you had the religion of the kings and queens as a handmaiden for control. Religion to a hunter-gatherer society was how they lived, how they were in relationship to one another and the world around them. Unitarian Universalism and Religious Naturalism are trying to get to that. That’s what religion should be about. But it has been co-opted for power and greed for way too long. An odd one has an interesting view: A God That Could be Real: Spirituality, Science, and the Future of Our Planet by Nancy Abrams. Have you seen that one?

Jacobsen: No, what is the content?

Parrish: She is a quantum physicist. She’s a writer for science. She needed a sense of God, but because of addictions. She was searching for a God that might be real. She was looking to quantum physics, neuroscience, and things, to kind of come up with an idea of God, which is more like an idea of a God that is like the riots that break out o hold human culture accountable for its failures. It is a God that happens between people and is created as needed, as life changes. That’s a simple way of putting it. Her book is complicated. So, there are some books, I suppose. 

Jacobsen: My final question: Any final feelings or thoughts in conclusion based on the conversation today?

Parrish: [Laughing] In the end, Unitarian Universalism is relatively simple. It comes down to the sources, which are brilliant in bringing together people in relationships in all these different ways. Looking at the principles and saying, “They evolved. How do we sort that out?” It is putting them up into the air and saying, “Our principles and sources are open for revision. They aren’t frozen in time. You don’t recite them. You, actually, incite them. You say, ‘I am going to evoke them. If they don’t work, then I will go back to pragmatic experimentation and try something different to see if it is, hopefully, approved,’ then see how that goes for a while.” It is an open-source religion. It is the only way that I think it should be.

Jacobsen: Rev. Parrish, thank you very much for your time.

Parrish: Well, thank you!

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/06/02

Jonathan Engel, J.D. is the President of the Secular Humanist Society of New York. Here we talk about collectivist and individualist trends in America and the modern health of the nation.

*Interview conducted on March 30, 2020.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, we may be entering a once in a century issue. A pandemic that has been compared to, maybe not with the same severity but certainly compared to, the Spanish Flu in 1918/19. In the United States, New York state is where the pandemic disease is leading. What are some of the preliminary thoughts on that fact? That New York state in the United States is leading the pack in cases of coronavirus?

Jonathan Engel: New York City is the center of the world. As I sit here in New York City, in my apartment with nowhere to go, it is not surprising to me in a lot of ways. Because it makes some sense. Not trying to sound too arrogant about it, but we get a lot of visitors. We get a lot of visitors. People came here to work, people for meetings, people for conferences and, of course, millions upon millions of tourists. Of course, the other thing is we live on top of each other. I was talking to a friend of mine who lives in South California, near San Diego yesterday. I was thinking. Then he goes out to do something. He gets to his car. He has bought himself. He goes there. I go out to do something. I get into the subway. I am packed like a sardine.

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Engel: Because we live on top of each other, in terms of our homes, of course, we have apartment buildings. My sister the other day, she lives in a house in the suburbs. I said, “Do you want to go out and take a walk? You don’t have to go down the elevator and share with the other people going into the lobby, where there might be other people.” It is harder. Because we have so many visitors, and so many people coming out of the city, and because we live so right on top of each other. It is not surprising that New York would be the epicenter, with New York City, generally. It’s not at all surprising. Whenever that may happen or does not happen, or whatever it is, I am not surprised by it. I do not think this is God trying to punish the evil New Yorkers who live for being liberals, for not hating homosexuals. I think there is a more rational explanation for why New York is the epicenter. That is what I said because we have so many visitors coming in and out of the city.

Jacobsen: How is this pandemic being exploited by some religious leaders in the United States?

Engel: It’s an interesting question because I think every time there’s some disaster; there’s always some religious leaders saying, especially the orange conservative’s ones, saying, “Oh! This is all punishment because we allowed gay marriage, we allowed abortion,” or whatever else it may be. So, there’s always that case. It happens again, plenty of preachers are out there saying, “This is God punishing us for this or that or whatever.” Then, it occurs to them, and then it crosses their mind that this may be God’s punishment for us putting little 5-year-old South American kids in cages. They are Mexican born. I mean, maybe, God is punishing us for that or utterly ridiculous things, but there’s people out there and will always be out there. The danger is some of these people believe this stuff and that become even dangerous because there are pastors holding churches. I think it’s going down the number because they’re starting to see what’s going on but there are still some out there that are, “Oh, come on in. Everyone, come on in. We are not going to let these people tell us. We are not going to let government tell us that we can’t pray.”

Of course, you can pray. You can pray anytime and anywhere you want. You cannot gather, but there are still some saying that and that is a tremendous danger in this country. I mean, it’s not only religions. We have thousands of 20-year-old knuckleheads found on the beaches of Miami saying, “Oh, it’s Spring break. We’re going to party and we’re not afraid of that coronavirus.” So, it is not all religions, but it is a big factor. Jerry Falwell Jr., who is the president of Liberty University in Virginia, the son of the evangelical leader Jerry Falwell Sr., he reopened the school. There are universities across the country. I mean, all schools but also universities that closed. My older brother’s a professor at the University of Oklahoma in Norman, Oklahoma. He is teaching via video, a video link, etc. That is how he is doing his lectures and that is how pretty much everybody is doing it, but Jerry Falwell Jr. decided, ‘President Trump wants us open; I’m going to be open.’ So, Liberty University is open and now. People at Liberty University are starting to test positive.

So, yes, there are definitely people who are looking to take advantage. Not to mention, there are religious people. It’s a better, nicer phrase than nut jobs, but they’re not “nut jobs” because they’re businessmen who are selling, handling fake cures. Jim Bakker, the famous Jim Bakker from the PTL network, he was involved in scandalous stuff. He is making a comeback with some crap that he saw on TV that he says will cure the coronavirus. So, there is another way that there are some. It is always holy water, words, whatever. Again, not all those conmen are religious in nature, but a lot of them are. Why? If you want to get people to believe in something that’s not real, religious people tend to be susceptible for that. So, that is another aspect of “you can do this” or “you can do that,” or “you can send me a hundred dollars” types of evangelists, whatever. It will protect you from the coronavirus. Some guy is saying in Florida, ‘I want my community coming on Sunday. It’s not killing my church. I will destroy the coronavirus. I destroyed it.’ It’s like, “Oh! That was you who did it? I should know that.” So, you got that thing going on. It’s extremely dangerous.

Jacobsen: Is this scummy, snake oil salesmanship simply more naked during the pandemic?

Engel: You would think so, but there’s always money to be made. I think it was P.T. Barnum who said this, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” Maybe, there was H.L. Mencken. I think he is the one who said, “You would never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.” So, there is always going to be somebody out there. It is sad in so many ways because you are going to give people hope and what you’re peddling is not going to help.

Jacobsen: In the United States, after the Second World War, there was the Healing Revival Movement. It has been called this in retrospect by historians. This was a collective movement of several prominent, eventually men, fundamentalist Christian men, who led large numbers of people. Often, they based themselves on fear. Others, they based themselves on the presentation as God’s main modern-day prophet. William Branham in The Message (Branhamite theology) portrayed himself as some last prophet of God, basically, the last prophet. With a lot of these cases of religious fundamentalism tied to snake oil salesmanship in the United States in the midst of the pandemic, is there a possibility, a real possibility, of something like a revivalist movement, as there has been a large number of religious revivals in the United States through its history at turbulent points when people are looking for answers?

Engel: Sure, it is possible. Of course, I hope not, but, of course, it is possible because when many people get overwhelmed with things that are difficult to understand, etc. They want some answers when it is a complicated world. During a tragedy, you said, after World War II, or now, sure, there are some people who will be more drawn. “Give me a simple answer. This is horrible. I lost a loved one. I have lost whatever, and I feel loveless. Please, give me something that I do not have to think for myself. I do not have to work things out to myself. Somebody or some institution that will tell me how to live, what to do and promise me heaven because right now, Earth looks hell. So, promise me that I’ll be in heaven someday.” There is an appeal to that. I understand that, but I do not know. I am pessimistic, but I am wondering. Hoping, that maybe, it will flip the other direction. I mean, listen, look at it this way, a couple of things that are the right wing’s way of looking at things. Both religious and nonreligious, certainly, question to people who are willing to view a possibility that is not supernatural.

For example, obviously, there has been a lot of praying going on that does not seem to be working. There was no effect. It was 2 weeks ago that Trump called for a day of prayer in the United States to fight coronavirus. A couple of days later, I read in a magazine, Patheos, a headline that said, “Prayer vs. Coronavirus. We have a winner.” And it was not prayer. So, people see that that is not the way out. That is not going to work. Do people say, “Hmm, maybe, that doesn’t work”? But also, in this country, it has been an anti-government. The right wing has been anti-government since the days of Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan used to say things, ‘The scariest things in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help,’’ or something like, ‘Government is not the solution, it’s the problem.’ So, there has been a desire among the right in this country to dismantle the federal government. What they do is, when they are in power, they enact people in the country. So, when democrats are in power and say, “Okay, I want to propose the Affordable Care Act or Medicare,” the response is, “We do not have the money. We’re going to run out of money.”

“You passed a trillion dollars for the richest people in the country. That is why we don’t have the money.” “I don’t know, but we don’t have the money.” Maybe people are starting to realize, I hope, that there are some things requiring not only the government as a solution, but a federal government’s solution. This one of them. I mean, we have states right now, out there competing, driving up the price of ventilators, which are desperately needed to save people’s lives because there is no federal coordination of it. I mean, the federal government could. This is an emergency. The federal government could say, “Okay, states, we are going to buy all the ventilators. There will be no competition and we will allocate them to the states. We will have expected that if we give ventilators to say, New York City, right now, then they start coming down while other areas of the country are going up. Then New York City will then pass the ventilators along to other places that needs them more when New York City doesn’t need them. Federal government is going to do that.” I mean, there is no private enterprise that is going to ensure that each day gets a fair proportion of the supplies etc. They are not going to do that, and in states where government can’t do that by themselves. So, I’m hoping that people will see that sometimes; we need a federal government response or something that only the federal government can do and then you bridge over to health care. I am hoping that people get a look and say, “Listen, we have to have every person covered in this country.”

We can’t have a situation where people are like, ‘Oh, I can’t go to the hospital. I do not feel good. I have got a fever. I have been coughing. But if I go to the hospital, they may admit me and then I am going to get a bill for a hundred thousand dollars. Then, I ain’t got it. I ain’t going to the bank. I ain’t losing any penny I have. I’ll try to wait it out.” That will pass the infection further. I’m hoping that, at least, some people realize, who have been against the federal government and against ObamaCare. Because they didn’t like Obama and were against Medicare for All because of the perception of socialism. It is seen as socialism. Give me a freakin’ break. I’m hopeful that people will look at this at the least and say, “Okay, we got to have a system where everybody’s got covered, where everybody’s got access to health care that’s not going to bankrupt me.” I do not know; I always think of myself as a pessimist. I am not optimistic about that, but I do hope. I do hope that people will come to that light and, at least, look back even if they do not give up their religion, which would be nice too. But we have to get off this nonsense about socialism, medicine, and all the rest of that nonsense and realize, “It’s 21^st-century America. We must have, must have, must have a health care system that is for everyone. Every person in the country. You get sick. You will get covered. You will not go bankrupt. We are all going to pay to that together.” Do you have something like that in Canada?

Jacobsen: By accident of history, we do not have national pharmacare. If we had national pharmacare, then we could have a national bargaining system, in other words, with large pharmaceutical companies. We do not have it. We are worse for it, in terms of a value in Canadian society around equity rather than autonomy. If you talk to a leading medical expert, in terms of what do nation’s value in their medical system, Canada and most other Western countries place the value on equity. Hence, they have national health care; and in other cases, they even have national pharmacare systems to help with the general health of the public. In other words, everyone gets a reasonably comprehensive package of medical care. This is part of something akin to a John Rawlsian social contract.

Engel: Right.

Jacobsen: In the United States, they have a value of autonomy, of freedom, of “my way or the highway,” and then ‘government ain’t going to tell me what to do.’ This is autonomy. So, if you take an objective evaluation of values, then the United States and its emphasis on the individual where people can be free to speak their minds, more or less, and write what they want more than any other country in the world, as per the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. This bleeds in to values of freedom that influence things in terms of what people want in a health care system. Of course, this is probably going to change as values shift overtime, but in the short term, at least, Canadian society values equity over autonomy and the United States values autonomy over equity. This value difference is one of the big differences in the reasons for the types of health care systems. This came in through Tommy Douglas provincially, and then this was quickly seen as reasonable thing among Canadian province to province, and then it went to federal level with Lester B. Pearson. Now, since the 1970s, we have a national health care system for the better. At the same time, the Humanist Association of Canada, Humanist Canada, was formed 51 or so years ago with Henry Morgentaler, who almost singlehandedly brought about freedom for women in this country around reproductive rights. He was a medical doctor. So, that idea of a national health care system and Humanism; all these other things are intimately tied up with one another.

Engel: Yes, I think that is a good point. One of the things that I have said for a while is that, one of the things that troubles America is that Americans have seen too many John Wayne movies.

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Engel: And they think that the answer to the problem is one guy coming into town and taking care of all the bad guys.

Jacobsen: Or the occasion of Uma Thurman Kill Bill.

Engel: Yes, [Laughing] okay, the American thinking is the guy sitting on a horse. New York City’s police department still has horses. So even though, I am a city guy. I think of the horse.

Jacobsen: That is not surprising to the Canadian police forces, to have horses. Some will wear the same costumes during parades and stuff. Those big red-and-brown costumes.

Engel: Yes, for parades and things, it is a good idea for the horse because they are both mobile, give a police officer of view of everything that is going on around them that they would not see if they’re staying on the ground. But I do think that is true, though. I think that there is such a history in this country. Of the rugged individualism, is what we call it, you can be drowned. That is the thing too. For a number of years now, you see happy stories about some guy who’s sick and couldn’t pay his $50,000 medical fees, so, maybe, a charity steps in or, maybe, they did a GoFundMe page for the guy. You see all these stories, or all of people who contributed to the GoFundMe to the help a person who was sick and didn’t have health insurance and didn’t have money to pay for it. It is all great on a micro basis. But now, we are seeing the whole damn country getting sick on a macro basis. We cannot set up a GoFundMe page to help everybody who’s going to need help in this situation. You can talk about charity. Charity is wonderful, but, sometimes, the response that needed in this situation is so huge and so overwhelming. Charity not going to do it; GoFundMe is not going to do it.

The only thing that can do it is a federal government. The only thing that can do it. It is the only thing that can address a problem like this. If an individual, what are you going to when a person shows up with symptoms of coronavirus who has no health insurance and no way to pay for care? So, when it was not coronavirus, what do you do with a person who shows up with cancer? What do you do with a person who shows up with a broken leg? You are going to turn them away? And there are people in this country who would say, “Yes,” to that, “That’s their problem. They didn’t do what they needed to do,” or whatever it is or etc. There is that rugged individualism, which can work into callousness easily and quickly. But this situation that we have now, if you could take that paper and show up at the hospital, and if they’re coughing and a high fever, you can’t say, “You are on your own. Go ahead! Sorry.” Because you are going to send them back out there. How many more people are they going to infect? This is a nationwide problem. They require us all to work together. Rugged individuals are not going to do it. Again, my hope, maybe, in there is that people look and say, “Yes, there are times that challenges to the United States of American require a collective response rather than the rugged individualism alone because the rugged individualism is not going to do it.” If we’re prepared to do things only for ideological reasons or whatever else it may be, we’re going to suffer for it.

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

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/05/26

Jonathan Engel, J.D. is the President of the Secular Humanist Society of New York. Here we talk about science, Trump, Fauci, and anti-intellectualism.

*Interview conducted on March 23, 2020.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, there has been a lot of things going on around Covid-19. In the United States, it is having rapidly increasing numbers as we are going after the expansion of the curve. It is March 23^rd, at the date of recording. While I looked at the statistics yesterday, New York is, probably, half of the numbers in the United States.

So, it will be the first to, probably, cap out of all states in the United States. From a secular humanist perspective, what are some of the issues that are concerns that you have been having through this entire process in the United States?

Jonathan Engel: It is interesting because what I am hearing or what I am seeing. I live in New York City, which I may call ground zero for the epidemic here. I mean, it is not surprising we have so many. We have lived so much on top of each other. That is not surprising. The mayor of New York City is Bill de Blasio and the governor is Andrew Cuomo.

I mean they are okay. They are not, maybe, my favorite politicians, but they are alright. They have handled this in the way it needs to be handled. In a sense that, they are viewing this as a public health emergency, and they are taking the steps, whatever steps they can take, on a local level to try to stem the tide of the virus.

I have been pretty much inside my apartment. Last time I left, it was Friday. I do not plan on leaving again until I need to and “need” means I am out of food or whatever it is.

Fortunately, I get the New York Times online. With Trump, we all know. We’ve known for a long time that his only concern is himself. He’s afraid that the economy will plummet. Yes, there’s good reason of being afraid about the economy.

I mean, nobody wants a depression or recession, no less than depression. There are good reasons to be concerned about it, but the number one issue must be keeping people alive. He does not seem him to be concerned about that at all. He sees that as, “This is making me look bad.” We do not care about how you look. We care about the lives of our friends, families, and fellow Americans and not to mention everyone around the world.

At least, I do. That, again, is a sort of a secular humanist way of looking at things because one of the principles of secular humanism is that every human being in the planet matters and has a right to a decent life. So, I am concerned as a secular humanist about people getting sick and dying. Trump is most certainly not a secular humanist.

He would only be qualified as a humanist if he is the only person left behind because the only person he cares about is himself. He is using that to scare people. To get people above the economy and to contradict the scientists. That is something that is remarkably interesting because the scientists are the ones who bring the scientific method to a problem such as this and they know.

They look at the facts. They look at the research. They do the research themselves. They will go with the research. Whereas you have a lot of people in this country, especially, on the right – certainly, none of them are secular humanists, who believe in their dogma. They believe in certain things. I will give you an example. The United States has a law that was enacted during the Korean War.

A law that says that the president has the authority to get the United States manufacturing sector working towards alleviating a national emergency as opposed to what they already do. An example of that, this is before the law was passed so this was voluntary, but in 1940, a year and a half before the United States ended World War 2; FDR was negotiating with the car manufacturers in Detroit. He got them to stop making cars and start making tanks and war planes and that’s what this law is all about.

It’s like going to a dress manufacturer and saying, “Look, we need you to manufacture gowns and masks, right now, and the government will compensate you for whatever loss you have eventually. But right now, we need you to stop making dresses and start making gowns and masks.” That is the law, but Trump will not use that law.

I mean, he has sort of said something about it. But he has not actually used it. The reason why is because of conservative dogma is that, “Government is bad,” and the free market rules everything and let the free market manufacture the gowns. Now, the researchers telling us there are not enough gowns, there are not enough masks, what they call PPE, Personal Protective Equipment.

It is getting bad down in the trenches, in all hospitals and clinics, but he will not use that because the right-wing dogma is “Government is bad.” Government should never tell industry what to do despite the nature of this emergency. So, as a secular humanist, I am looking at it from the science and what is out there.

We have people running our country, unfortunately, not a state or city but the country, who believe that, “No, my underlying beliefs are always right, and I don’t care what the evidence shows. I do not care what I am seeing before my eyes. I believe what I believe.”

Jacobsen: How long until maybe 40% to 80%, as per one of the news reportages of New York, gets an infection?

Engel: I do not know exactly, but I know that I am taking this seriously and my family is taking this seriously. But I do not know how long it will be. It is terrifying. Especially, since one of the things that Dr. Fauci said early on that our health care system, such as it is, that you can’t even call it a system. It is not geared towards this kind of emergency. The reason it’s not geared is that it’s all in private hands even when it’s non-profit. It’s still in private hands.

If you are running a private business, for profit or nonprofit, you are gonna look at this situation and say, “I have to keep my fill.” So, I am not gonna increase my capacity, so that I can handle an emergency because most of the time that increase capacity will be empty and that is a bad business model. So, we are in that situation where I know here in New York City, the hospitals are overwhelmed.

Hospitals are simply overwhelmed. That’s, obviously, a huge problem. It will be as bad or worse in rural areas because in rural areas, a lot of hospitals have been closing for number of years because one thing is in states that did not accept the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid Expansion; hospitals are going under. They view them not as public necessities, but, rather, another business.

So, when they do not have enough business, paying business, people who can afford to pay, who have insurance, they go under. What’s gonna happen to rural communities when their hospitals are gone? It’s frightening and right now, it seems so much so that we’re in a battle between the scientists and the medical health professionals and Trump and his minions. There are still people in the United States who believe that this is some sort of liberal plot designed to get Trump out of office.

“Oh, if we pretend that there’s a big health emergency, it’ll hurt the economy, and then Trump will lose the election.” So, they think that this is somehow being made up by the liberal media. Those people need to shut themselves into their houses and shut up, but that’s where the fault line is between people who believe in science like secular humanists or a few religious people who, obviously, believe in science, too, compared to the people who believe, “This is dogma. This is what I believe. This is what I think and that’s it.”

If science does not win here, we are in the even worse trouble than we think, but I will tell you something else. Me, personally, I am following the scientists. I am following what Dr. Fauci is going to say. It’s Trump. People are wondering about in a week. If he says, “Okay, everybody, go back outside. Go back to work. Go back to school.” I ain’t going. I am not going to listen to him. I am not going to risk my life. I do not want to risk anybody else’s life either. I am going to follow the science and, hopefully, a lot of people in this country will. But when will it be solved? I do not know.

Jacobsen: How is this being handled by the individual who is put in charge of it by the current president, Vice President Mike Pence?

Engel: Well, Pence is an empty suit. You know what I mean? [Laughing] People on the coronavirus task force that Pence is running. They are scientists. They know. Dr. Fauci knows, but Trump is such a damaged person, such a defective individual. The scientists sit around and talk about, “What could we say that will get the truth out to the public but so he won’t fire all of us?” It is an exceptionally fine line. Fauci has talked about that himself, sometimes.

By the way, the scientists who are on the committee have been trying to tell Pence to tell Trump that he should not be in these hearings; these daily press conferences. He should not be there, but he does not have his rallies because his rallies have been cancelled. He must be in front of everything, so he is there. He stands up there saying things that are clearly not the case and are dangerous for people’s belief, and then Fauci gets up there on a nice edge, tries to say, “I gotta make sure that the public gets the truth, but I gotta try it in such a way that doesn’t make this man child angry.” Otherwise, he will shut down the whole thing.

There will not be any scientists up there talking to the people and it is an exceedingly difficult thing for them to try to handle. Most of them, they get up there and say, “Oh, how do you deal with Trump?” “Oh, you have to praise him. You must praise him.” You have to say, “Oh, the president is doing such a wonderful job,” and then turn around and tell the truth.

It’s not easy for them and a lot of people, including me, are worried that Trump is – if he keeps hearing things from Fauci that aren’t anything other than, “Yes, what the president said was 100% true and isn’t he a tremendous leader?” Then Trump will fire Fauci. This guy is a guy who worked on the AIDS epidemic, Ebola, and H1N1.

I mean, this guy is, when it comes to infections, the leading public health authority in the United States. We’re sitting here terrified that when the country needs him. I mean, the man is 79 years old, he can be sitting back in retirement, and say, “Let somebody else do it,” but when the country needs him. He’s willing to come forward and to work and to help the country get through this terrible crisis. He might get fired.

Which is, absolutely, one of the most extraordinary things you could imagine. If I want to hear the truth, I do not care. That’s what I want to hear. So, as far as I’m concerned, again, living in New York City, the governor of the state in New York, Andrew Cuomo, my opinion of him, in general, is up and down. But when it comes to this, he’s doing a good job of talking to the people and telling them the truth about how bad it is and what we need to do and also being a little bit inspiring.

I bought a new book about Winston Churchill by Erik Larson. The name of it, I cannot remember. I am about to start it. It is about Winston Churchill in World War II and how much his communication to the people of England meant. He did not lie to them. He did not say, “Oh, the Nazis will be gone in a couple of weeks, don’t worry about it.” He told the truth, but he also inspired people to keep going. Cuomo is giving us a little of this. But from the president, you are not getting anything like that at all.

Jacobsen: What has been a conversation among New Yorkers about some of the reportage around individuals of infamy in jail getting coronavirus?

Engel: Purely capitalist society, now, I’m a capitalist in a sense that I don’t think government ownership of all business works well and that planning from the top works well, but I think that the capitalism needs to be tempered with the pubic good because you can talk about, “Oh, we want this company to do some public good.”

Kind of like, “Don’t expect them to do some public good because they won’t.” So, you gotta keep an eye on them. You gotta regulate them. You gotta make sure that the public good, at least, comes in to play. Even though, it is not the primary motivating factor. The reason I am talking about stuff like this is because the people who are the least among us have only suffered the most in tragedies like this, which is wrong.

Talking about people who have the least, people in prison, have the least. I have heard a lot of talk about, “Geez, what can we do about that?” But I have not heard quite much in the way of answers. They’re not the top priority, which is, again, an anti-humanist way of looking at things. A humanist would say, “Well, they’re human beings. Human beings are important.”

Yes, I have heard that they are worried about outbreaks. Think about it, people living on top of each other. I mean, some people are worried about that. In a way, it is the same kind of things with the nursing homes and senior living places. My 96-year old mother lives in a senior living place. She is locked down in her room.

They locked the whole place down. Not only can I not go visit her, but she cannot even go out anymore. She cannot go to the dining room and have dinner there. They bring the food to her. She cannot go out even to take a walk around the hallways. That is, probably, the way it should be. But is anybody doing that in the prison setting? I hate to say this, but as a society; I do not think we care enough about those people to be intervening.

It does not look that way. Hopefully, at least, here in New York City, that will change, but that is a frightening thing. Imagine yourself being and knowing that this disease is around, it is like, “Well, that’s the way it goes.” Time for breakfast and everybody in the prison marches into the same huge table room and it is like, “Well, that’s the way it is.”

My mother, at least, there is some caring in the sense, “Okay, we’re going to bring your meals to you.” But in prison, it seems that we do not, in many ways, care enough about people who have broken the law. Yes, they have broken the law and many of them belong in prison. Not all of them, in my view, but many of them belong in prison, but that does not mean that they should be thrown away. At least, I do not think so. I do not think any humanist thinks so.

We know that in a purely capitalist society that it does not have the same sensibility. People are going to be deemed disposable. That goes against anything humanism believes, but, unfortunately, that is kind of the way it is now. Sometimes, I have been keeping my eye on that, but I have not seen any measures put in place to protect people who are in prison.

Not to mention, the prison’s staff; I mean, if you cannot get enough humanity to care about offenders, at least, care about the staff. There still must be guards and medical personnel, clerical personnel, all the rest of that stuff in the prisons. At least, care enough about that. I do not know what exactly is being done. I hope that it is going to be something that will help stop the spread in prison and, basically, everywhere else too.

Jacobsen: Are some of these statements around the treatment of prisoners, around the lack of respect for scientific knowledge and expertise, as per the Fauci example, indicative of significant portions of American culture encouraging, if not, being anti-humanist?

Engel: I think so. I mean, I have not seen research on that, so I would say I am talking about my own opinions forged by my own experiences, but, yes, I think so. They call it the cultural wars here in the States. It tends to be a little bit crazy. “There are people who talk about expertise and science. They think they know better than I do.”

Several years ago, when Jon Stewart was still doing The Daily Show, he had a segment on hearings that were held in Congress, where Republicans invited these people to come up and talk about education. They advised people, “I know better than teachers who went on teaching school. Who knows better what my children should be learning than I do?” And Jon Stewart then, in that clip, said, “We might as well be having hearings bringing in people saying, ‘I know better than airline pilots how to transport my family to the air.’”

Jacobsen: [Laughing]

Engel: For expertise, “Oh, those liberal colleges where you learn this, you learn that, you don’t learn about God. Your religious kids, send them to college, and then they find out that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, not thousands of years old. How can they teach them that stuff that contradicts me?” There’s anti-intellectual, anti-thinking about something, in this country. It is impacting on this disease.

No question about it. I saw pictures last week from Wednesday of last week of these idiots in Florida on spring break. Hundreds and hundreds of young people doing what they usually do on spring break. I am looking at that saying, “This is insane.” But I think part of that comes from people.

They are a bunch of liberals. Things like that. As far as the science, President Trump is there telling me that it is okay to do this, it is okay to do that or that anybody who wants to get tested can get tested. I am not going to follow the science. I do not listen to that and whatever they hear that this is a liberal thought.

Up until about a week and a half ago, Fox News especially, the people who say, ‘This is a plot by Democrats to take down Trump. That is what it is. Hundreds of people were dying every day in Italy. What are you? You do not believe that? You do not think that is true? That is not happening. All the pictures that we are seeing on the news. They are all made up. It is manufactured. We never landed on the moon.’

It is incredible that there is this vent. I read a book a while ago called Idiot America. He was saying that the United States has always been a great place for crackpots because we have freedom of speech, etc. He said, ‘We used to laugh at crackpots. Now, we send them to the Congress.’

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Engel: He is right. I mean, we have a senator from Oklahoma, which is where my older brother lives. He always roll his eyes at his own senators.

Jacobsen: Oh, is this the “Snowball and, therefore, no climate change guy?” Oh my gosh.

Engel: Snowball. It was a cold day in Washington. I thought of climbing up at him, “Hey, idiot, it’s hot somewhere in the world today, you know? It’s global warming, not Washington D.C. warming” [Laughing].

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Engel: We can laugh at it. We should because I do think the humor is so important to get through anything. We can laugh at it, but it is serious. This is part of that anti-science, anti-intellectual strain in this country that a United States senator can do that.

But he is a United States senator. He will not follow the science. You saw that right there. I mean, it is on climate change. On a lot of things, I think the future depends on climate change. Before this virus came around, climate change, the future depends on our ability to convince people to follow the science, and not superstitions and gut feelings and things. Mainly, Trump has said it several times, ‘I have a feeling, I don’t know. It’s what I think,’ but ‘I think’ as opposed to some guy who’s been studying it all his life.

Yes, that is a real danger in this country for many of these things. Of course, it is the virus right now. Thinking that, “What I believe is what’s true,” as opposed to, “This is what the science shows, and if it shows something antithetical to what I believe, then I guess what I believe was wrong.” Think about that, to try to even get a religious person to say, “Here’s the evidence, so I guess what I believe was wrong.”

But I feel that myself in my own life, there are times when the evidence shows this. I thought it was something else. I say, “Well, I guess I was wrong.” It is not the worst thing in the world to think that you were wrong. In fact, it is a sign of a healthy mind to believe that you were wrong about something about whatever. It is a sign of a mind that can learn.

It is the ability to adapt and to learn. Part of that comes from the amazingly simple ability to say, “I used to think that, but now that I’ve seen more evidence. I know that I was wrong then.” It does not mean that you are a stupid person, in fact, quite the opposite. It means you are a smart person because it means you can learn and take in information, data, and conclude based on that data.

That is a good thing. That is not a bad thing. On the last debate, I saw between Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. They spent a lot of time attacking each other on votes that were taken. These are all guys, like 20-30 years ago.

“Yeah, I made that vote. It was wrong, I was wrong. I’ve seen evidence since then and it shows that I was wrong. Now, I’ve changed my mind.” People think, “Oh you’re a flip-flopper,” when they should be thinking, “Oh, you’re an intelligent person who learns things.” It’s so much of it here. It is about dogma. It’s about what I believe as opposed to, “It’s okay to believe things. But hey, if somebody shows me that I’m wrong, I’m going to change it.”

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

Engel: Okay. Thank you, Scott. Stay healthy, my friend. Wash your hands.

Jacobsen: On it [Laughing].

Engel: Okay.

Jacobsen: Take care.

Engel: Take care. Take it easy. Ba-bye.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/05/22

Jonathan Engel, J.D. is the President of the Secular Humanist Society of New York. New Yorkers are great conversationalists. Here we talk about prayer in the time of coronavirus.

*Interview conducted on March 16, 2020.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: This one is a little more time stamped. So, it is March 16^th. The reason for the time stamp is because of Covid-19 or SARS-CoV-2. We are going to see a rapid trajectory around the world as we are, especially in the United States, with the level of mitigation. So, you wanted to talk about the inefficacy of prayer against Covid-19. So, what are some of your thoughts along these lines? Give some examples.

Jonathan Engel: I am not sure. It is an interesting question about, whether anybody is going to learn anything from this, but we will get there in a minute. One of the first mass type gatherings, where it was reported in the United States that people were contracting the virus was the CPAC Convention. That is the Conservative Political Action Committee Convention where they are all religious. They are virtually all Christians, not all, but virtually all Christians. They are all religious and this is where it hit, at CPAC. So, you wonder, “Well, why didn’t God protect CPAC?”

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Engel: These are God fearing people. A few members of Congress including Senator Ted Cruz. Representative Mark Meadows who is now going to be the Chief of Staff in the White House. Representative Ted Collins, they have self-quarantined themselves after CPAC. They are doing the responsible thing; I do wonder why they do not simply pray the virus away. I would love for them to be able to do that. If they do, I will say, “I was wrong.” But it does not seem to be happening. Although, one person should be singled out, specially; Representative Matt Gates from Florida, big Trump supporter. When the news of the coronavirus first started coming out, he thought he would mock people who were nervous about this by going on to the floor of Congress with one of those big gas masks [Laughing]. See? I am joking about this. But he is now self-quarantining after being at CPAC. It is not something that looks so funny now. These people are all true believers and so it makes you wonder. Their own well-being is at stake. Suddenly, they are following the science. It is a good thing, but it also makes you wonder, “How much did you believe?” Which brings me to the Bethel Church in Redding, California, it is a mega church with over 6,000 members. Bethel Church followers believe that prayer can heal the sick and raise the dead. I am not sure I believe that, but okay.

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Engel: So, members of the church go to local hospitals, pray for patients’ recoveries. That is a shame. They are people minded, community minded. They want to help people. They spend time doing something that is not going to help anybody. They have now suspended this practice. They are not going to the hospitals anymore. I am glad that they are not because they should not be. But I must wonder, “Why?” If they honestly believe that God heals people from whom prayers are said, why are they afraid of this coronavirus? I mean, they should be afraid of it. The reason is because God does not heal people. There is no God and what heals people are either naturally recoveries or it is a medical intervention. So, it makes you wonder. Now, I know there are some true believers. People who attend some church in Indiana saying, “We are all going to show up and we’re all gonna be here because Jesus will protect us.” It is something. Good luck with that. I do not think I am going, but alright. There are some true believers, but there seems to be a lot of people who talk about it. They talk, but they don’t necessarily mean it. I have always wondered about that. How many of the people, who are saying that they are believers who say, “Of course, prayer cures people,” believe that? Now, it is coming to show. We are seeing that, at least, some of them don’t. I am not sure. Is that a good thing? Because they do kind of believe in science and not in superstitions. Or is that a bad thing because it shows you what hypocrites they are? I am not sure I know the answer to that.

Jacobsen: Do you remember the George Carlin line about prayer? If God has a divine plan, and if you’re a rundown shmuck with a two-dollar prayer book, trying to come around and fuck up his plan, then don’t pray in the first place because it’s part of the divine plan.

Engel: [Laughing].

Jacobsen: God will do what he wants to, anyway, and so your prayer will be wanting to intervene in that divine plan. So, A, it is arrogant and B, people often say, “Well, that’s God’s will. Thy will be done.” In other words, God is going to do what he wants to do. He has this divine plan. Therefore, why bother praying in the first place?

Engel: That is right. It is gonna happen, anyway, whatever it is that his plan is. It is going to happen. Now, that you mentioned it. I remember that it was when Carlin talks about somebody in a driveway and hit the kid accidentally and the kid dies and people say, “Well, it’s God’s will. He envisions the town’s people taking up pitchforks and torches,” and saying, “God’s will? God did this? Go get that God guy.”

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Engel: It is an interesting phenomenon that does not have any logical explanation or logical endpoint because logic is not what they are all about, reason and logic, but boy, we need it now more than ever. I mean, we are in a medical emergency.

Jacobsen: In a pandemic emergency.

Engel: Yes, a pandemic emergency. We need reason and logic. Again, it’s a good thing. I suppose to some people who say they believe that they can pray this whole thing away or who actually are taking steps to make sure that they stay healthy. Real steps, but, it also points out the hypocrisy. Also, you got some people who are going to believe that God is going to help them. This is one of the things I thought was funny. In France, the town called Lourdes where people go to pray for miracles or medical miracles, go there. If you are sick, God can heal you. They closed it down to all visitors. Now, that make sense from a medical point of view, but from a religious point of view; it does not make any sense at all. It is a place that heals and must close because people get sick? Unless, of course, you believe that, maybe, it doesn’t heal anybody. Maybe, that water from Lourdes, or whatever it is, doesn’t work. It’s an interesting phenomenon. I would hope that it would force people to maybe question their supernatural and superstitious beliefs to say, “Look, I didn’t rely on praying, but, maybe, that’s not a safe thing to rely on.” But I will not hold my breath. Because the human capacity for hypocrisy seems to be endless so, I am not going to hold my breath. But maybe, a couple of people will realize that this type of thing does not work. It does not mean anything. From now on, I am going to follow the science instead of the superstitions. But again, I am not that hopeful, but, maybe, at least a few people.

Jacobsen: What do you make of the, let’s say, strong reactions many individuals within, not all, but certainly several, dominant religious communities have to critical and, sometimes, harsh humor about things they think work but do not in any empirical sense? So, those who pray, think it is efficacious. If they go to Bethel Church, they think it raises the dead. If a secular humanist from New York comes along and asks a critical question, “Does this work?”, or maybe changes the tone like, “Does this work?” It is meant as a joke. What do you make of the sometimes-aggressive reactions, even bullying reactions, in response to that? Because it almost seems like a ‘tell’ in poker language, as to a not-insignificant proportion of believers in the efficacy of intercessory prayer that it does not work, but they still want to believe. In Daniel Dennett’s terms, it is that, “They believe in belief,” in intercessory prayer.

Engel: Yes. I mean, there was a line from Golda Meir, the Prime Minister of Israel, when asked whether she believes in God, she replied, “Well, I believe in the Jewish people and the Jewish people believe in God.”

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Engle: Okay, thank you for that straight answer. [Laughing] I see you were a Prime Minister; I did not know that you were a tap dancer as well.

Jacobsen: That is a secularist with like a Phantom of the Opera half mask on. They are tap dancing around that one for sure.

Engel: Again, going back to what we were talking about earlier, about the people believe because of the idea of blasphemy etc., “Oh, you are saying bad things about my religion. Then you are out of bounds.” If you believe, what do you care what I think? What do you care what I say? You know the truth. I mean, I do not care what you say. You can say what you want about atheists. It does not bother me if you leave me alone. As long as you don’t physically attack me or something, but my asking the questions causes you so much upset, maybe, you want to look in the mirror and say, “Do I believe this?” Because I do think that my asking the questions would not bother you if you were at ease with your beliefs. When my asking the question or the fact that a non-belief bothers you that much, I think it tells me that you are shaky on your own beliefs. So, instead of getting mad at me for making me question your beliefs, go into it. Look in the mirror. Go into it. Question your own beliefs. See what answers will come out, but that is not a bad thing. That is a good thing.

Jacobsen: When you take the world at face value as a religious one as many North Americans do, they believe in a cosmic battle. They believe there is a God and a fallen angel who departed from God by choice and was cast out of heaven. So, in their mind, an ongoing battle between the forces of good and the forces of evil, and the forces of good are of God and the forces of evil are of the devil or Satan or Beelzebub.  So, to someone who affirms non-belief or have a rejection of their God, but in a context in which they only think of their God, you will become a force of evil in the world by your mere existence. So, you are a negative aspect of existence or rejection of God incarnate by choice because you are using the free will, freedom of the will, given by God’s grace. You have made a free choice to reject this wonderful gift that God has given you. So, there is a story and narrative, a theological backing, to what I deem legitimate feelings. I do not think they are valid in terms of the content, but they are feeling those feelings towards you as a non-believer.

Engel: I would respond to that if I were having a real conversation. Listen, I do not blow my horn too much or at all, but let us look at that hypothetically. What if hypothetically, you looked at me and you looked at the kind of person I am, and the kind of life I lead and decided, “He does good things. He does not hurt people. He is charitable. He tries to help people.” You look at that. I mean, I worked at a non-profit sector. I help get housing built for homeless, mentally ill people. So, I think I can pretty much say – Perfect? Of course, nobody is. Close to perfect? No, it is not there either, but I think it is not exulting myself to say, “Oh, I’m a good guy.” So, you look at that and say, “Well, if I am a source of evil, has it come out that my actions are for the most part, good?

Jacobsen: Basically, not all, there will be a strong contingent of the belief community. This is based on reading and hearing and talking with people, to kind of hear them out, get their views. From their view, you can do good, but you still rejected the sacrifice of the cross. So, to them, even though you could do all this good, you are still bound for eternal damnation.

Engel: [Laughing].

Jacobsen: So, from that point of view, you are still, in spite of potentially being used by God for whatever good you are doing, an enemy that should be treated with a certain level of caution, if not suspicion, at any deviation from the good. That which comes directly from God by his nature, using their language, you will then, potentially, need an aggressive countering in some capacity.

I think this is where we then get cases of individual stories that you and I have heard of individuals having trouble getting employment, having trouble getting bound into a religious community because it is a highly religious community in a fundamentalist sense.

Engel: Right.

Jacobsen: So, these beliefs, once integrated, though not connected in any empirical sense but only to a set of kind of ideas and premises, then lead to behavioral consequences. That is where I think we hear the stories of, not terrible but, certainly bad treatment of many non-believers in North America, especially in places like in the United States. I mean, it comes up in South Carolina before. The inability of atheists to run for public office and countless other number of states as well.

Engel: I think that is certainly true. Although, hopefully, things are beginning to change a little. I think I mentioned in a previous call that there is now a Congregational Free Thought Caucus in the United States Congress. It is getting a little bit more open. The rise of presidents for democratic participation has been interesting because I do not think Bernie Sanders is religious at all, but he will not come out and say that he is not religious. Maybe, he is not making that part of his campaign.

Jacobsen: Maybe, he does not believe in God, but the Jewish people believe in God and he believes in the Jewish people.

Engel: There you go. [Laughing].

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Engel: That is one of my favorites. That is tap dancing in full speed.

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Engel: It is frustrating to me a little bit.

Jacobsen: Yes.

Engel: Yes, there are all those communities that would look at me and skeptically, because I am not a believer and it is like, “Boy, we have so many other things in common.” As Richard Dawkins said, when he talks about something like that, “Look, we’re talking to a believer. We’re both atheists when it comes to almost every God that is worshiped or has been worshiped in the history of the world.” I take my idea of one God one step further, right? I mean, if you believe, and believe that somehow I am an agent of evil and something like that, without knowing me, without seeing what kinda person I am, etc., I can simply point to the larger number of people dying in the world since the beginning of human history. It is not in my view, obviously, a positive thing. It is letting your superstitions get behind you. It is one of the things that you think about, too, in terms of how it is so much harder to hate people that you know. So again, I think that’s comparable to the gay liberation movement, where once people started coming out of the closet and more people got to know someone who is gay or got to know that someone they knew, they like, turns out was gay that they never knew. I think that can sort of change attitudes. So, I would hope that people who are Christian or religious, before they would condemn me, would, hopefully, get to know me a little bit. Suddenly, if they thought, “Okay, he’s a pretty good guy.” Maybe, it is possible that someone who does not believe can be a good guy, can be a good person. If we are going to turn that into their heads and creating that kind of positive distance, I think it is a step in the right direction. I mean, it is so silly when you think about it. What is the difference between me and someone who is a believer? We could believe in also some things that are the same. We have a disagreement. To me, it is not that big of a deal. But, of course, that is to me and a lot of religious people it is. I think religion needs to be open about who we are, etc., and hopefully, that can change a few minds. That can change a few people. It is not easy. I mean, there is still a little stick in the throat when I say, “I am an atheist.” What I usually say, “I don’t believe in Gods.” We will try to always make it plural or I say, “I don’t believe in the supernatural.” Then they ask me if I believe in God.

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Engel: I’ve had that happen to me. But they ask if I believe in God. I say, “I don’t believe in anything supernatural.” They want to be modern people. Yet, they have this ancient belief. Hopefully, that will someday allow them to break free from the superstition. We can only hope.

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

Engel: Okay. Thank you, Scott. Take care now and wash your hands.

Jacobsen: Oh, yeah. 

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/05/18

Mandisa Thomas, a native of New York City, is the founder and President of Black Nonbelievers, Inc. Although never formally indoctrinated into belief, Mandisa was heavily exposed to Christianity, Black Nationalism, and Islam. As a child she loved reading, and enjoyed various tales of Gods from different cultures, including Greek and Ghanaian. “Through reading these stories and being taught about other cultures at an early age, I quickly noticed that there were similarities and differences between those deities and the God of the Christian Bible. I couldn’t help but wonder what made this God so special that he warrants such prevalence today,” she recalls.

Mandisa has many media appearances to her credit, including CBS Sunday Morning, CNN.com, and Playboy, The Humanist, and JET magazines. She has been a guest on podcasts such as The Humanist Hour and Ask an Atheist, as well as the documentaries Contradiction and My Week in Atheism. Mandisa currently serves on the Board for American Atheists and the American Humanist Association, and previously for Foundation Beyond Belief, the 2016 Reason Rally Coalition, and the Secular Coalition for America. She is also an active speaker and has presented at conferences/conventions for the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Secular Student Alliance, and many others.

In 2019, Mandisa was the recipient of the Secular Student Alliance’s Backbone Award and named the Freedom from Religion Foundation’s Freethought Heroine. She was also the Unitarian Universalist Humanist Association’s Person of the Year 2018.

As the president of Black Nonbelievers, Inc., Mandisa encourages more Blacks to come out and stand strong with their nonbelief in the face of such strong religious overtones.

“The more we make our presence known, the better our chances of working together to turn around some of the disparities we face. We are NOT alone.”

Here, we talk about managing chaos with a pandemic example.

*This was conducted near the start of the pandemic.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, we are beginning to see an uptick in some of these cases of the virus, COVID-19. At the same time, we are seeing a number of inadequate actions as well as leadership in terms of speech. How can or should, in these kinds of cases, leadership improve? How can some of the secular communities voice their own concerns around somebody’s issues because this will be something impacting all communities in the United States?

Mandisa: We are indeed seeing a rise in the number of COVID-19 cases in the United States. Which is due in part to our current presidential administration’s failure to communicate how infectious this disease could be, and enact safety measures within a time period where it could’ve been controlled more effectively. It is alarming that this pandemic wasn’t taken as seriously as it should have been, because many thought that it was something that only affected other countries. Now, we’re seeing an enormous rise of cases in the United States, which has chaos, and has also resulted in unnecessary deaths. In any situation of this magnitude, even if people fear what is to come, the best thing to do is to be honest about the circumstances, and what we can do to help. In all fairness, early on, there was still very little information about this virus and how to try and contain it. But as that changed and more became available, then it should have been shared, and safety measures put in place as soon as possible. Many companies/organizations have cancelled or postponed their spring 2020 events. American Atheists, for example, made the decision to postpone their national convention that takes place Easter weekend until 2021. Even though I personally was apprehensive about this (and dare I say disappointed), I understood the need to do so. And now we’re seeing that there are a number of major events that are being cancelled or postponed in the meantime, it shows the level of forward-thinking on their behalf. The risk that having large in-person gatherings is too great right now. And as always, I think establishing open communication, answering as many questions possible, and pointing people to the most valid sources for information and actions will be crucial in turning this thing around.

Jacobsen: What about boundaries? You had some comments there as well.

Mandisa: Yes, so with the COVID-19 virus, it is now mandatory for people to establish necessary boundaries with others because of its respiratory and airborne nature. Large in-person gatherings are now prohibited (no more than 10 ppl at a time) until this can be controlled. Also the 6-foot rule, and wearing masks and gloves when going outside, has been advised. To enter certain premises, it is now required. We need to make sure that we are protecting ourselves and others – especially if we are sick. And not just with COVID-19; there are still other illnesses that we need to be concerned with. Oftentimes, we do not think about how we affect other people when in the general public, so now there must be some limits imposed. This isn’t just about ourselves, it’s for the well being of our loved ones, and the general public. It’s important now that we do this in order to reduce the spread of the virus. Most states have enacted mandatory stay at home orders, with the exception of essential needs and outdoor activities (within reason), which I think everyone should be complying with accordingly.

This is a good lesson for us in general, for thinking about and improving how we engage each other, especially during times like this. What measures we should take to protect ourselves and those around us. It starts with good communication and boundaries, and I am convinced that they will really help in containing this illness and our overall health.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and the PSA, Mandisa.

Mandisa: Thank you.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/05/16

Jonathan Engel, J.D. is the President of the Secular Humanist Society of New York. Here we talk about William Barr more, and gender equality.

*Interview conducted on March 2, 2020.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are back with another session of Ask Jon without an “h.” Two prominent Johns I know from New York. One has an “h,” and one does not, in their name. So, you have some family background in some legal struggles. I think we kind of touched on some of those in some earlier interviews, but in this series, we are going to be going down that path. Before we do, you wanted to focus on some of the statements by a man named, William Barr. So, my first question is to kind of set a preference for that. Following as a primer from the last session, who is he?

Jonathan Engel: William Barr is the Attorney General of the United States. That makes him the chief legal officer in the United States, presiding over the United States’ Department of Justice. He was the Attorney General in the end of the George H. W. Bush administration. After Trump decided that Jeff Sessions was not enough of a part of a loyalist for him, he decided to bring in Will Barr as his attorney general (Jeff Sessions).

Now, a lot of people thought, Will Barr, he is a kind of what they call an institutionalist. So, he will defend the institution against Trump. He has not defended the institution’s Department of Justice against Trump, in fact. But one of the things that I can say this much; I followed Barr’s congressional hearing on his appointments, etc.

I never knew that he was a real religious fanatic, an extreme Catholic. It is said, I don’t know if it is true that he is a member of it. The reason that we don’t know if that’s true is that it’s a secret organization of right-wing institutionalist Catholics. People who want to turn back the Vatican to people who want to make sure that math is given only in Latin and not in English because having it in English; people might actually understand it.

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Engel: He’s religiously oriented. Lately, he’s made several speeches, like the most well-known, was last year at Notre Dame University, in which he went after the idea of a secular person or a secular country, etc., of secularism, in general. It was the old, “We can’t have morality if we don’t have religion.” Talking about things like that, social dysfunction in this country.

Things like drug abuse, violence, and things like that, are a result of an increase in the secularism of the people and of the government. Arguing against it in any kind of way including looking at the constitution of the United States and founding fathers and what they thought of religion and government should be in this country, but also another thing, “Is he, right?”

I mean, he does not cite any research or any hard data on his views. So, the question is what there is, but there is research and some hard data out there. The question is, “Does it show he is right, or does it show that he is wrong?” I think, basically, that is wrong. I can go through a few things here.

First of all, it shows that in the United States, which is what he was basically talking about. The worst quality of life tends to be among the most God-fearing or God-loving, or the most religious, states like Mississippi and Alabama. While most states with the best quality of life tend to be among the least religious states like Vermont and New Hampshire, you can go to the Pew Forums of Religious Landscape Survey. They will show you that the correlation is clear.

The more secular tend to better than the more religious on a vast host of measures including homicide and violent crime rates, poverty rates, obesity and diabetes rates, child abuse rates, educational attainment levels, income levels, unemployment rates, rape and sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, etc.

On almost every sociological measure, you are most likely to find that the most secular states with the lowest levels of belief and the lowest rates of church attendance; they’re the best. The most religious states with the highest levels of belief and rates of church attendance; they’re the worst.

So, when we look at the actual statistics, when we look at the research, it shows that the states in the United States, regardless of what Attorney General Barr says, that have the lowest level of religion tend to be the states that have the highest level of social commitment and positive societal outreach.

Jacobsen: Do you think this matches international statistics as well when you go nation by nation and then you rank all of them among similar metrics of wellbeing?

Engel: Yes, I do. But not just because I am thinking, but also because, again, that is what the statistics show. If you look at the 10 countries with the highest percentage of religious people, which are countries like Columbia, Jamaica, El Salvador, Yemen, Pakistan, Philippines, you look at the 10 countries with the lowest with countries like Scandinavian countries, Japan, Australia, etc.

In the 10 countries with the lowest level of religious participation, the homicide rate is 5 times lower, life expectancy is 25% higher, infant mortality is a thousand percent lower. Not to mention the fact, that gender inequality is 400% lower, so you see that when we’re looking at these countries that are non-religious countries, they tend to have better social outcomes; now, they also tend to be richer.

So, that may be part of the reason why they have better social outcomes, but I do not know. Correlation and causation are not necessarily the same thing. I do not know if the countries that are poorer if religion is a factor in that. It may be; it may not be. I do not want to say if I do not know, but I do know that countries with the lowest levels of religious participation tend to have better social outcomes.

Jacobsen: What do you make of the one metric mentioned around gender equality? Places like Iceland are the most gender-equal in the world. They still have many individuals who self-identify as religious with the state religion; however, they have a lot of metrics around gender equality. They have Siðmennt (Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association), which is the ethical and humanist organization there – which is doing good work.

I met some of the lead executives of that organization in May, June of 2019. So, if we’re looking at the countries that are most gender-equal like Iceland and many Western-European countries, can this treatment of women as full participants in society and as full human beings help with equal rights to men? Can women’s equality be considered a core metric, probably the most important metric, when looking at the wellbeing and health of societies? Those societies where these rights are the strongest, then you have the most secular-leaning and the free thought values truly inculcated.

Engel: Absolutely. The treatment of women around the world is a key factor in social development. I mean, think about it, you have countries in the world, many of them religious, where girls do not go to school and they don’t get advanced degrees and they don’t participate in the work force, etc.

When you have that, you are taking 50% of your brainpower, 50% of your initiative and just throwing it away and saying, “We’ll just operate on 50% brain capacity because the brains of women are not gonna be used in order to benefit in society. Things like inventions by women, discoveries by women, women starting new businesses, and things like that. Well, that’s out.”

I think that makes sense that countries who do not treat their women with equality will have lower standards of living and generally speaking, be less wealthy and be less healthy, and less wise, if you want to look at it that way. But I think that’s definitely the case. I think that correlates a lot, again, to religion. There is a lot of religious tradition that says that women are not equal, right?

The Ultra-Orthodox Jewish man, one of his prayers of the day is like, “Thank God that you didn’t make me a woman.” In terms of Christians in the United States who are religious and adhere to the Bible and what it says, etc., there’s a lot of people in this country who still believe that a woman’s place is in the home, the man makes the supervision, the man takes care of the woman.

“So, I will take care of you and in exchange for that, you don’t say anything, you don’t have any opinions, you just let me do all the thinking and you can do all the work.” Again, when that happens, you are taking half of the ability, half of the brain power. What kind of a message does it send to young girls in school who want to grow up to be a doctor, or an engineer, or a scientist or a teacher?

What does it say to her when in her own household, her own mother has to be quiet and just obey whatever the man says? It says to her that your abilities are not valued. You will not be valued to your abilities or intelligence like a man would. If he has the same brain as you, you would be thinking, “Oh, maybe I’ll go to medical school someday.”

But with you, “Oh, she’ll get married, and have children and she’ll do with her husband the same thing that her mother did with her father which is to obey unquestionably.” That could certainly lead to lower social outcomes that we think are important. Again, it just takes out from society; people who can contribute but do not because they do not see the value in their contribution to society based on religious doctrine.

Again, it is not that it is not a contribution to society to have people who are home taking care of kids or whatever it is. Of course, they contribute to society, but you can contribute in many ways and many can contribute in that way too. I have myself.  Although, I do some things for a living, etc., but I work from home.

My wife is out. She is a teacher every day. I’m contributing to our household. I am contributing to her; the kids she teaches are getting a great education. I’m contributing to that because I’m at home taking care of the shopping and the cooking and the laundry and other things as well, but in a traditional religious household. Oh my god, I could never be “I’m a man. I can’t be doing those things. It should be the other way around.” But that’s not what suits me and my wife and you have to do what suits you and what is best for the world.

Jacobsen: When we are looking back then, in the United States situation, how is America leaning away from what we would see as secular humanist values, or at least humanist values, and more towards sort of William Barr’s vision of the world?

Engel: I am not sure where we are. Research shows that the fastest-growing religious denomination in this country when people ask what your religion is “none of the above.” So, I am not sure. I think what is happening is that the deeply religious in this country are now seeing that happening and they are using their power within society to fight it in a louder way, etc.

I think that is what is going on, becoming more religious in terms of each individual person in the United States, but I think the people with the power are using religion like the Orange Menace in the White house using religion in order to further their grasp on power because religion can be a potent concept for a lot of people. “Oh, come with us and we’ll respect your religious traditions and you’ll vote for us.”

I think there’s been a lot of that and, again, I think the people are seeing the rise of secularism among average people. It scares them and angers them. So, they’re trying to push religion even harder. I think you are seeing a more religious aspect in this country from its leaders hopping on it more, etc. I hope I am right, but I do not think necessarily that it means that, in general, American individuals are becoming more religious.

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

Engel: Okay, I just want to add one quick thing here.

Jacobsen: Go ahead.

Engel: There was a picture that went around recently on the news, etc., of the coronavirus task force praying in the White House. Of course, that is a violation of the separation of church and state. I mean, how can you assume that every person wants to pray or wants to pray to the same God or whatever it is? But also, what a useless waste of time and energy. That is not going to do anything to help us to be prepared and to fight against this pandemic. But that is for another week and it has been, as usual, a pleasure, Scott. I will speak to you soon.

Jacobsen: Thank you so much, Jon.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/05/15

Mandisa Thomas, a native of New York City, is the founder and President of Black Nonbelievers, Inc. Although never formally indoctrinated into belief, Mandisa was heavily exposed to Christianity, Black Nationalism, and Islam. As a child she loved reading, and enjoyed various tales of Gods from different cultures, including Greek and Ghanaian. “Through reading these stories and being taught about other cultures at an early age, I quickly noticed that there were similarities and differences between those deities and the God of the Christian Bible. I couldn’t help but wonder what made this God so special that he warrants such prevalence today,” she recalls.

Mandisa has many media appearances to her credit, including CBS Sunday Morning, CNN.com, and Playboy, The Humanist, and JET magazines. She has been a guest on podcasts such as The Humanist Hour and Ask an Atheist, as well as the documentaries Contradiction and My Week in Atheism. Mandisa currently serves on the Board for American Atheists and the American Humanist Association, and previously for Foundation Beyond Belief, the 2016 Reason Rally Coalition, and the Secular Coalition for America. She is also an active speaker and has presented at conferences/conventions for the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Secular Student Alliance, and many others.

In 2019, Mandisa was the recipient of the Secular Student Alliance’s Backbone Award and named the Freedom from Religion Foundation’s Freethought Heroine. She was also the Unitarian Universalist Humanist Association’s Person of the Year 2018.

As the president of Black Nonbelievers, Inc., Mandisa encourages more Blacks to come out and stand strong with their nonbelief in the face of such strong religious overtones.

“The more we make our presence known, the better our chances of working together to turn around some of the disparities we face. We are NOT alone.”

Here, we talk about getting flack.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You have gotten some flack. In getting some of that flack, it has been around people or commentaries looking at one small output of BN. Something as simple as a pamphlet or poster. Then there is a taking of this, a conflation with the seeing of the entire organization in a negative way. How should this be corrected? What is a more responsible form of commentating even if someone is critical and views BN negatively? What would be a fair analysis?

Mandisa Thomas: As with any organization that has been around for a few years or more, I always think there’s room for improvement. We take suggestions into consideration, and we always try to keep the well being of our members in mind. But one thing that we always hold true as an organization is the liberation of multiple kinds, especially sexually. We’ve always been pro bodily expression, and for people to tap into that sexier side – within themselves, and with others. With the consent of course, I’ve also led by example with said expression. In 2012, I took some sexy pictures for a calendar project. It never came to fruition, so I ended up posting them on my Facebook page. There were a few people who criticized me for doing this – basically saying, “How dare you expose your body like that?!” But most of the feedback was positive, especially from other women.

Now, I understand that people will not always agree with the things that we do, and that public criticism is a given.  However, if the commentary is abusive and overly judgmental, then that’s where we draw the line. I also take other important factors into consideration – such as regular participation and support. And I’m happy to say that most who fall into that category agree with our approach. Over the years, we’ve refined our approach to those who disagree with us. We try to establish reasonable dialogue, and also find common ground. But again, If it’s determined that anyone is being unfair in their initial approach and/or in their responses, then we will cut the conversation short and say, “Buh-bye.”

Jacobsen: When is it appropriate when they are doing a broad-based negative critique against black non-believers or even BN? Maybe, it’s a church group that doesn’t like it. They don’t like the representation of African American non-believers. They don’t like sexy photos on posters that are used for some of the advertisements as a means of expression of the group in terms of some of the women of the group, being self-expressive. They disagree on the principle of the matter, but you can respect them in the sense of taking a wider view.

Mandisa: First and foremost, I always recommend that people view our website as well as research other information about us, so that they’ll (hopefully) understand our mission and work better. I’d like to think that we outline this very clearly, and that there are no misunderstandings. However, that isn’t always the case. Religious groups, of course, may not like us because we clearly represent atheism, especially in the black community. 

I have personally told some religious folks where to go and not necessarily in the nicest way. Because they don’t have the right to come at us in a disrespectful manner. As for fellow nonbelievers who may be critique us,  I may challenge them on the origins of their viewpoints to see if they may be valid. I’ve made a practice of looking at the social media accounts of said folks before deciding to respond. It helps with understanding where they’re coming from, and why they may say such things. I also try to be as diplomatic as possible. However, sometimes the way people come at us, it’s hard not to respond in kind. Again, we understand that people might not like what we do, or certain aspects at least – which is fine. But it is NOT okay for anyone to knock us over in the head with a hammer. Because we may swing that hammer right back.  We always hope for the best possible outcome when it comes to disagreements and differences. However, we prepare and respond accordingly, with self care in mind.

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

Mandisa: Thank you.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/05/14

Jonathan Engel, J.D. is the President of the Secular Humanist Society of New York. Here we talk about work to diminish the separation of church and state in the United States.

*Interview conducted on February 24, 2020.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, with regards to the current political situation in the United States, religion is having a freedom fest in The White House. Who are some of the main personalities who appear the most egregious in their open statements and actions for violation of the traditional separation of church and state that is idealized in the United States?

Jonathan Engel: It seems like pretty much almost everyone who is surrounding Trump. Start with some of the people who have, not only in this administration but people that he chose to defend him in the impeachment hearing, I would call them extreme religious believers. These are not your average everyday churchgoer. These are people with extreme views, especially when it comes to separation of church and state.

Which is a subject that is especially important to me, extremely near and dear to me, it is endangered in this country. From Trump and then from the people around him who Trump is happy to please, he does not care. He is not religious. He has no beliefs other than the greatest Trumpists. It is hard to believe that Trump would think that there is a God who is any better than he is because he does not think anything is any better than he is.

But you (Trump) are letting them have their way, letting them have their sway over the government, talking about some of the people we’re talking about here, we can start with Pat Cipollone. He is part of the White House Counsel. People talk a lot about the right-wing evangelical protestants, but they are surrounding Trump. There are a lot of extreme right-wing Catholics as well. He is one of them.

He is on the board of the Catholic Information Center, which, in some ways, prioritizes anti-LGBTQ activism. He is a spiritual leader and godfather to much anti-gay-rights stuff. So, start with him, right there, then we are going on to some of the other people who suspended Trump’s impeachment.

We have Ken Starr. The famous Ken Starr from the Clinton investigation. From the Clinton impeachment who is also an extreme person when it comes to religion, he was fired as president of Baylor University, which is a devout Baptist school in Texas. He was fired as president for covering up a sex scandal among the football players.

So, there’s religion and then there’s football. I mean, come on, this is America, you know what I mean? Football is, basically, a religion itself. So, you have Ken Starr. You have Vice President Mike Pence who again, anti-gay rights, a believer that God has appointed him to be a politician.

Then, we have Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who is a protestant fundamentalist, believes strongly in the rapture and the apocalypse that is coming when Jesus will come back to Earth. Well, first, we must have Israel. Established in the Middle East and, again, that is why so many fundamentalist protestants are pro-Israel because that’s part of the prophecy.

Israel has a war and then Jesus comes back, and the people throw all the non-Christians into the pits of hell including the Jews, by the way. Thank you for being pro-Israel. And Christians float up to him. This guy believes this is going to happen. As far as I’m concerned, all I want to see is, “Oh, if you want to throw me to the pits of hell, that’s okay, but let me see these people float up to him.” I got to think that would be something to see.

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Engel: But you also think about, “How do you plan?” I mean, “Why plan for climate change when in 50 years, the world is going to be gone, anyway, with this rapture? Why plan for anything?” Then, of course, the idea of the support for Israel, which is favouring war because again, it is part of the prophecy.

So, that’s Pompeo. But the guy I want to talk, a little bit, the most about is William Barr. William Barr, the Attorney General of the United States. Hard to believe that is true, but it is. He gave a speech at Notre Dame University in the fall, in which he blamed, basically, all the problems of this country on secularism.

That secularists are these horrible people who are destroying the moral backbone of the country, as if religion has anything to do with morality. Again, he talks about a campaign to destroy secularists like me or who are out to destroy the traditional moral order.

The traditional moral order is gay people staying in the closet and blacks staying at the back of a bus and women staying in the kitchen, etc., destroying that traditional moral order, but I don’t think that’s what he was talking about. This is what Barr is looking to do now. Why would Barr continue to be part of Trump’s campaign?

Because Trump will let him do what he wants and this is scary, especially, for me.

A couple of examples of speeches Barr has made in the past. He keeps complaining about public schools failing to provide moral instruction. ‘The moral, the bottom public schools have been based on extremist notions of separation of church and state, on theories of moral relativism which reject the notions that there is such a thing as right and wrong to which the community can demand adherence. There can be no right or wrong without religion.’ I would say that comes as news to me.

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Engel: He gave another speech when it was a previous term of the secretary of state in which he said, ‘Because human nature is fallen,’ whatever that means, ‘we will not automatically conform God’s law because we can know what is good. We are not going to be slaves to our passions and wants to the extent that the society’s moral culture is based on God’s law, you will guide men towards the best possible way.’

Okay, as if it should not be a choice or anything, ‘The secularists today are clearly fanatics and their actions are producing soaring rates of crime. Widespread drug addictions, 1.5 million children aborted each year.’ Okay, so, I’m getting into a little bit of what William Barr is all about, but one of the things. In terms of trying to get rid of the separation of church and state, that I find so alarming myself and part of it is my personal background, which is to talk about school prayer.

Like somehow, schools are the problem with kids today, where they do not pray in school. I do not know if I have mentioned it to you before. I do not know if you anything about me, but my father was one of the plaintiffs in these court cases here in the states in 1962 about school prayer.

Jacobsen: That is right.

Engel: So, to me, this is important, but you look at what people like Barr believe that, somehow, if you don’t pray in school, if you don’t have organized prayers in school, that somehow this is going to be a moral blight on the country. That you cannot have morals unless kids are forced to pray in school which I find ridiculous.

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

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/05/13

Takudzwa Mazwienduna is the informal leader of Zimbabwean Secular Alliance and a member of the Humanist Society of Zimbabwe. This educational series will explore secularism in Zimbabwe from an organizational perspective, and more.

Here we talk about the freedom of expression within the context of Zimbabwe and its important to humanists there.

—

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Article 1 and 2 of Zimbabwe’s Constitution of 2013 make the important point of the democratic nature of the society and the supremacy of Zimbabwe’s Constitution of 2013 as the law of the land, people, and institutions of Zimbabwe. Therefore, all considerations of the freedom to express oneself remain grounded in the statements of Zimbabwe’s Constitution of 2013. Article 61(1) of Zimbabwe’s Constitution of 2013 functions in a context of the freedom of expression and the freedom of the media. I find the expressed emphasis on the media an important note to this conversation on freedom of expression within a, in principle, humanist document or constitution. What seems like the overarching rationale for the inclusion of the media and expression rather than expression alone with media implied in Zimbabwe’s Constitution of 2013?

Takudzwa Mazwienduna: The Zimbabwean independent media had carried out a lengthy campaign leading up to the 2013 constitution making process. The previous constitution had unconstitutional amendments limiting the media and making it so that only propaganda from state run newspapers was tolerated. A lot of independent journalists were arrested under the repressive legislation that included AIPPA which I talked about in the last interview. So the emphasis on media was a win pushed for by the opposition and activists calling for the journalists who were arrested to be released.

Jacobsen: Article 61(1)(a) states, “Freedom to seek, receive and communicate ideas and other information.” Where does this become particularly consequential for individual humanists who have been questioning and require the ability to research and substantiate questions about the household religion?

Mazwienduna: That section was also in relation to previous repressive legislation like AIPPA, mostly targeted to journalists rather than humanists. Prior to the 2013 constitution, there hadn’t been really any laws that protected church privilege or infringed on secular rights. Since independence, Zimbabwe was a legal heaven for religious minorities.

Just not a social heaven for them, but a legal heaven nonetheless.

Jacobsen: Article 61(1)(b) states, “Freedom of artistic expression and scientific research and creativity.” To the humanistic sensibility or philosophy, or more fundamentally the defining characteristic of human nature as in the instinct to creatively construct or to create, artistic expression and empirical research seem like different manifestations of truth through metaphor and truth through fact mediated through the evolved organism called a human being. A peculiar creature with certain needs and freedoms. How is this particular article important to creating a more rounded human being through a fulfillment of instinctual requirements for the flourishing of human beings? How does this further make this document humanist in its orientation?

Mazwienduna: Again, the context was mostly political and referred to how artists had been arrested for criticizing or even subtly insulting the regime. The likes of Thomas Mapfumo; a Zimbabwean Jazz legend had been in exile in the United Kingdom for decades all because a song of his criticized the then president Robert Mugabe. Oliver Mtukudzi, another Afro Jazz legend had his fare share of trouble for singing a song suggestive of Mugabe’s old age. So this came after years of campaigns against this tyranny. To the Zimbabwean government, politics is more important than religion and this was surprising yet relieving progress with regards to freedom of expression and speech where politics were concerned.

Jacobsen: Article 61(1)(c) stipulates academic freedom as a necessity within the freedom of expression article. What have been the most controversial parts of science and academic life for Zimbabweans in its history leading to the necessity for this freedom in spite of the offensive, factually incorrect, racist and xenophobic, or otherwise, research? How does freedom to research make an academic culture better rather than not, and a democratic society more democratic than not?

Mazwienduna: This gave freedom for university students to criticize the government in their academic theses or dissertations, something that was not allowed before. Robert Mugabe was the chancellor of all state university and I particularly remember when he caped us during the 2016 graduation ceremony, capping some students who had written theses criticizing him. This was unheard of before the 2013 constitution, and it was a big win for progress.

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

Mazwienduna: It’s always a pleasure Scott.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/05/12

Mandisa Thomas, a native of New York City, is the founder and President of Black Nonbelievers, Inc. Although never formally indoctrinated into belief, Mandisa was heavily exposed to Christianity, Black Nationalism, and Islam. As a child she loved reading, and enjoyed various tales of Gods from different cultures, including Greek and Ghanaian. “Through reading these stories and being taught about other cultures at an early age, I quickly noticed that there were similarities and differences between those deities and the God of the Christian Bible. I couldn’t help but wonder what made this God so special that he warrants such prevalence today,” she recalls.

Mandisa has many media appearances to her credit, including CBS Sunday Morning, CNN.com, and Playboy, The Humanist, and JET magazines. She has been a guest on podcasts such as The Humanist Hour and Ask an Atheist, as well as the documentaries Contradiction and My Week in Atheism. Mandisa currently serves on the Board for American Atheists and the American Humanist Association, and previously for Foundation Beyond Belief, the 2016 Reason Rally Coalition, and the Secular Coalition for America. She is also an active speaker and has presented at conferences/conventions for the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Secular Student Alliance, and many others.

In 2019, Mandisa was the recipient of the Secular Student Alliance’s Backbone Award and named the Freedom from Religion Foundation’s Freethought Heroine. She was also the Unitarian Universalist Humanist Association’s Person of the Year 2018.

As the president of Black Nonbelievers, Inc., Mandisa encourages more Blacks to come out and stand strong with their nonbelief in the face of such strong religious overtones.

“The more we make our presence known, the better our chances of working together to turn around some of the disparities we face. We are NOT alone.”

Here, we talk about events in 2020 (previously expected with certainty and more with uncertainty now, but there’s a host of great community events and facets available through Black Nonbelievers).

*Interview conducted in early 2020.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, we’re writing in 2020. We’re hitting the ground running with a whole suite of new topics. What are some things people should keep in mind in terms of sign-ups and being ahead of the ballgame for the events of Black Non-Believers?

Mandisa Thomas: Absolutely. One of our major events is the second Woman of Color Beyond Belief conference at the end of September, but we are also hosting BN SeaCon 2020 aboard the Carnival Magic cruise ship. It will be a seven-night cruise this time, and we’ll have more interactive sessions this year. We start promoting the event in December of 2019.

Deposits were originally due on January 10^th, but due to a technical glitch, (WordPress constantly changing/updating their functions) we extended the deadline date for registrations to January 15th. Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that registration will stop, but the initial deposit was due January 15^th. That opposed to January 10^th. We’re excited about it because we have the opportunity to update folks as the year goes on what they should prepare for and what we have to offer, what the ship has to offer and everything.

Jacobsen: What are we looking at in terms of prices?

Mandisa: The prices start at $800 USD per person for double occupancy, which includes cabin fare, convention registration, port fees and taxes. Carnival, like most cruise lines, offer special amenities for group bookings, such as a cocktail reception and onboard credits. Also, for non profit organizations, Carnival donates a portion of the revenue generated from the group back to it. This gives us an opportunity to raise funds to help pay for our speakers and also to offer guests more perks that come along with being with our particular group – like T-shirts, and other items that we may provide.

Jacobsen: How many people are expected to sign up within the first little bit?

Mandisa: For BN SeaCon 2019, we had 33 people, which was on par with previous years. We’re expecting about 40, hopefully, 50, people this year. There are usually about 20 to 25 people who sign up initially. So, if people miss the initial deadline, it’s still fine for people to sign up afterwards. However, there may be a larger payment required. Cruises are usually paid in increments, and it’s no different when you register for BN SeaCon. But we try to announce the deposit dates early to allow for people to prepare for them, as well as payments down the line. But of course, the more deadlines missed, the more one has to pay in lump sums. So, if you’re prepared to do that, then great. But it’s usually best to stay on schedule with the payments.

Jacobsen: Any further notes with regards to what people should do after they’ve signed up, if they want to go for preparatory work?

Mandisa: Yes. Once you register, you are placed in our email database. So we start communicating monthly, including sharing tips to prepare for the cruise, and payment reminders. We also encourage budgeting for extra things that aren’t included, like drink and internet packages. These items can be prepaid, or onboard the ship.

We don’t want anyone being blindsided, so we try to provide as much information as possible. Again, it’s a trip where you have to be prepared, and should be comfortable, and not struggling at the last minute. It’s a huge part of the community building piece that we offer as an organization.

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

Mandisa: Thank you.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/05/09

Takudzwa Mazwienduna is the informal leader of Zimbabwean Secular Alliance and a member of the Humanist Society of Zimbabwe. This educational series will explore secularism in Zimbabwe from an organizational perspective, and more.

Here we talk about the rights for the non-religious in Zimbabwe.

—

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The rights and freedoms enshrined in the Zimbabwean Constitution provide a context for things secularists (properly understood as Zimbabwean constitutionalists, as Zimbabwe is a constitutional republic) can do and can’t do in Zimbabwean society within the stipulated rights and freedoms. What is an important point for comprehension of the times when Zimbabwe transitioned from Rhodesia?

Takudzwa Mazwienduna: The Zimbabwean government practices the rule by law instead of the rule of law in colonial fashion. This is not the only instance in the constitution that contradicts the principles of constitutionalism. That part in the 2013 constitution however was a little progressive, an improvement from the previous law POSA (Public Order and Security Act) and AIPPA (Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act) which made freedom of speech completely non existent. A lot of people who criticized the government or formed unauthorized meetings were arrested under these laws until 2013.

Jacobsen: To clear out the cobwebs and the dust in the attic here, Zimbabwe’s Constitution of 2013 in PART 9: GENERAL MATTERS RELATING TO PARLIAMENT 148. Privileges and immunities of Parliament 1 states the “President of the Senate, the Speaker and Members of Parliament” have, more or less, full freedom of speech privileges for the purposes of the elected or appointed roles. To Canadians, and the United Nations, this contrasts with “Freedom of Expression” as the utilized phrase in the case of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 19 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Article 2(b). We see “Freedom of Speech” language acutely in the Constitution of the United States of America in Amendment 1. Any idea as to the language differences seen in this particular section of Zimbabwe’s Constitution of 2013?

Mazwienduna: When Zimbabwe transformed from Rhodesia, most of the old laws were retained except those that preserved white privilege. Equality was the order of the day and the 1980s were characterized by reforms that sought to uplift the formerly subjugated black Zimbabweans.

Civic awareness however remained and still remains a big problem. It explains how the government manages to get away with so many violations to the constitution.

Jacobsen: Zimbabwe’s constitution limits the freedom of expression, in an earlier section devoted to the more generalized form of communication terminology, in the case of hate speech. This becomes another time in which the term “speech” emerges in the constitution. Only in relation to the particularized idea of hate speech rather than speech in and of itself. Have any cases arisen relevant to humanists on the subject matter of hate speech against them?

Mazwienduna: The Humanist society in Zimbabwe has benefited from this law in 2017. In one particular instance, a government official who was the Master of Ceremonies at the former president Robert Mugabe’s birthday talked down on non Christians and asserted that Zimbabwe is a Christian nation before leading everyone into prayer. After some members of the Humanist Society of Zimbabwe raised their concerns referencing his stunt as hate speech, the government official wrote an official apology setting an example for other politicians never to do the same. It was one of those rare moments where the law was upheld and it brought hope to all of us.

Jacobsen: Any particular cases of hate speech without consequences while a common occurrence against non-believers in Zimbabwe?

Mazwienduna: The Non Believers in Zimbabwe have generally been safe as far as the law and government is concerned. It is the individual families and society that is ultra religious that is the problem for most.

Jacobsen: A rights-based order represents a humanistic or Humanist enterprise in ethics concretized in print for legal structure of a society compared to a Holy Law-based framework grounded in religious belief structure, text, authorities, and sentimentalities. Any rights-based moral structure separates the divine from the mundane. Thus, secular constitutions become Humanist constitutions in the most fundamental way. The rest becomes details. Zimbabwe, in this manner, wrote a humanist constitution. How does a humanist constitution and a secular society permit the religious and non-religious to live in more harmony together than a religious/theocratic one?

Mazwienduna: The Zimbabwean constitution has given humanists and non religious people the security of legal protection should they face persecution from the religious. This has also protected minority religions, notably African Traditional religions, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists and even Neo Pagans. The Zimbabwean society however remains mostly conservative fundamentalist Christians who break these secular laws a lot by praying in public spheres or holding church meetings in schools and continue to as long as no one reports them. There should be more enforcement of the country’s secular laws and individual humanists have done a great job bringing a lot of such cases to the attention of the authorities.

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

Mazwienduna: It’s always a pleasure Scott.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/05/08

Mandisa Thomas, a native of New York City, is the founder and President of Black Nonbelievers, Inc. Although never formally indoctrinated into belief, Mandisa was heavily exposed to Christianity, Black Nationalism, and Islam. As a child she loved reading, and enjoyed various tales of Gods from different cultures, including Greek and Ghanaian. “Through reading these stories and being taught about other cultures at an early age, I quickly noticed that there were similarities and differences between those deities and the God of the Christian Bible. I couldn’t help but wonder what made this God so special that he warrants such prevalence today,” she recalls.

Mandisa has many media appearances to her credit, including CBS Sunday Morning, CNN.com, and Playboy, The Humanist, and JET magazines. She has been a guest on podcasts such as The Humanist Hour and Ask an Atheist, as well as the documentaries Contradiction and My Week in Atheism. Mandisa currently serves on the Board for American Atheists and the American Humanist Association, and previously for Foundation Beyond Belief, the 2016 Reason Rally Coalition, and the Secular Coalition for America. She is also an active speaker and has presented at conferences/conventions for the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Secular Student Alliance, and many others.

In 2019, Mandisa was the recipient of the Secular Student Alliance’s Backbone Award and named the Freedom from Religion Foundation’s Freethought Heroine. She was also the Unitarian Universalist Humanist Association’s Person of the Year 2018.

As the president of Black Nonbelievers, Inc., Mandisa encourages more Blacks to come out and stand strong with their nonbelief in the face of such strong religious overtones.

“The more we make our presence known, the better our chances of working together to turn around some of the disparities we face. We are NOT alone.”

Here, we talk about the picking spots and being more sure when, or if, contacting authorities.

*Interview conducted in early 2020.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, there is a reasonably or sufficiently common occurrence of people, often white, calling the police for people living out their lives when they’re black in America. There can be instances in the humanist community. There can be instances outside the humanist community, regardless. What are some things people should be taking into account before they escalate straight to calling the authorities, the police, which is a serious deal?

Mandisa Thomas: Lately, there have been a number of instances where white folks now who are rightfully receiving backlash for calling authorities on black people who are minding their business. In general, When it comes to a situation, and you think it may , I would ask myself a couple of questions. One, “Is anyone being harmed by these actions? Is there anyone in immediate danger?” If there isn’t, then it is best to leave people alone.

There can be dire consequences for black folks once law enforcement gets involved, and can possibly make a benign situation worse. If the situation is harmful, especially is children are involved, then yes, call the authorities, and let them handle it from there. Do not take it upon yourself to call the police or any type of authority if it isn’t absolutely necessary, and definitely don’t take it upon yourself to intervene directly. 

Jacobsen: What are some common occurrences of this?

Mandisa: Well, there’s the ongoing issue of white people – women in particular – who will claim they’re not racist. The most recent was a woman who called on the black family who was barbecuing in a park. A couple of years ago, there was another incident where Yale graduate student who called the authorities on a student who was sleeping in a common area at the school. There are probably far more of these instances that are reported in the news. But upon reading up on these particular situations, I thought “If you receive backlash, you got what you deserved.” One of the women claimed that her life was ruined because of the backlash she got for calling authorities. But ultimately, we don’t have to show sympathy for people who potentially put other innocent people in danger.In this society where people are “colour blind”, they are inconsiderate of possible danger for people of colour when authorities are called. And there should be accountability for White people who continue to do this, because it reeks of privilege. We don’t need to “hear your side to clear you.” – a claim that many White people in these situations have made.  Especially when you did not take the time to engage the subjects objectively. It’s ridiculous to me, to think that they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Jacobsen: What about the overall situation?

Thomas: For overall situations, it depends on how close you might be. If there may be some resolution without having to call the authorities, then by all means, that’s best. However, it doesn’t mean that you should put yourself in danger. It may be hard to walk away from a situation that potentially could be dangerous. And the colour of one’s skin does NOT validate such a determination. And if there isn’t any imminent danger, I would either leave it alone altogether, or leave it to any authorities that may be passing by. Also, we must consider that eyewitnesses can be fallible. They can possibly be mistaken about something that they’ve seen. So it is best to remain objective and responsible in these situations, and check any biases in the process.

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

Mandisa: Thank you.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/05/07

Takudzwa Mazwienduna is the informal leader of Zimbabwean Secular Alliance and a member of the Humanist Society of Zimbabwe. This educational series will explore secularism in Zimbabwe from an organizational perspective, and more.

Here we talk about legacy in African freethought.

—

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In spite of the extensive record of secularism and humanism being built on the backs of some prominent figures in the history of African freethought, including, as Dr. Leo Igwe remarked in the past to me (credit where credit is due), Tai Solarin, Sheila Solarin, Mokwugo Okoye, Beko Ransome Kuti, Wole Soyinka, Steve Okecha, Nkeonye Otakpor. Of course, we can see a current crop:

• Leo Igwe (Founder, Nigerian Humanist Movement; Founder, Advocacy for Alleged Witches),
• Mubarak Bala (President, Humanist Association of Nigeria)
• Alex Mwakikoti (Tanzania)
• Gayleen Cornelius (Co-Founder, Cornelius Press; Africa Regional Committee Southern Region Representative, Young Humanists International)
• Viola Namyalo (Uganda, Chair, African Regional Committee, Young Humanists International)
• Payira Bonnie (President, Humanists of Northern Uganda (Humanists NUg)
• Jani Schoeman (Former President, South African Secular Society)
• Rick Raubenheimer (President, South African Secular Society)
• Wynand Meijer (Vice-President, South African Secular Society)
• Haafizah Bhamjee (Executive-Administrator, “Ex-Muslims of South Africa”)
• Karrar Al Asfoor on Atheism (Co-Founder, Atheist Alliance – Middle-East and North Africa & United Atheists of Europe)
• Roslyn Mould (Board Member, Humanists International)
• Kwabena “Michael” Osei-Assibey (President, Humanist Association of Ghana)
• Immoh Obot (Nigeria)
• Abdulrahman Aliyu (Nigeria)
• Edward Seaborne (Administrator, “The African Atheist”)
• Kate Bukulu Sman (Uganda)
• Larry Mukwemba Tepa (President, Humanists and Atheists of Zambia)
• Nsajigwa I Mwasokwa (Nsajigwa Nsa’sam) (Founder, Jichojipya/“Think Anew”)
• Thasiyana Mwandila (Vice President, Humanists & Atheists of Zambia)
• Prosper Mutandadzi (Zimbabwean Author, Filmmaker, Freethinker, & Humanist)
• Kamugasha Louis (Executive Director, Freedom Center-Uganda)
• Kiketha Tadeo (Director, Kyangende Secular Services)
• Alton Mungani (Co-Founder, Editor, & Curator of Zimbabwean Atheists)
• Susan Nambejja (Malcolm Childrens’ Foundation)
• Bwambale Musubaho Robert (School Director, Kasese Humanist School – Rukoki/Muhokya/Kahendero)
• Abiodun Sanusi (Nigeria)
• Kenneth Kaunda (African Humanism)
• Norm R. Allen, Jr. (Former Executive Director, African Americans for Humanism)
• Lucas Isakwisa (Tanzania)
• Adeyemi Ademowo Johnson (Nigeria)
• George Ongere (Center for Inquiry in Kenya)
• Kato Mukasa (Former Board Member, IHEU/Humanists International)
• Chiedozie Uwakwe (Nigeria)
• Alex Kofi Donkor (Ghanaian Human Rights Advocate & LGBTQ Activist)

There are so many others, too, who I cannot even remember off the top. Some we have lost including Deo Ssekitoleko (Representative of Center for Inquiry International – Uganda), Ali A. Mazrui, J.K. Nyerere, George Ayittey, or Kingunge Ngombale Mwiru (Tanzanian politician). On the global community loss, as well, of Ssekitoleko, the idea of the average lifespan hovering around 61 years for Zimbabweans makes the regional community coming together on common problems a necessity, so as to provide a trajectory and sensibility of passing off something worth handing down to the next generations who will inevitably have more energy and less wisdom to comprehend the contexts around them. Why choose a path of secularism, of humanism, of freethought?

Takudzwa Mazwienduna: The cultural evolution in Zimbabwe was disrupted to a large extent by the disenfranchisement of Shona and Ndebele culture by the London Missionary Society. They committed mass genocide killing off natives who refused to convert to Christianity and demonized the local culture and this colonial legacy characterizes religion in Zimbabwe today. This is why religious relativism or progress is unheard of and most people are fundamentalists. There is no room for progress or evolution unless humanism and secularism is emphasized.

Jacobsen: What are the more effective mentoring strategies and development of community sensibility whilst retaining an independence mentality of autonomy and intellectual rigour in younger community members?

Mazwienduna: The most effective method would be to push for this conversation into the mainstream. The more people talk about it at a national level, the more the ideas become mainstream. Most Zimbabweans have never thought about secularism or humanism because they have never heard of it despite our efforts over the years.

Jacobsen: How should the shortness of life in all of our contexts make for a mentoring strategy incorporating of a sense of temporality, where temporality include the self, the larger communal self, and the legacy of those before and how one will become “the legacy of those before” too?

Mazwienduna: The shortness of life is for the most part a development issue particularly in Zimbabwe. 70% of the population lives in underdeveloped rural areas without adequate health facilities and dependant on communal farming, while the urban population has a higher life expectancy. This calls for us to value human development, particularly education, sustainability and health. It is a reminder that the human is the most important in any society and any idea should be given value in relation to how well it advances human wellbeing.

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

Mazwienduna: It’s always a pleasure Scott.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/05/06

Professor John Dugard is the Fmr. (4th) United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied since 1967 (2001 to 2008). He is Professor Emeritus at the Universities of Leiden and the Witwatersr, who remains one of the most important legal and investigative voices in the history of rights and law reportage for the United Nations on this issue of Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. As with the interview with Professor Richard Falk, this remained another humbling experience because of the depth of history, knowledge, subject matter expertise, and the South African heritage and nationality relevant for the instigation of the comparison with and discourse on apartheid on this topic. Their importance in the legal and rights history of this subject matter cannot be understated. In many ways, they set the tone and calibre of human rights and international humanitarian law reportage to this day. In addition, this exists as a conversation with the last United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied since 1967 with extensive access for reportage on ground zero, i.e., setting foot and observing, of Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. He was the last permitted this form of access while the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied since 1967 for first-person analysis of the human rights violations and breaches of international law in Israel and in the occupied Palestinian territories, as the subsequent three were not permitted entrance into the occupied Palestinian territories in any significant capacity. Indeed, former (6th) United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied since 1967, Makarim Wibisono, resigned/quit from the post, while Falk (5th) and Professor S. Michael Lynk (7th) only remain (Lynk), or only remained (Falk), able to report mostly or completely from surrounding territories and Member States with world-class coverage, fact-finding, and analysis from INGOs, NGOs, CSOs, and others in Israel, the occupied Palestinian territories, and internationally, to support the experiential lack grounded in denial of access.

Here we talk about the counter-responses to serious human rights advocacy and formal charges with documentation of human rights violations, non-criticism ‘criticisms,’ “frank criticism” as a problem for European representatives, individual organizational representatives mouthing state propaganda and not believing the propaganda themselves, South African heritage and nationality as a factor in analysis, common themes in some of these settler-colonial states or domains of European-Christian settler-colonialism, white supremacy as backed by religion in South Africa and the transition from this, Falk’s concept of “biblical entitlement” among some Israeli settlers, the Law of Occupation and the Fourth Geneva Convention in relation to an Occupying Power, distraction from political engagement, creationism, anti-evolutionism, apartheid, and the Evangelical movement, and apartheid discourse, the case of Dr. Norman Finkelstein, Palestine Non-Member Observer State status in regards to Canadian hypocrisy and Canadian complicity in the occupation, and the diverse nature of influences on the conflict or the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

*Interview conducted on April 9, 2020.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s start on some of the issues of when individuals historically to the present have critiqued human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territories or in Israel, and the responses individuals have gotten for those, what came your way? What do you know comes people’s ways when they engage in serious human rights advocacy and charges, formal charges, with documentation, of human rights violations?

John Dugard: At the outset, you must distinguish between my role as special rapporteur and of the role as special rapporteurs of Richard Falk and S. Michael Lynk. That’s because I was allowed to visit the occupied Palestinian territory.

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Dugard: I think that’s a very important distinction. I was appointed after 3 or 4 previous special rapporteurs who were sympathetic to Israel and resigned because they were opposed to the office of the special rapporteur. They thought; it was one where Israel was singled out for special attention. I think the Israeli government felt that they were on safe ground when I was appointed. I, recently, together with Richard Falk and Kamal Hussein compiled a report on the Second Intifada in 2001. Looking back at it, it was, generally, a very kind report – very kind to Israel. In the following sense, we were not sharply critical of select issues. We did not question, whether Israel practiced apartheid in the occupied Palestinian territories or not. Israel had reason to believe I was not going to be much of a threat coupled with the fact that ties between Israel and South Africa were very good. Certainly, the ties were very good before the end of South African Apartheid. So, the Israeli ambassador to Geneva, at the time, said to me, “We will not cooperate with you at all as special rapporteur. But as a South African, you will not require a visa and are very welcome to visit Israel and occupied Palestine territories.” I was allowed into the occupied Palestinian territories throughout my term as special rapporteur for seven years, which meant I was able to report the facts on the ground. Both Richard and Michael have had to take evidence in neighbouring countries. In this manner, I was very different from Richard and Michael. My reports were based on what I had observed in occupied Palestine territories.

Jacobsen: What about non-criticism ‘criticisms’ coming to individuals who point out human rights violations of all parties? For instance, some might get charges of anti-Semitism if they critique policy or the illegal settlements.

Dugard: First of all, I was the special rapporteur at a time when the charge of anti-Semitism was not as developed as today. For instance, I was never accused of being anti-Semitic by the Israeli government. I was accused of anti-Semitism by the American Anti-Defamation League, U.N. Watch, and other pro-Israeli NGOs. However, the Israeli government never went that far. You must bear in mind that when I started, I focused very much on violations of human rights and violations of humanitarian law. It was only near the end of my term as special rapporteur in 2007 that I said, ‘I have a sense of déjà vu being in the occupied Palestinian territory,’ because apartheid is practiced there. Then I made the comparison with South African Apartheid. Thereafter, I became heavily criticized, particularly by the Israeli government and United States in the Human Rights Council and the United Nations in New York. They never levelled a charge of anti-Semitism at me. Although, they were heavily critical of my reports. The vitriolic criticism came from NGOs and individuals. I had a very strange experience on one occasion. I was at a protest in Bil’in when the IDF fired a tear gas canister in my direction, which exploded fairly near to me. I got a whiff of tear gas and moved away. But it was misreported in the Palestinian press that the ‘special rapporteur was hit by a tear gas canister.’ I got a profuse apology from the Israeli Foreign Ministry. I had to write back, “I was not injured at all.”

It was a very strange relationship. The Israeli Foreign Ministry kept a watch over us. If we had a difficulty with the IDF, for instance, if we were held up for several hours at a checkpoint, we would phone the Foreign Ministry. It would intervene on our behalf. I can’t say that I was well-treated, but I was treated in a fairly civil fashion. I was, of course, regularly criticized by the Israeli government, by pro-Israeli NGOs and other governments. One representative of the European Union said I was not part of the solution; but part of the problem. Europeans didn’t like my reports because they didn’t like frank criticism of Israel or the European States.

Jacobsen: When you say, “Frank criticism,” what, in general terms, constituted “frank criticism,” which amounted to a problem for the European representatives?

Dugard: Most of my reports were from observations of the situation in the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza, where I travelled freely until the end of 2007. I reported very frankly on what I had seen involving violations of human rights and humanitarian law; and, in later years, I described it as apartheid, which was embarrassing to some European states. Others were more supportive. I consulted frequently with diplomats from the European Union and got a mixed response. Of course, the Israelis and the United States were equally critical. Once, in the Third Committee of the General Assembly in New York, the U.S. delegate savagely criticized me, accusing me of bias and distorting the facts. During the coffee break, she came up to me and quietly apologized. She said that she had been obliged to read a speech prepared by the State Department.

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Dugard: [Laughing] She clearly didn’t believe the statement read aloud by her.

Jacobsen: Is this common? In that, an individual United Nations special rapporteur dealing with one of the more difficult contexts. They acquire criticism from representatives of governments or organizations who do not even believe the criticism coming from them. They’re reading a script.

Dugard: That’s true. Many diplomats will carry out their government’s instructions of what to say in public. Others will inject personal opinions. It is important to bear in mind. I received a lot of criticism from the U.N. Secretariat. There is a tendency to think the U.N. is united in its response to the situation in Palestine with the exception of the Security Council, where the veto prevails. The U.N. Secretariat has been heavily infiltrated by the state of Israel. For instance, when I spoke to some of the senior officials during the proceedings before the International Court of Justice on the Wall, they were highly critical of the fact that the court was considering the matter at all. In fact, the Deputy Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Kieran Prendergast, from the United Kingdom, told me quite frankly; he had never been in favour of the advisory opinion. The Deputy Legal Counsel of the United Nations gave an opinion advising Kofi Annan, Secretary-General, that he was not obliged to follow the advisory opinion. I don’t think one can underestimate the influence of members of the Secretariat who are very sympathetic to Israel.

Jacobsen: When did the charge of anti-Semitism become more politically useful and, indeed, powerful against those who critiqued Israeli actions as a state?

Dugard: I would identify two reasons. First of all, I think the charge that Israel practices apartheid is very serious. Israel does not like to be accused of being an apartheid state. Although, one must bear in mind; that it kept very close relations with Apartheid South Africa. So too, its supporters abroad. The attempt to define anti-Semitism in terms of the International Holocaust Alliance definition of anti-Semitism has given rise to the present situation in which there is a determination to expand the scope of anti-Semitism to include vigorous criticism of Israel’s practices. For instance, one of the provisions of the International Holocaust Alliance definition provides that it is anti-Semitic to demand of Israel a higher standard of behaviour than other states. But that’s what was the precise problem with the Apartheid South African regime. Here it was, a white regime professing to aspire to Western values, which was behaving badly. So, the international community clearly demanded of the South African government a higher standard of conduct than other States, particularly developing States. However, now, in the case of Israel, we are told if you do so that it is anti-Semitic. The definition of anti-Semitism has been widely expanded. The problem is, of course, most public figures – and ordinary persons – do not like to be accused of being anti-Semitic. So, if one starts to talk about Israel-Palestine, it is much wiser to change the subject and talk about the weather. Otherwise, you will get into trouble. If you say anything highly critical of Israel, then you will be accused of anti-Semitism.

Jacobsen: Also, as a footnote to the commentary to Apartheid South Africa – two footnotes, it was a minority white population dominating the rest of the population. Another footnote to that. You are South African. So, how does this influence personal opinion and professional substance?

Dugard: I was part of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. I directed a human rights NGO in South Africa. No one questions my credibility or my credentials as an opponent of apartheid, or someone who knew what apartheid was or wasn’t in South Africa. At the same time, I was allowed into occupied Palestinian territory for seven years by the Israeli government with permission to examine and observe the situation. So, I was given a rare opportunity to compare and contrast the two situations. I enjoy a special status when it comes to comparing apartheid in occupied Palestine territories with South African Apartheid.

Jacobsen: If we look at the history of Canadian society, of the four major settler-colonial societies – New Zealand, Australia, United States, and Canada, there was a long history of anti-Indian, in terms of the former phrasing, or anti-Indigenous peoples ideologies, actions, and policies within Canadian society. It was endorsed by the state and carried out by the churches in the cases in the Residential Schools. Our first colony in New France. There were slaves. 2/3rds were Indigenous. If we look at the educational outcomes, formal educational outcomes, of the Indigenous or the Aboriginal population today, it is different, on health, in both lifespan and healthspan. This is echoed in New Zealand, Australia, and the United States. Although, I am aware New Zealand moved farther in reconciliatory efforts with the Maori. If we look at these countries, it seems similar to the situation in South Africa Apartheid. In that, it was white racists, who were the settler-colonialists in many ways. What are some common themes in some of these settler-colonial states or domains of European-Christian settler-colonialism, which was carried out in a long-term, significant, and comprehensive manner?

Dugard: I think there were similar features in all those societies, so-called white dominions – Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa, until the end of World War Two. It was accepted that their policies were in line with the behaviour at the time. The first criticism of South Africa came from India with the treatment of the Indian minority in South Africa, not the treatment of black South Africans. Mistreatment of black South Africans came later in 1952. So, yes, there are common features. Today, it is no surprise to me that Israel claims its strongest support from Australia and Canada, apart from the United States, because these are both settler-colonial societies. New Zealand, thankfully, dissociates itself.

Jacobsen: Some commentary in the United States and in Canada media caters to certain sensibilities from previous eras. The demographics were different. The racist and sexist ideologies were ascendant. When examining some of the commentary, we’re seeing in the rise of ethnic nationalism (or white nationalist movements) as one form of strongmanism. How is the diminishment of that ideology akin to some of the things in Apartheid South Africa? These have been catalogued by the Canadian Anti-Hate Network or the Southern Poverty Law Center in the United States. Often, it is tied to some fundamentalist interpretations of Christianity alongside the ethnic supremacist ideological leanings. How was this combatted in South Africa?

Dugard: After the 1960s, one seldom heard justification for Apartheid in terms of religion or in terms of racial superiority. This is another thing, which I find very troubling. We are seeing the opposite happening in Israel. Israeli society is becoming more and more racist in terms of beliefs and racial superiority. That is what seems to drive the likes of Benjamin Netanyahu. One looks at the behaviour of Israeli settlers, Israelis. They are clearly guided by religious sentiment into believing in racial superiority. So, they are, in fact, practicing apartheid as originally practiced in South Africa in the first ten or fifteen years of Apartheid, when it was openly a policy of racial domination.

Jacobsen: Does the concept proposed by Professor Richard Falk of “biblical entitlement” come into play with ethnic supremacism as a bubbling or rising phenomenon among Israeli settlers?

Dugard: Yes, I would agree with Richard. That clearly was the position in South Africa in the first ten or fifteen years of Apartheid. Many white South Africans believed in Apartheid as a policy of racial domination. They got some comfort from religion. However, government spokesmen were clear about “Separate Development” not being a policy of racial domination. Apartheid in South Africa was terrible. There was racial discrimination. There was oppression. But at the same time, there was a sense of idealism in that the South African government wanted Bantustans to exercise self-determination. Thus, the government established schools, clinics, and industries to encourage blacks to move to the homelands. In my opinion Israeli apartheid, at present, is, in many respects, worse than South African because there is no idealistic element to it. The Israeli government unashamedly leaves all of the humanitarian work in Palestine to foreign donors. UNRWA and individual European states have projects in the West Bank and Gaza. So, they do take the place of Israel’s obligations. They are fulfilling an obligation, in which, under the Law of Occupation, rests with Israel.

Jacobsen: The Law of Occupation here, we’re referencing the Fourth Geneva Convention about Occupying Powers or the Occupying Power. In terms of something mentioned earliest in the interview, the United Nations Security Council, the use of veto power, and in the highly biased use of veto power in the favour of Israel as a Member State of the United Nations.

Dugard: The United States has cast over 40 vetoes in favour of Israel. So, it effectively ensured the Security Council is unable to act against Israel. That’s why Resolution 2334 on settlements adopted in 2016, in the last years of the Obama regime, was so important because the United States government decided to withhold its veto. However, as a footnote, one is led to believe Joe Biden was strongly opposed to the United States dropping its veto on that occasion. The United States was much stronger in its resolutions after the 6-Day War. It gave its approval to Resolution 242, which provided the parameters for peace. Thereafter, the United States became very pro-Israel. It has become even more so today. Now, we have the strange situation. The United States promoted the establishment of the Quartet comprised of the United States, the Russian Federation, the U.N., and the E.U. to further the peace process in the Middle East. The Quartet made a number of half-hearted attempts at formulating some policy for the Middle East. However, today, it no longer operates because the United States ensures its inoperability. The United States has managed to change the attitude of member States of the Security Council towards Israel. The US has furthermore encouraged States, including Canada, to reject the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in respect of the Palestinian issue.

Jacobsen: There’s a phenomenon probably in all developed nations. It has social and political consequences most seriously seen in distraction tactics as a cultural phenomenon. For instance, there are very large followings of conspiracy groups, conspiracy theory groups. There are very large followings of fundamentalist religious groups who think the End Times are coming, or ghosts are haunting them, or demons and the Devil will be coming after them, or some secret cabal is coming to destroy the way of life for them. Does this perform a particular function with distracting some publics away from serious political engagement on issues?

Dugard: You’re talking about strange religious beliefs. I don’t think one needs to go that far. I think that the United States Evangelicals have gone a long way in formulating policy towards Israel. The Jewish community in the United States is divided, but the Evangelical community is not. Of course, the Evangelicals in America have the most anti-Semitic view of all. They believe: if the Messiah comes again, the Jews will be exterminated if they do not accept him.

Jacobsen: To clarify, we’re talking about tens of millions of Americans.

Dugard: Oh, exactly.

Jacobsen: Even as a peripheral comment, I read all – literally all – of the commentary and organizations, and articles, on creationism in Canada, and some in the United States and North America. If you look at this stuff in general, especially Intelligent Design and some others, they will say, “It is not about God or the Christian God,” and so on. It is obvious, even from leading proponents. They still state this is based on John 1:1 or the God of Intelligent Design is, ultimately, the Christian God, etc. It is the presentation of a neutral orientation. Then when one reads formal publications of the individuals coming out of these organizations, they have an explicit Christian bias. If you look at the leadership, almost all are middle-aged to elderly white males who are Christian. You see rhetorical flourishes, dissimulation, and misrepresentation to the public. It is mendacious. I think some of this rhetoric around white nationalism and religious fundamentalism is similar.

Dugard: I think there is a pretty close correlation between creationism, anti-evolutionism, and apartheid, and the Evangelical movement. Let me, by way of digression, mention, the Apartheid regime was bitterly opposed to evolution, to the teaching of evolution. It was not allowed to be mentioned in schools. So, one sees the same creationist attitude replicated in the Evangelical movement in the United States. It is the same in many of the religious communities. There is a close relationship between creationism and support for apartheid. However, that’s your subject.

Jacobsen: We see this in the United States with voter disenfranchisement, poorer schools, and stark differences in levels of poverty. These have lifelong and intergenerational effects. It may be a convenience factor to ignore the issues or to demonize particular pockets of a population, or keep people distracted with various forms of fundamentalism, whether ethnic, religious, or secular – worship of the state. Anyhow, how does this conversation around apartheid apply, not in the abstract but, in the concrete to Israeli society, Israeli settlers?

Dugard: Apartheid is, today, designated as an international crime in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It is a species of crime against humanity. It is carefully defined. So, it is, in that context, important to the International Criminal Court because the Government of Palestine has referred the practices that prevail in occupied Palestinian territories to the International Criminal Court for examination with a view to investigation and prosecution. The Government of Palestine argues that the practices of Israel in occupied Palestine meet the necessary requirements for the crime of apartheid. Basically, there are three requirements. In the first case, there should be two ethnic or racial groups, the Jewish-Israelis and the Palestinian-Arabs. So, there’s no question about two racial groups. Second, there should be certain very serious inhumane acts such as murder, extermination, torture and persecution. Third, these inhumane acts should be carried out by one racial group with the intention to suppress and dominate the other group. When one looks at the policies of Israel in occupied Palestinian territories, it is easy to find that these requirements are met. That’s why Palestine has asked the International Criminal Court to investigate the crime of apartheid. Of course, the Court has other crimes before it for examination. The most obvious of these is the war crime of transferring Israeli civilians into the occupied territory of Palestine and the construction of settlements. Today, there are between 700,000 and 800,000 settlers in occupied Palestine that provide the basis for the policy of apartheid.

You have two racial groups with Jews in settlements and Palestinians who are treated differently, in much the same way blacks were treated in South Africa. The International Criminal Court is required to confront crimes of this kind – apartheid, the war crime of construction of settlements and violations of international humanitarian law. It is a difficult decision for the International Criminal Court. When one thinks about the European countries that provide the major funding for the International Criminal Court, they are very hesitant to give support to the label of apartheid being applied to Israel and Palestine because Israel may retaliate and label them as anti-Semitic. Many states and the Israeli government have sought to deflect attention from Israel’s crimes by arguing that Palestine is not a state and, therefore, has no right to bring this case before the International Criminal Court. I want to look at the whole question of apartheid in a broader perspective and to raise the question, “Why it is that Western states are unwilling to confront the evidence that apartheid is applied in the occupied Palestinian territory?” That is really what concerns me. These states are prepared to accept that Israeli settlements are unlawful; that Israel acts disproportionately in its attacks on Gaza. Even though such states are prepared to accept that Israel practices torture and demolishes Palestinian houses, they are not ready to confront the question of whether Israel practices apartheid.

I think that once most Western states accept that Israel practices apartheid that will be the end of occupation of the Palestinian territory.

Jacobsen: If we take a step back and zoom out from some of the commentary so far, with the U.N. Security Council, we have the United States using, potentially abusing, veto power 40 or more times. We have UNRWA, the European Union, various individual Member States of the United Nations, and organizations (NGOs, INGOs), funding or giving humanitarian aid to Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories. Also, we have a deflection of criticism with charges of anti-Semitism or, in prior times, during your tenure as the U.N. Special Rapporteur, of “strong bias.” In a sense, this is a context in which Israel occupies Palestinian territory since the June, 1967 war followed by attempts to bring formal critiques and then the United States blocking in the U.N. Security Council, then the European Union, individual Member States, and NGOs and INGOs, funding through humanitarian aid the individuals who are most in need. Another side of that coin being the funding of the results of the hemorrhaging of human lives and an occupation, and then using charges of a particular type of racism to deflect any form of formal criticism. Is this a unique situation in the setup to favour of occupation for Israelis against Palestinians in the Palestinian territories?

Dugard: I think one has to recognize that Israel occupies a very special position in today’s world. The South African Apartheid regime after some time lost the support of Western states completely. It had no Godfather, so to speak, to wave the magic veto wand. Ultimately, the United Nations did impose sanctions and an arms embargo. That was the situation in South Africa. In the case of Israel, there are a number of factors, which provide full protection for Israel. First, the fear of the label of anti-Semitism. Second, Holocaust guilt. Many Western European nations believe, rightly, that they behaved badly during the Second World War, as they could have done more to protect Jews. So now, they are doing their best to protect Jews in Israel. Norman Finkelstein is the expert here.

Jacobsen: As a small note for readers today, the Holocaust Industry, by Dr. Norman Finkelstein, is a seminal and important text, which Professor Noam Chomsky, formerly at M.I.T. and, currently, at Arizona State University, warned him against making any moves forward there. Although, he left him open to freely do it. If he did, he would have pissed off people in high places. It would not come consequence free.

Dugard: And that happened.

Jacobsen: Yes, Noam Chomsky wrote an article called “The Fate of an Honest Intellectual.” It was a similar case with the Joan Peters book. He went through the citations, showed it was a fraud, and this was when Chomsky was particularly warning him, ‘If you point this out, you’re going to show the American intellectual community as frauds. They’re not going to like it. They’re going to come after you. And they’re going to destroy you.’ He listened, didn’t take the advice. Now, someone who should be Professor Norman Finkelstein is a Dr. Norman Finkelstein with a doctorate from Princeton University in Political Science, who has, for his intellectual integrity, and really solo adventure and careful scholarship, paid the price for his entire life.

Dugard: I know Norman well. There is another fact that I have not mentioned. In addition to Holocaust guilt and anti-Semitism, there is the strength of the Israeli lobby. Not only in the United States, but also in other Western countries. It is very powerful and has strategies in order to advance its cause ranging from outright bribery to blackmail. Those three factors ensure that Israel is protected. South Africa tried desperately to get lobbies in foreign countries. It had no arguments such as anti-Semitism, and Holocaust guilt to fall back on. In short, the South African regime was unprotected while Israel is very, very strongly protected. It is difficult to see how Israel will ever be held to account. That’s why apartheid is important because once it is accepted that Israel applies the policy of apartheid in the occupied Palestinian territory; it will become untenable for some Western states to support it.

Jacobsen: In 2012, there was a resolution to give Palestine Non-Member Observer State status. 130+ Member States were for, 9 were against. 1 of those was Canada. So, Canada says the right things in terms of alignment with international consensus, international morality, international law, and international rights, it does the opposite based on the voting record. How are Canadian government and policy complicit in the occupation? There is a consensus in the international community on the existence of an occupation.

Dugard: The Canadian government is complicit in the sense that it supports Israel completely. The attitude of the Canadian government in the case of Palestine before the International Criminal Court (ICC) is unusual, confusing and duplicitous. Seven states have made submissions to the pre-trial chamber of the ICC stating that they are opposed to the exercise of jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court in respect of Israel’s crimes against Palestine. These countries are Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Uganda, and Brazil. Canada has not made such a submission. But Canada has written a letter, a confidential letter, to the pre-trial chamber giving its reasons for not supporting the exercise of jurisdiction. No one knows what is in that letter; there is a suggestion that is largely circulated that Canada has said, ‘Look, we are one of the major financial contributors to the International Criminal Court. If you proceed, you might not get a contribution from us.’ That is pure speculation. However, we know that Canada has written this letter to the pre-trial chamber opposing the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court. This is a very devious approach on the part of the Canadian government. It would be good if you could find out what that letter contains.

Jacobsen: If the occupation ends, how will this change the discourse in settler-colonial societies, settler-colonial states?

Dugard: I think one must see the ending of the occupation as the first step because this will lead to the acceptance of Palestine as a separate state. Then, of course, the relation between Israel and Palestine will be the next step. Settler-colonialism will be brought to an end when the occupation is brought to an end, as far as Palestine is concerned. The Palestinian minority in Israel is another question, which we have not mentioned. But I do think the ending of the occupation is the important issue one needs to address.

Jacobsen: There are members of the secular community, even prominent ones, who make extremely ignorant commentaries and statements. In other words, they boil down all the contextualizations, all the history, all the human rights violations, all of the issues, down to one variable: religion. What would be the response to the argument or representation of the entirety of the Israeli-Palestinian issue or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Dugard: On the subject of religion, it is important to stress that different religions pose a particular problem in the case of the Middle East. This was not a problem in the case of South Africa because the black South African community is predominantly Christian and the white elite was Christian too. Islam was never accepted on a large scale in South Africa. There’s a relatively small Islamic community, largely Indian. So, religion was not a divisive factor in South Africa. The liberation struggle was led by Christian leaders. Whereas in the case of Israel-Palestine, we have two different religions. It only complicates the issue, which is another story.

Jacobsen: Mr. Dugard, thank you so much for your time, sir.

Dugard: I’ve enjoyed the conversation.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/05/05

VANCOUVER, British Columbia – May 5, 2020 – PRLog — Canadian Humanists are supporting calls from Humanists International to have Mubarak Bala released from a Nigerian jail. Bala, who is president of the Humanist Association of Nigeria, was arrested by Nigerian police April 28 following a complaint the had insulted the prophet Mohammed in a social media post. Bala, who is a former Muslim, has been arrested without formal charges. Bala’s lawyer has not been allowed access to his client.

“The right to be charged within 24 hours of arrest and the right to legal counsel are enshrined in Nigerian law. In addition, we would request: if Mr. Bala is charged with a crime, then the charge is, or those charges are, heard in a secular as opposed to an Islamic court, as he is a humanist, atheist, and former Muslim,” said Scott Jacobsen, international rights spokesman for Humanist Canada. Humanist Canada Vice-President, Lloyd Robertson, said Canadians can support Mr. Bala’s defence campaign organized by Humanists International by visiting:

https://www.gofundme.com/f/free-mubarak-bala

He added that international support is important for the protection of minorities.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/05/04

Jonathan Engel, J.D. is the President of the Secular Humanist Society of New York. 

Here we talk about Reasonable New York, the Freethought Caucus, and Darwin Day.

*Interview conducted on January 27, 2020.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is Reasonable New York? Why was it necessary to found another organization apart from some of the other secular humanist organizations in New York?

Jon Engel: Reasonable New York is a consortium of secular organizations in the city. The members include the Secular Humanist Society of New York (of which I am a member and the President), the Center for Inquiry-New York City, the Center for Inquiry-Long Island, Feminist Freethinkers of New York, New York City Brights, New York City Skeptics, New York Society for Ethical Culture, Secular Coalition of New York, and the Stoic School of Life. Sometimes, it is funny. It sounds like the scene from Monty Python’s Life of Brian, where they are all arguing for the Judean People’s Front or the People’s Front of Judea. Sometimes, it sounds that way. One of the reasons that we started this organization, Reasonable New York, is to stay out of each other’s way. We check each other’s calendars to make sure that nobody is doing an event on the same day as somebody else. But also to exchange, “Where is a good place to hold an event?” This is a large reason as to why we did it. We do some things together. Twice a year, we do an event, a Summer Solstice party and a Winter Solstice party. It is a big get together to invite people from all the groups to talk and then exchange information.

Jacobsen: How does this extend into the political arena through the Freethought Caucus?

Engel: Reasonable New York is interesting. Some of these groups are very much non-political, but not us. We have some members of the Secular Humanist Society who are part of a national group that has created a PAC, political action committee, to help fund candidates who are either in or willing to be in the Freethought Caucus. The Freethought Caucus has 12 members in Congress. I think this is a fantastic thing. Religious groups are so represented. In April, in Washington, there is something that they call the Day of Prayer, which, actually, my group decided to counter with our own Day of Reason. But seculars, secularists, are not really represented very much in Washington. It is still difficult o get people to accept a nonbeliever and an atheist can be a good citizen. Of course, I know it’s true [Laughing]; I think you know it’s true.

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Engel: The Freethought Caucus does a couple of things. One, it lets people know that we’re out there. Some members of the National House of Representatives include Jared Huffman (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Jerry McNerney (D-CA), Dan Kildee (D-MI), and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA). These are fairly normal people in the states. These are the people who you see on the T.V. if you watch the news shows. It is wonderful to have them out there. But also, they, from an issue point of view, have a mission statement through the Congressional Freethought Caucus to advance the use of science in Washington, which we could use more in the decision-making process, etc., for the government. They also champion the rights of freethinkers and nonbelievers to say, “They shouldn’t be discriminated against.” We have some contact with them. I have written a letter. Even though, it has not worked so far [Laughing].

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Engel: Suggesting that my own representative join. I am going to try to get a meeting with my representative Carolyn Maloney, simply to remind her, “You have constituents who are not religious.” You want our votes. Also, you want the loyalties of all your constituents, including us. That’s the thing that I like about the Freethought Caucus. We vote. We are citizens. When they pass laws and say things, it is good to think of us, and not just the more religious members of the community.

Jacobsen: What is Darwin Day, by the way? What is Darwin Day Dinner?

Engel: Darwin was born on February 12^th. I don’t have it in my head. Although, he was, interestingly enough, born on the exact same day as Abraham Lincoln. We celebrate his birthday with a dinner and a lecture about something to do with Darwin’s work. This year we are very pleased to have Dr. Isabel Behncke who is a primatologist, ethologist, who studies animal behaviour. She is one of the few people in the world who has followed up close great apes in the wild. She will talk to us about primate journeys, our primate origins. It is important that we celebrate Darwin. One of the greatest scientists who ever lived, of course, but also a person who put in motion in a lot of ways into where we came from. The religious idea, especially the Christian religious idea in the West, of how human beings came into being; that a deity shot some lightning bolts down and then caused human beings to come into being. That was considered science because nobody knew any better. With Darwin, of course, things changed. A literal interpretation of the Bible was no longer believed with science. This was controversial, even for some of the great thinkers of the day. It was very difficult for them to grasp the thing. To say, “Wait a minute, am I going to have to give up my religious beliefs to still be a scientist?” Because this was to contrast with the Bible, certainly the literal reading of the Bible. We are still going through that today. People who actually believe that the Bible is literally true. We feel that it is very important to celebrate Darwin and to celebrate the idea of freethought. As a concept, freethought, Darwin was the man. He grew up in a religious household. He, at one time, was studying for the ministry. But what he was saying, he found things in his research and in his science that contradicted a literal interpretation of the Bible. He was a freethinker. That’s the definition of it. He didn’t say, “I can’t believe this because this goes against my beliefs.” He said, “No, I have to believe this because this is what my research shows. This is what the science shows. There was, a few years ago, the T.V. presenter, Bill Nye “The Science Guy” had a ‘debate’ with Ken Ham who started the creationist museum. The most telling question at the debate: What would get you to change your mind? Ken Ham rambled on about being a Christian and this is what he believes. Bill Nye said evidence. If enough, and if good evidence, then that would be enough. That’s the difference between a freethinker and a non-freethinker. A non-freethinker will always look at the evidence. A person with dogma will not, “This is what I believe. Frequently, it is religion, but not always.” It still comes into play today. That is why we have for the large part celebrate Darwin. Someone who was willing to stick his neck out and say, “This is the evidence. It doesn’t matter that the dogma around religion. I have to go with the science.” We have this fight, this argument. It is far from over. We still have them today. Sometimes, it feels as if it waxes and wanes. Sometimes, science is more pre-eminent, but there are backlashes as we are seeing now with the denial of the science behind climate change. Really, there’s been a decimation of the scientific community in Washington since Trump came to power because he is backed by Evangelical fundamentalist Christians who do not want to see the science. We celebrate Darwin for what he did then; we celebrate Darwin for what he means for us now.

Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time again, Jon.

Engel: You’re very welcome, Scott.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/04/24

Professor Richard Falk is the Fmr. (5^th) United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied since 1967 (26 March 2008 – 8 May 2014). Professor Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law and Practice, Emeritus, at Princeton University, the Director of the Climate Change Project, and an Advisor on the POMEAS Project in the Istanbul Policy Center at Sabanci University. He is widely revered as one of the great legal minds in the world today, especially on the issue of Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, and reviled in other circles as well. The position of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied since 1967 isn’t, and shouldn’t, be taken lightly based the depth and length of the human rights issue, and on the level and extent of state and other actions one can encounter against oneself in the position devoted to this long-standing human rights catastrophe seen on the Israel-Palestinian issue, as Professor Falk and others encountered in their tenures. An individual with a clear sense of human rights, humanitarian law, and the range and character of history. This was a humbling experience. With great pleasure, and a deep sense of honour, I present the extensive interview with Professor Richard Falk to you.

Here we talk about the “Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid,” apartheid discourse and sustainable peace, settler–colonialism and the Indigenous in Australia, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, and the Golan Heights and Area C of the West Bank.

*Interview conducted on April 3, 2020.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The topics to be discussed today based on the recommendations of Professor Falk were the relevance of apartheid discourse to a sustainable peace, the Great March of Return, and the annexation of the Golan Heights and Area C of the West Bank. Let’s start at one of the larger conversational pieces around discourse, when you’re phrasing things as “apartheid discourse” and “sustainable peace” as a particular type of peace, what are you intending by apartheid discourse and sustainable peace?

Richard Falk: That’s an important issue, I believe. The way in which language is used in trying to approach the preconditions of a settlement or a solution, and the nature of what one is trying to achieve is often conveyed by a choice of words. Part of my use of “sustainable peace” rather than the naked word ‘peace’ as in ‘peace process’ is to signal a critique of the Oslo diplomacy. I wanted to call attention to a series of failed negotiations and more specifically, to the way in which the United States Government tried to impose a framework of what was misleadingly being called ‘peace’ on negotiations between Palestine and Israel. The diplomatic dynamic was almost explicitly partisan in favour of the stronger side and would have introduced had it ‘succeeded’ – what I would call – a one-sided peace that over time would be little other than a ceasefire between phases of an ongoing struggle. Such an outcome reflecting the geopolitical disparities between the negotiating parties would not have been sustainable even if the Palestinian Authority was persuaded to accept what was being offered. Since it was not a genuine peace agreement it would be inevitably resisted and repudiated at some point. For this reason, it is more realistically understood and interpreted as a ceasefire. As suggested, even if the Palestinian leadership could have been induced to swallow such a one-sided peace arrangement, future generations of Palestinians and young Palestinians, and, maybe, Arab neighbours, would surely reject it when an opportune moment arrived, and then proceed to resume a politics of struggle with the goal of sustainable peace. A fundamental precondition of genuine peace is to treat the parties on the basis of equality and on this basis seek an outcome that embodies a fair compromise. To my mind, that cannot be achieved, so long as present structures of the domination and fragmentation of the Palestinian are maintained. This has made the apartheid discourse responsive to the realities of the diplomatic impasse that has kept the conflict alive decade after decade. It also makes it crucial to challenge, discredit, the alternative paradigm or narrative of liberal Oslo critics, which insists that “ending the occupation” is the vital precondition for reaching peace between Palestinians and Israeli. I believe there are several difficulties with any perspective that concentrates on territory rather than people.

Among other concerns, focusing only on the occupation marginalizes the grievances and rights of the several million Palestinians living in refugee camps in neighbouring countries, and those other Palestinians who are living around the world as involuntary exiles. Also, it doesn’t address the issue of discrimination within Israel itself as between Jews and non-Jews. My view is that this kind of hegemonic relationship between the Jewish/Israeli form of governance and the Palestinian people seen as a whole are, in different ways constitutive of the interaction. This embedding of inequality has to be removed for restorative diplomacy to be able to fulfill its stated purpose of lasting accommodation reflecting widely endorsed views of fairness to both sides. So, my view, and the view that is embodied in the UN study [Ed. “Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid” or the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) Report.] I prepared in collaboration with Virginia Tilley [Ed. Professor of Political Science at Southern Illinois University]. In our report to the UN, we agreed that the indispensable precondition for diplomacy leading to what I am calling a “sustainable peace” needed to be based on existential equality of the peoples, and this could not be achieved without the prior dismantling of Israel’s apartheid structures of control. The further point is: unless, equality is established between the peoples there will be resistance to the status quo exerted both by Palestinians living under occupation and by a global solidarity movement that is guided by diaspora Palestinians. In turn, continued resistance by Palestinians will lead Israel to respond by a variety means designed to crush, demoralize, and discredit resistance. If this transpires, the likely prospect is a cycle of violent and non-violent confrontations, possibly aggravated by ethnic cleansing of the weaker Palestinian side. This combination of different modes of struggle has characterized the whole century during which this conflict has unfolded. More or less, this analysis of why peace has eluded the parties arises from the contradictory agendas of the two sides, even as they both claim a dedication to a negotiated agreement. This interpretation of failed diplomacy expresses my personal view as to why the apartheid discourse is a preferable and necessary precondition for reaching a genuine peace while endorsing the slogan ‘ending the occupation’ is not. Ending Israeli apartheid clears a more credible realistic path, at least this is so if we assume that the goal of this diplomacy is what it claims to be—the search for a sustainable peace. This assumption is somewhat questionable as the evidence seems to support the view of Rashid Khallidi, and others, that Israel never sought a diplomatic solution, at least after Rabin’s assassination in 1995, and that the U.S. was complicit in acting as if Israel was ready to accept an independent Palestinian state.

Jacobsen: How would Israeli citizens and Palestinian citizens integrate with one another within this “sustainable peace,” early on, given the history?

Falk: Underlying this issue is the anti-colonial movement, which gained strength after World War II, that is, after 1945. One of the perplexing peculiarities of this conflict is that Israel established its political independence at the very time that colonialism around the world was discredited and in a condition of free fall. In one way, the Zionist project was facilitated by the historical context. Zionism overcame many formidable obstacles on the path to its goals by gaining a great deal of sympathy and support as a consequence of the Holocaust and the failure of the liberal democracies to take action that might have prevented genocide against the Jews. This failure produced a post-war sense of liberal guilt. It allowed a myopic sense of Palestine to dominate the political imagination. This land of Palestine was open to settlement by a people dispersed around the world who had a strong historical attachment and strong biblical feelings of entitlement, to be sure, that could be traced back to ancient times. Yet Jews, despite a huge effort to encourage immigration remained a relatively small minority, even as late as 1945 – with about 30% of the population of Palestine being Jewish. This demographic imbalance remained despite the feverish Zionist efforts since the issuance of the Balfour Declaration in 1917 to encourage and subsidize Jewish immigration. This included striking a series of Faustian bargains between the Zionist movement and anti-Semitic governments – Poland, Germany, Ukraine, and others – relating to receiving aid in exchange for settling expelled Jews in Palestine often against their will.

Zionism was also assisted in establishing its military capabilities and arrangement for the removal of Jews from the various European countries. It was understandable to rescue Jews from these very crude forms of persecution, but the process also served the pragmatic priorities of the Zionist movement by increasing the Jewish demographic presence in Palestine. This Zionist Project also served the interests of these European governments that welcomed the removal of Jews from their societies. These developments largely preceded the genocidal phase of Nazism, which didn’t begin to occur until midway through World War II. There was earlier persecution and concentration camps. However, the deliberate and systematic killing of Jews came later and before that the favoured anti-Semitic policy during the 1930s was ethnic cleansing, achieved through some form of voluntary expulsion. That served the world Zionist movement, which was trying to create a sufficient Jewish presence in Palestine. Zionism was totally committed to fulfilling its statist ambitions that included a commitment to establish a democratic political framework, which was understood to require an assured Jewish majority. It is important to understand both of the elements were posited as essential goals in this dominant tendency of Zionism to attain Jewish statehood and legitimacy through being democratic. It sought to attain sovereignty by dominating the political realities of Palestine.

As earlier observed, it was remarkable from a Zionist point of view and tragic from a Palestinian point of view, that a settler colonial polity could be established and gain international acceptance in the middle of the last century. A utopia on one side, a catastrophe on the other side. In this period all forms of European colonialism were being discredited and collapsing in the response to anti-colonial movements dedicated to national independence. This has always created part of the puzzle confronting the state of Israel. How could Israel become internationally legitimate when its origins entailed the cruel displacement of the resident majority population? Several troubling elements accompanied the birth of Israel.

First, the way the 1947/48 War was conducted, including the denial of any right of return to the Palestinians who had been dispossessed and displaced and numbered anywhere between 700,000 and 800,000 from many peasant villages. During the fighting Palestinian civilians were encouraged or forced to flee and many were so frightened that they left their villages just to escape the ravages of combat. Several hundred of these villages were later bulldozed and destroyed by Israel to send a message that those Palestinians who left had no future in Israel and were not welcome to return. This meant the creation of a permanent refugee and dispossessed population that coincided with the establishment of Israel as a sovereign state. These flaws or crimes associated with the establishment of Israel were overlooked by most of the non-Arab members of the international community. Israel received the most important symbol of international legitimacy early in its existence by being admitted as a full member of the United Nations while the Palestinian fate was left unresolved, a huge and unforgivable mistake by the UN.

Combining this failure to find a solution prior to granting Israel UN membership was made that much worse by recommending a partition of Palestine to satisfy the irreconcilable claims of these two peoples. Such a proposed solution was put forth in defiance of the dominant trend toward regarding self-determination as the fundamental and inalienable right of a people, Palestinians and the Arab neighbours overwhelmingly rejected the idea of an imposed partition on the territorial entity governed as a unity during the period of the British Mandate. The British, as was their custom in a series of countries once colonially administered, were the original sponsors of a partition approach, which they had imposed on India, Ireland, Cyprus – a whole series of countries—in part, the outcome of their ‘divide and rule’ approach to colonial administration. This partition policy produced a series of disastrous results, with the worst outcome inflicted on the Palestinian people with no end in sight. The British were not solely responsible for the adoption for this partition approach. The British came to the conclusion that they could no longer govern Palestine effectively as the mandatory power, a role entrusted to them after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in World War I. In frustration, the British gave the UN the responsibility for determining the future of Palestine, a role for which it was not able to discharge in an equitable and fair manner. The United Nations, as became its practice, appointed an international commission dominated by a Euro-American outlook, which came up with this partition proposal. As might have been predicted, it was accepted by the Zionist leadership and rejected by the Palestinians.

I believe the Zionist Project always had on its agenda–which was then a prime goal of Israeli public policy, the recovery of the so-called “Promised Land,” the cultural/secular conception of Palestine as a biblical entitlement of the Jewish people. This sense of biblical entitlement produced an additional kind of tension, which is very often overlooked in commentary on why the political impasse has never been broken. Feelings of entitlement to the land are a fundamental part of the self-justifying narrative affirmed not only by Israel, but also by Jews around the world. This claim of right is not one of self-determination or rooted in international law, or even international morality, although these elements are not entirely ignored in Israeli legitimation discourses. Read the Israeli proclamation of independence and the relevant provisions of the Basic Law of Israel as formulated in 1948 makes evident this emphasis on the Jewish return to a land that was contained in a sacred promise to the Jewish people.

Even after 1967, when Israel first occupied Jerusalem and the West Bank, it never accepted the international language of “West Bank” or “occupied territory.” Israeli politicians of all political persuasions consistently referred to the West Bank by its biblical names of “Judea” and “Samaria” (provinces of the original ancient Jewish state). I believe that calling the West Bank Judea and Samaria was a signal that this land is part of the biblical entitlement, and hence is part of the incomplete Zionist project, and always been part of the unacknowledged political agenda, and not subject to negotiation with the Palestinians. If this is correct is means that the image of a two-state solution was never accepted on the Israeli side and the diplomatic impasse was a convenient way to gain time to establish reinforcing facts on the ground, which is one way of interpreting the settlement movement.

After the 1967 ceasefire Israel almost immediately declared Jerusalem as the eternal capital of Israel and by its law enlarged the area of the city. This contradicted the UN partition resolution, General Assembly Resolution 181 that proposed Jerusalem as the joint capital of Israelis and Palestinians and\ as an international city. There were many changes in expectations reflecting changing power balances and due to the fact that the Zionist Project publicly revealed its full extent only gradually. With tactical ingenuity Israel took what it could get away with at any moment in time, while not treating the last phase of expansion as satisfying the overall vision of the Zionist Project. In reaction, the Palestinians seemed innocent and naïve, and were consistently outmaneuvered, yet helpless. To some extent, the Palestinians didn’t seem to realize that Oslo diplomacy was basically a trap, giving Israel time to alter realities on the ground, mainly through the expansion of the settlement process and the building of the separation wall.

A number of developments created a new set of expectations. The failure o the Oslo diplomacy to find the sustainable peace played very strongly into the favour of Israel and very much to the detriment of Palestine. That, to me, is part of the recent story. One thing I have emphasized throughout is the degree to which the Zionist movement successfully swam against the anti-colonial current and managed to create this, essentially, colonial-settler state in a historical period, where colonialism was discredited and collapsed. This discrediting was reinforced by the United Nations, which was, originally, neutral about colonialism. Gradually, the UN adopted an anti-colonial posture. Partly, this was a result of the outcome of the colonial wars and the anti-colonial movements. Partly, the Soviet pressure always hostile to colonialism, ever since the Russian Revolution, and partly because the United States was ambivalent towards European colonialism, despite its own imperial background, having a certain national pride in being the first movement to an anti-colonial war in its War of Independence. Looked at more critically, the victory was rather hollow. It was the settlers repelling the colonizers, not the native or resident population.

Jacobsen: Regarding expulsions and colonialism, two things come to mind from the history and the description there. You mentioned “colonial-settler state” in a time in which colonialism was in a state of discrediting.

Falk: And collapsing, as well as delegitimizing the whole project of colonizing a foreign people.

Jacobsen: Within some of the anti-colonialist movements or adaptations, and modernizations, to the present, they may not use the phrasing of “colonial-settler state.” They will use the phrase “settler-colonialism.” In other words, they will look at societies like Canada or the United States with some or much of their history as settler-colonialism playing out. If there is a discrediting and collapse in the 20^th century of colonial-settler states or settler-colonialism, by and large, yet, we have the Israeli-Palestinian issue grounded in that history since the inception of the United Nations. Does this make that issue, in particular Israel, the state of Israel, the last remnant of a colonial state, settler-colonial state, from the 20^th century in the 21^st?

Falk: I think, Israel is the last important remnant of the settler colonial political dynamic. What you raise leading up to that issue is interesting because, as you point out, Canada, Australia, the United States, New Zealand, are all settler-colonial states, that have essentially, established their international legitimacy and de facto control long before colonialism was delegitimized. They established kind of closure with respect to their legitimacy essentially by effectively neutralizing the native populations in their respective countries. One way of looking at Israel-Palestine: Israel, despite the ethnic cleansing of 1948 and again in 1967, hasn’t been able to establish that kind of sufficient control to be able to dispose of the native population, that is, the Palestinian population. Also, the historical context was different. When these successful settler-colonial movements occurred, colonialism did not have a negative connotation; in national or international law, or even from most ethical perspectives. Colonialism up to and including World War I was endorsed by the international legal system, reflecting the self-interest of the colonial powers themselves. So, the separation of these countries – United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand – was something ambiguous from a de-colonization perspective. These countries were treated as independent sovereign states with only ritualistic ties to their mother country, and spared a colonialist taint. In one respect these countries that broke with colonialism were ironically the most abusive toward the native populations. Their hegemonic control over the native population was sufficient to result in marginalizing the native population, which enabled the erasure of both the discrediting settler and colonialist identity.

The issue hasn’t disappeared altogether in any of these countries. I have been to all of them at one time or another, and have been academically interested in supporting the rights of Indigenous peoples, as they are generally called, there have been different strategies emerging in each of these countries. You could say, “Israel is trying to find some kind of strategy for dealing with the Palestinian people without acknowledging their equality, yet without the ability to marginalize the Palestinian presence. Yet they are being denied the benefits of belonging to their own country of residence, their own homeland.” Of course, such a denial is something in the anti-colonial international atmosphere existing now that is hard to imagine the Palestinian people swallowing without resisting to the extent of their capacity. Indigenous people, as you know in Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand seem a lost cause politically, yet still challenge the established order culturally and socially. The representative voices of the Indigenous communities refuse to accept the legitimacy of the arrangements that exist. These indigenous movement are helpless to challenge, except emotionally and in terms of expressing their sense of being victimized by the historical process by which these states have consolidated their power. Their self-assertion is an expression of spiritual resilience, a refusal to surrender of identity despite an acceptance of powerlessness.

Jacobsen: Different countries will have different ‘outcomes.’ In Canadian society, we have had protests around pipelines. In the United States, they had protests at Standing Rock, which became violent to some degree with militarized police coming into the situation. In general, since you have been to these places, read more, seen more, had more authoritative positions, and had conversations with the individuals who would have authoritative synoptic judgments about these issues, if you’re looking at the Aborigines in Australia, the Maori (in New Zealand), the First Nations, the Metis, the Inuit in Canada, or just any of the number of Native American tribes in America (e.g., Iroquois, the Hopi, etc.), what cases come to mind that mirror some of the issues of the Palestinians and the ways in which there was some leverage of equality for that “sustainable peace”?

Falk: Yes, we are on territory that I have not explored very much recently. However, these experiences are certainly very interesting and somewhat relevant. I think, the Palestinians, unlike the Indigenous peoples of the white settler-colonial countries, were not pre-modern. There was a difference in their political consciousness, an identity that was aligned to modernity. The Palestinians had a sophisticated intellectual class. Palestine was considered the most educated Arab population when the Balfour Declaration was issued in 1917. There was intellectual concern and a sense of foreboding within Palestine from the beginning of the Zionist penetration at the beginning of the 20^th century. Although there are similarities, there are important differences. This made it more difficult for Israel to address the resident population in the ways these other governments managed to do prior to the decline of colonialism, which partly reflected the changed historical situation and increased support for self-determination. These values precluded the methods used in the United States, Australia, Canada, and, to a lesser degree, in New Zealand, as far as I know. I spent some time in New Zealand talking with some of the Maori. They, interestingly, said, “We are able to preserve our way of life to a greater extent than the Australian aboriginal people have done because we are like the Vietnamese. We were never defeated in war. We retreated to the mountains. We signed a treaty.” The dominant white population in New Zealand acknowledged the cultural equality of the Maori. I remember, when I was there, even the Prime Minister was studying the Maori language. There were something like 18 Maori language schools in Auckland alone. This does not alter the reality of political marginalization, but rather expressed cultural resilience.

There was a different kind of feeling, as recently as the end of the last century. There could be a cultural accommodation, and a sense of mutuality and equality between settlers and indigenous people. In Australia, you get this feeling that meetings and conferences begin with almost an apology and a prayer. It is a gesture, an expression of guilt. It seems a little hypocritical, but is very much a part of the living sense of how the excesses of the colonialist background should be addressed. You could never imagine this kind of acknowledgement of guilt happening in the United States in the manner of Australia and New Zealand. Americans have written and talked movingly about the injustice done to the Native Americans, there are important Indigenous leaders who have articulated the injustice and founded movements seeking some kind of self-determination within the modern political landscape. I was a friend of Russell Means who was one of the leading voices of the Sioux people and a major figure in the American Indian Movement that captured the nostalgic moral imagination of many Americans projecting a different image of the past than that portrayed in cowboy and Indian movies that often disclosed genocidal patterns of thought and behaviour.

Jacobsen: If you look at the amount of land the Hopi kept, contiguous land, one hunk (surrounded by the Navajo), if you count the square mileage there, it’s about as much as 1/5^th of all the land combined that Canadian Aboriginals kept. So, there was something in the history of the dynamic that played out much differently, at least in Canada compared to the United States, in the case of the Hopi compared to the 600+ bands in Canada. So, another topic on the agenda is the Great March of Return or the Great Return March. Depending on the person that you talk to, the phrasing will be different. The most frequent one that I have heard is the “Great March of Return.” So, with regards to it, there is a day, for those who may not know reading this, called Nakba day. For the Great March of Return, what has been the reaction of the international rights community?

Falk: First of all, the Great March Return should be perceived and understood as a largely non-violent movement among the people Gaza who are claiming the right to return to their homes from which they, their parents, or their grandparents were expelled or fled decades ago. The basic image of “return” is a sense of legal, moral, and political entitlement. They are not trying to enter a society in which they have no legitimate claims. They have many serious grievances, painful experiences, and long records of having rights denied. These Palestinians sought to dramatize those grievances so long denied by confronting Israel at its border. Israel responded with live ammunition, use of snipers that targeted medical workers and others, and, definitely, engaged in or relied upon tactics that were excessive from the perspective of international humanitarian law by reference to Israel’s right to defend its borders and prevent unauthorized individuals from breaking the fence and crossing into Israel. On the Palestinian side is the issues related to seeking visibility and international support for unacknowledged grievances that have persisted over such a long time and have been accompanied by the blockade of Gaza for more than twelve years, accompanied by a very harsh form of confinement and occupation. It is misleading to separate the protest activity from the overall oppressive conditions: an overcrowded living space, an impoverished population with the great majority of inhabitants jobless and dependent on humanitarian assistance just for survival. Gaza has been the target of periodic military incursions or armed operations by Israel in 2008/09, 2012, and 2014, as well as pervasive daily uses of force that have traumatized the entire society; a civilian population confined in these very difficult circumstances, which I have witnessed. I was able to travel to Gaza via Egypt before al-Sisi limited access in 2012. It is difficult to imagine living in for a week, much less a lifetime.

This initiative was not started by Hamas, which is in control of the administrative processes of Gaza. The Great March was at the start a spontaneous civil society initiative of coming together every Friday to protest. This was an impressive movement because it mobilized a large number of Palestinians in spite of the violent Israeli response by way of sophisticated weaponry and excessive uses of force directed at basically unarmed demonstrators who lacked any means of self-defence. These Palestinian protestors continued to show up on successive Fridays for more than a year in spite of enduring heavy casualties and the deliberate crippling of protestors caused by snipers shooting at and below the knees. A very shocking pattern of Israeli response that wasn’t responsibly dealt with by the international community, especially if proper account is taken of Israel’s obligations as an Occupying Power in relation to the civilian population of Gaza. The Palestinians have long been lectured by liberals in the West: Since Israel is a democratic society it would be responsive to non-violent protests by Palestinians. This experience once more showed Israel’s iron fist tactics as applied to the Palestinian people no matter how their opposition was manifested. Despite these concerns, as far as I could tell, there was virtually no sympathetic coverage of the Great March in the mainstream media. What attention was given was devoted to reporting on how many people were killed, what happened week-to-week as to the size of demonstrations. So, it’s a very dispiriting outcome, which reinforces the conception that Israel thinks it can defeat militarily the Palestinian challenge and, basically, create a situation not so unlike the situation that exists in these other settler-colonial states that are no longer criticized because of their treatment of the natives. Once the native population becomes so demoralized, humiliated, and defeated, Israel can then govern the whole of Palestine as part of an apartheid one-state solution.

This kind of Israeli endgame was set forth in the Trump-Kushner so-called peace proposals, which incorporated the persistent advocacy of Daniel Pipes who is one of the prominent Zionist militant intellectuals who had been developing an argument for an Israeli victory scenario during the past several years on his website Middle East Forum: diplomacy had been attempted in relation to the conflict and failed to reach agreement. In light of this, the only way for this conflict to end if diplomacy fails is to allow one side to win and the other side to lose. The challenge to Israel, according to Pipes, is to make the Palestinians accept the reality that their struggle had become a lost cause. Pipes urged Israel to increase its coercion so as to convince the Palestinians of the futility of their further resistance. Of course, the Great March of Return was defying that defeatist attitude. That Pipes approach is adopted, in my view, in the extremely one-sided proposals contained in this Trump-Kushner plan endorsed by both Gantz and Netanyahu who together represent the large majority of Israeli public opinion. One of the things that has happened over the course of this prolonged struggle is that Israeli internal politics have move steadily to the right. By “to the right,” I mean embracing the maximal Zionist vision to a solution is more or less uncontested in Israel, although there are ambiguities, including an Israeli majority that still favours a two-state solution if it were viable. This move toward a victory scenario amounts to an annexationist approach to the West Bank, which has been, from an international law and United Nations perspective, occupied territory. Over the years, especially Area C that is 60% of the West Bank, has been treated more and more as de facto Israel. Again annexation has been given, more or less, a green light by the Trump presidency. Although such encouragement by Washington has no legal status, it exerts a political influence that reinforces Israeli expansionism.

I think, the Israeli leadership, the Likud leadership, and even the Blue and White opposition to the Likud, see the Trump presidency as a time-limited opportunity to complete the Zionist Project by proclaiming that the conflict is over. Some Palestinian communities will be somewhat self-governing, a policy comparable to what South African tried to do in the last phases of South African apartheid. Israel, facing different conditions, has shaped its own form of apartheid. It is helpful to recall that in South Africa a minority elite created structures of racial domination to subjugate the large majority African population. One can learn, in several ways, from this earlier apartheid experience, particularly the connection between dismantling apartheid and achieving racial peace. South Africa only moved toward ending the struggle when it decided to release Nelson Mandela from prison as a symbolic step toward the dismantling apartheid. Without that dismantling, that struggle would still be happening. That’s my central point with respect to Israel: If Israel wants peace, then it must get rid of apartheid. There’s no other way for these two peoples to live together in some coexisting and peaceful manner.

Jacobsen: The last two points were the Golan Heights and Area C of the West Bank. Any points for the audience there?

Falk: I think, the Golan Heights and Area C are part of the expansionist vision of the Zionist Project. Israel feels it is now strong enough that can incorporate these territories into its state control in ways that will bring it to some kind of new reality. In other words, the Golan Heights has already been annexed with the explicit approval of the Trump presidency, which is appropriating Syrian territory going against the basic rules of post-1945 international law: no territory can be acquired by uses of force. As for the West Bank, specifically Area C, as I said earlier, is part of the Zionist sense of biblical entitlement. This was part of the Promised Land. Israel feels that it’s entitled to include within its sovereign domain. In this sense, I think, religion as fused with cultural traditions has been relevant to the modern Jewish political sensibility, including even the secular political class. Jews worldwide generally assume that respecting their religious and cultural roots should take precedence over Palestinian claims based on law, secularism, and modernity. So, it is an odd thing. On the one side, Israel is claiming to bring the benefits of modernity to Palestinians and the Arab population. If only the inhabitant would accept benevolent Israeli governance, they would benefit from this Europeanized way of organizing social and economic life. At the same time, Israel’s claims ultimately rest on this pre-modern idea that they, on the basis their religious and cultural tradition, have a superior claim to consider the land their homeland to that of the people living there. That’s the radical nature of the Zionist claim. In effect, the Jewish diaspora deserves precedence over the claims of the native population, the resident population, when it comes to delimiting national homelands. In that way, the period before World War II, the Zionists turned against their original colonial sponsors, the British, and succeeded in making the British regard Palestine ungovernable. Zionism then claimed to be an anti-colonialist movement of the Jewish nation. When you read the influential Exodus narrative that glamorized Zionism and erased the Palestinian you understand the process better by which fiction became fact. The Zionist Project succeeded in appropriating the anti-colonial ethos as the core event of their emancipatory history while persuading much of the world to overloo the cruelty of the Nakba and the displacement of the Palestinians.

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

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/04/24

Mandisa Thomas, a native of New York City, is the founder and President of Black Nonbelievers, Inc. Although never formally indoctrinated into belief, Mandisa was heavily exposed to Christianity, Black Nationalism, and Islam. As a child she loved reading, and enjoyed various tales of Gods from different cultures, including Greek and Ghanaian. “Through reading these stories and being taught about other cultures at an early age, I quickly noticed that there were similarities and differences between those deities and the God of the Christian Bible. I couldn’t help but wonder what made this God so special that he warrants such prevalence today,” she recalls.

Mandisa has many media appearances to her credit, including CBS Sunday Morning, CNN.com, and Playboy, The Humanist, and JET magazines. She has been a guest on podcasts such as The Humanist Hour and Ask an Atheist, as well as the documentaries Contradiction and My Week in Atheism. Mandisa currently serves on the Board for American Atheists and the American Humanist Association, and previously for Foundation Beyond Belief, the 2016 Reason Rally Coalition, and the Secular Coalition for America. She is also an active speaker and has presented at conferences/conventions for the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Secular Student Alliance, and many others.

In 2019, Mandisa was the recipient of the Secular Student Alliance’s Backbone Award and named the Freedom from Religion Foundation’s Freethought Heroine. She was also the Unitarian Universalist Humanist Association’s Person of the Year 2018.

As the president of Black Nonbelievers, Inc., Mandisa encourages more Blacks to come out and stand strong with their nonbelief in the face of such strong religious overtones.

“The more we make our presence known, the better our chances of working together to turn around some of the disparities we face. We are NOT alone.”

Here, we talk about the decade in review.

*Interview conducted in early 2020.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, this is ambiguous because this is a little bit after because we’re working through a lot of material. But this is the Decade in Review or the 10-year review of Black Nonbelievers Inc. Let’s do some highlights, what have been those developments and successes of Black Nonbelievers Inc. over the last almost decade, from 2011 to 2019 end?

Mandisa Thomas: I remember my youngest son, Miles, was still an infant. He was about nine months old. my other children were much younger. I was completing the first year of my job. I completed it. I was successful in reducing the overtime that was a problem at the job.

I remember my boss at the time saying that; I was able to accomplish something that the other managers before me couldn’t. I remember during that time. I wasn’t a believer, but I was still spiritual if you will. But I simply remember within that decade, from 2009 to 2010 onwards; it was when I simply started strengthening my non-belief and my descent with religion.

That was in 2010. I formally identified or re-identified as an atheist in 2010, in the end, Christmas Day. It was within that time that my atheism was reaffirmed. My desire to become more involved with the secular movement increased. When I discovered that there was work that was still needed, regarding the black community and atheism, that was when the Black Nonbelievers was born. Our official 10-year anniversary will be in 2021.

But within this decade, the 2010s, I think we’ve accomplished a lot. I know that in between that time. I have left that job because developing the organization became a full-time responsibility. It was my family as well. Certainly, there are dynamic, better changes. My daughter graduated from college. She is now in Shanghai teaching English as a second language.

So, my youngest son, who was still a baby, Ken. He’s in the 5th grade. He’s competing in the Georgia State Technology competition. My youngest son is now a teenager at 14. It’s simply amazing to see not simply my family grow, and spouse, if you will, but the organization and within the decade how things had turned out.

Jacobsen: What about organizational milestones? What are those been?

Thomas: So for Black Nonbelievers, we started in 2011. We officially became a 501©3 nonprofit organization in 2014 and that’s when we became a member organization of the Secular Coalition for America. So, we started expanding our organization the same year we were founded.

All of our milestone features in the media. We were on CNN twice, CBS Sunday Morning, Humanist Magazine, NPR, National Geographic, Playboy, and many others. Those have been major for us. That’s when we launched our Change of Life Campaign, in which we started sharing the testimony of our members. So, there has been a lot that we’ve done. We’ve expanded the organization now to multiple cities, double digits.

Those are what I consider big milestones for us because of the visibility and, of course, the community building and support have always been important to our mission, has been crucial. In the past few decades, I’m happy that we were able to reach not simply ordinary people, but simply a number of outlets that can become more connected and acquainted with our work.

Jacobsen: Has it been changing some of the conversations within the black community and the United States?

Thomas: I mean, it has. Even in 2009, even before then, I’ve always known folks in the black community to challenge religion. We talked about that, how religion was challenged through black comedy and literature, but over the decade, there is definitely part of this whole conversation surrounding the institution of the church, the black church in particular, how relevant it is to our community and to people’s lives.

There have been more critics over the years and the things that you are more are open, not only to expressing their discontent but to become one understanding and tolerance of atheism. Even if we don’t always agree and they remain believers.

One thing we understand that not all atheists are bad or, as a matter of fact, most of us tend to be good. Even though, there is still a huge negative stigma. There are more people who are getting a better understanding of the opposition. In fact, there are a lot of things that we could probably work on, as opposed to simply being an enemy.

Jacobsen: Have any particular stories stood out of an ordinary American who was part or became a part of Black Nonbelievers who went through a hard time coming out as a non-believer?

Thomas: Yes. One of our featured testimonies was from a member who came from a family that was full of vegans and church leaders. She was molested. It was often like a family secret. She had to keep that silent. She had suicidal thoughts. Of course, we always encourage people in those situations to seek clinical help. But it was finding Black Nonbelievers. That was so validating to her position about the non-existence of God.

That helped to reaffirm and help bring her from that dark place. We always have peer support and support from those who understand and know where they’re coming from. This is hugely important, in addition to clinical help. So, yes, this person has said that we saved their life.

This was what prompted us to launch that campaign because we have heard this from people that it wasn’t simply life-changing or life-saving. To know that we were a part of that world and that process, it confirmed that what we do is needed because simply our presence as non-believers, atheists, etc., can simply be very polarising. They can simply be ostracising.

We want to make sure that we continue to do it. Not simply those who are atheists or those who have faith, but again, for those who are looking for information for those who are questioning and for good engagement with the community.

Jacobsen: How has this been observed and commented on by religious leaders, pastors, ministers, deacons, bishops, etc.?

Thomas: It’s interesting because we haven’t had much push back from many religious leaders. So, I now have a good friend that is a pastor who spoke at our fifth-anniversary celebration in 2015. I do recall when he first reached out and wanted to interview me. I remember being so skeptical, “Why do you want to talk to me if you’re a pastor?”

He has shown himself to be such an ally. Even though, he is still very much a believer and those are the types of connections that we want to maintain and develop. But I will say something about the members of the Congressional Freethought Caucus, which was formed in 2017. I had the opportunity along with other secular leaders to meet with them, probably this year, in February.

When I spoke, I introduced myself and to open for the organization that I was representing. The members were like, “Wow, you have a huge five-minute view.” They understood the challenges that we face within our community, to see us and to see our organization represented like, “Wow. Oh my gosh, I’m so glad you’re here,” because it’s definitely needed.

I would consider that to be one of the most monumental reactions to us. We have religious folks try us. They call us, telling us that we’re wrong and such, but it’s good when we have a representative understand our mission and the work that we do. Because, oftentimes, we need to get push back from within the secular community about liability for Black nonbelievers.

No matter how hard time gets, no matter how they become, we know that we have support because of the visibility and representation supports the advocacy, which has simply all played a huge part in what we do.

Jacobsen: In spite of the name-calling or past traumas that are coming to you, personally, how do you stand tall?

Thomas: There are times that it becomes very, very difficult. There were times when I would feel, with my previous job, that I thought about quitting and simply staying at work because it felt like at the time that job allowed me more stability with my family and travel schedules and such I was able to have some flexibility when I became involved in the movement.

But there are times where I wish I could have simply hung it up because for the people who say they need us, they don’t necessarily support us the way they should. But it is through the steady participation, we’ve been able to get involved in other leadership roles and simply the camaraderie and the friendship and bond that I have formed in this community have simply kept me going.

It’s been engaging people on the ground in person, and knowing what they go through and realizing that seeing those transitions, seeing those changes in folks have simply been inspirational to me. Because of the fact that you don’t know when people are in simply because we don’t see success right away.

Most of the time, human beings, we want things to be spontaneous, we want things to come to us almost immediately and the work comes in where- when you least expect it, the reward. I had to remind me that this isn’t an overnight process, it isn’t an overnight process for people to overcome their beliefs and to leave to those communities behind.

It isn’t an overnight process to get people to understand why supporting us, especially financially, is important. Because I know, I can only speak for myself when I say that this isn’t something that I’m trying to get rich off. Sure, should it get to a point where it can be completely paid for, absolutely, but I know that there is a service that is being provided for the people who need us and that is worth supporting.

I know that we will eventually get there. It has been coming because the more we persevered, the more support we have generated I know we will continue to generate support in the future. that is what keeps me going, in addition to all the people that we have engaged and held in one way or another.

Jacobsen: When 2021 comes around and you’re looking forward from this standpoint, what do you see as most needed for the non-belief community in the United States amongst African Americans in particular or black Americans in general (the diaspora in the United States) who, again, simply it doesn’t take for them?

Thomas: It’s definitely more visibility, more exposure, more opportunities for us to sufficiently engage the communities and folks that we’re trying to reach. This is starting to happen through a number of projects and one of them I mentioned previously, was the project with the National Museum of African American Culture and the fact that we now have institutions that are looking to us because we have provided that visibility and community.

I think that once it is placed on almost this national platform, I think that we will be able to generate the support that we need to sufficiently become that institution that people automatically see or recognized. Not that it isn’t happening now but it will be on a much wider scale and that is what is needed for the future. There is simply no one grand design or one big thing that will happen. It will happen through consistency and maintaining the organization and continuing to do what we do.

Jacobsen: Thank you for your service, Mandisa.

Thomas: Thank you.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/04/23

Mandisa Thomas, a native of New York City, is the founder and President of Black Nonbelievers, Inc. Although never formally indoctrinated into belief, Mandisa was heavily exposed to Christianity, Black Nationalism, and Islam. As a child she loved reading, and enjoyed various tales of Gods from different cultures, including Greek and Ghanaian. “Through reading these stories and being taught about other cultures at an early age, I quickly noticed that there were similarities and differences between those deities and the God of the Christian Bible. I couldn’t help but wonder what made this God so special that he warrants such prevalence today,” she recalls.

Mandisa has many media appearances to her credit, including CBS Sunday Morning, CNN.com, and Playboy, The Humanist, and JET magazines. She has been a guest on podcasts such as The Humanist Hour and Ask an Atheist, as well as the documentaries Contradiction and My Week in Atheism. Mandisa currently serves on the Board for American Atheists and the American Humanist Association, and previously for Foundation Beyond Belief, the 2016 Reason Rally Coalition, and the Secular Coalition for America. She is also an active speaker and has presented at conferences/conventions for the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Secular Student Alliance, and many others.

In 2019, Mandisa was the recipient of the Secular Student Alliance’s Backbone Award and named the Freedom from Religion Foundation’s Freethought Heroine. She was also the Unitarian Universalist Humanist Association’s Person of the Year 2018.

As the president of Black Nonbelievers, Inc., Mandisa encourages more Blacks to come out and stand strong with their nonbelief in the face of such strong religious overtones.

“The more we make our presence known, the better our chances of working together to turn around some of the disparities we face. We are NOT alone.”

Here, we talk about the year of 2019 in review.

*Interview conducted in early 2020.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, Mandisa Thomas round-up for 2019. What are some of the highlights? What are some fun things that happened?

Mandisa Thomas: Yes, 2019 has been an amazing whirlwind of a year. In January, I wrote an article for a Black digital travel magazine called Griots Republic. This was for their “faith exploration” issue, and I wrote about Black Nonbelievers as an organization. Our beginnings, what we do, why we do it and the events that we have coming up. I also wrote my first ever grant proposal for the Soros Foundation along with the help of some of our members who are more skilled in that area. One of our members from BN’s Atlanta affiliate will be featured in a production with the Smithsonian Museum and the Museum of African American Culture. It’s their six-part series called “god-Talk,” which will eventually be turned into a documentary. It focuses on religious perspectives in the Black community – millennials in particular. And we were contacted for an atheist/nonreligious representative.

That was just the beginning. In February, I had the opportunity to meet with some of the researchers at Pew. They’re crafting a new study on religion in African American life. They wanted to speak with me and others from the organization about questions and other areas that they could consider adding in order to generate more participation from black atheists, agnostics, non-religious, etc.

From there, there’s just been a slew of speaking engagements. I’ve travelled pretty much all over the country this year with my last appearance in the Phoenix, Arizona area. And among the events was the first ever Women of Color Beyond Belief conference that was produced by BN, Black Skeptics Los Angeles, and the Women’s Leadership Project. In November, we finished our third annual cruise – complete with a new title, and aboard a new ship. That among other things, has just made it an amazing year. There were some the first time visits too – the cities of Phoenix (as mentioned earlier), New Orleans and Pittsburgh.   I tend to document my travels on social media, and this year has been confirmation why I resigned from my full-time job the year before. The number of places I’ve “checked” into are almost exhausting, lol!!! Also, before I forget, I also received two awards this year: the Backbone Award from the Secular Student Alliance and the Freethought Heroine Award from the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

So, it has also been a year of recognition. As I’ve said before, it seems weird that I would even receive awards, and it almost seems unbelievable that the work is being recognized in such a way, but again, I’m glad it is.

Jacobsen: How does that make you feel?

Thomas: Now, I know that what I’m doing is important. It’s work that I’ve come to love, growing the black atheist demographic in particular and community in general. It’s showing our growth of the organization. We launched our Columbus, OH, and New Orleans affiliate this year. It’s a challenging process, and we carefully vet new organizers. They don’t have to be as dedicated as me, but at least committed to staying involved. That’s the best way we make sure that we reach the people efficiently. I tend to suffer from Imposter Syndrome quite a bit. If you aren’t familiar with the term, it’s a fear that people will find out that you’re a fraud or you’re not really doing as much work as you say you are. It tends to be common among folks who actually are doing a lot of work, but feel like we’re still not doing much at all. So while I KNOW there are a lot of great things going on, that I know I’m doing great work, and that the accolades are deserved – the syndrome makes things weird. 

Jacobsen: What criteria should be used when recognizing others for their activism, or for the community organizing, or for their written popular or academic works for secular communities?

Thomas: So, I know that we’ve discussed this previously. I tend to look at a person’s ability to communicate – whether it’s punctual, reciprocal, and if it’s considerate of all aspects and people who are involved.

Also, for certain types of activism – church and state separation for example – front line for protesting or picketing and such, tends to get a lot of recognition. There’s also lots of credit given to speakers with academic credentials, and perhaps a body of literary work under their belt. But how people are treated on the back end is a HUGE factor for me. I could care less about what you have written and what you say in the public realm. If you treat people badly privately, in my eyes, that negates all of your public work.

I think this is also how leaders and organizers should communicate and work together. If we are actually practicing what we preach, and putting their money where their mouths are, this is a very important piece to what we do. Because much of the organizing work tends to go uncredited, especially for women in the movement. This speaks to values, and how you develop teamwork. It doesn’t mean that it’s going to be perfect, but as long as you’ve done your part, then that speaks to your ability to build that community and the support and the visibility that people need.

Jacobsen: What about your final thoughts for 2019? The wrap-up.

Thomas: 2019 is when I completely went into activist mode. I am definitely now full-time. It has been a test of my skills, as well as my ability to remain as level headed as possible. That part can be challenging, and having been involved in a number of projects this year, it takes a lot of multitasking. It has taken a lot of re-evaluation, and reflection on what I need to prioritize. This year has definitely pushed the boundaries of my organizing abilities, and what I can do for the future. Now, that we have certain things in place at the organization, we can focus on improvement in other areas. So while it has been daunting at times, I am proud to say that we have the foundation to keep moving forward.

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

Thomas: Thank you.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/04/22

Abdulrahman Aliyu is a Nigerian Humanist and Freethinker involved in the community and movement in Nigeria.

Here we talk about Nigerian humanism now.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa. It is one of the most populated nations on earth. Its politics impact the rest of Africa and set a mark for the progress or regress for all of Africa. Many in the African diaspora, I would assume, look at the marvel at the developments in much of post-colonial (Arab-Muslim and European-Christian) Africa while in horror at some of the facets of their culture. It’s mixed. What do you, as a humanist, find are the best things about Nigeria?

Abdulrahman Aliyu: Yes, you are right, Nigeria could be the most vital country in Africa in terms of impacting either a progressive Africa or regressive one. In other words, if Nigeria prospers, we do so along with our brothers and sisters across the continent. As a humanist, I find that the best things about Nigeria are our diversity and the potential we hold in all the various spectra of life. So, we can explore those potentials to challenge wrong ideas such as dogma and superstition and campaign for good ones like humanism.

In summary, the best thing about Nigeria is that there is lots of untapped potential that we are attempting to bring out with our campaign for humanism. I strongly believe this will make us a more compassionate, tolerant, and prosperous society.

Jacobsen: What are the worst things about Nigeria as a humanist?

Aliyu: As a humanist, I must say it’s quite unfortunate and very frustrating that one cannot challenge or critique dogmatic beliefs that are clearly anti-human without watching one’s back. Imagine, as a humanist one has to be subtle in condemning ills and notions that are clearly against humans like child marriage, genital mutilation, sex slavery, and the oppression of women. Clearly, Nigeria is a deeply religious culture, so when one says that religion promotes anti-human ideals; one is expected to respect the boundaries of that religion. Well, in my view, we ought not be soft on bad ideas that are clearly anti-human. We have to devise ways and strategies to combat ideas that are anti-human. But we must do so in ways that do not endanger our lives. In other words, we must do so carefully.         

Jacobsen: What are your thoughts on the “leaving things to God” attitude of many Nigerians in the midst of coronavirus pandemic?

Aliyu: God should be left out of issues that are clearly medical in nature. God might be real and alive for many but not in our medical or science labs. There simply no evidence of God’s presence in the way nature works. God, in my opinion, is a thing of faith. And right now, we need to listen to medical expert’s advice, not some pastor or imam. Leaving things to God is very destructive, I strongly advise against it, especially in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic.

Jacobsen: What would be a contextually appropriate Nigerian humanist response to this pandemic given the culture, the resources, the peoples, and the politico-social environment?

Aliyu: Campaign. Campaign. Campaign. We need to inform our neighbours and countrymen in general about the coronavirus. And we have to recognize the fact that religion is crippling the campaign against the virus, hence the need to find ways to bring religious leaders into the fold.

Jacobsen: In your (recent) essay on coronavirus and the pandemic, you noted the reactions of the communities in Nigeria closing down or calling to close down churches, temples, mosques, and the like. How are these measures important for the prevention of the spread of the virus? What has happened in some documented reportage?

Aliyu: These measures are very important. We cannot afford to let mass gatherings continue while we are facing a huge public health crisis. Since the virus cannot travel alone, it needs us to spread the disease. Simply abiding by medical advice is the only way forward, and right now, closing mass gatherings and maintaining social distancing are critical in controlling the spread of the disease. The sad thing about what is really happening here is that some authorities are clearly not following the medical advice, such as the wearing of face masks, avoiding public gatherings, and maintaining social distancing. As for documented reportage, we have seen reports on how churches and mosques are ignoring the authorities by gathering in their respective worship centres. Also, lots of people are gathering to worship at resident’s houses, especially in the northern part of the country.

Jacobsen: Dr. Leo Igwe has been studying and working on witchcraft in Nigeria. How have his efforts been important in the advancement of human rights, scientific skepticism, and the protection of the vulnerable, i.e., elderly women targeted for illegitimate accusations or allegations of witchcraft (because witchcraft in the sense of the supernatural does not exist at all, at all)?

Aliyu: Yes, of course witchcraft holds no supernatural powers. But sadly, many here in Nigeria believe in it and become the targets of exploitation because of their belief. I respect Dr. Igwe for doing a wonderful job in that regard. I think we need so many more like him in Nigeria to help in that battle.

Jacobsen: Which politicians have been most helpful in the advancement of secular and humanist values in Nigeria?

Aliyu: I’m not sure about the politicians. But there are definitely some brilliant Nigerians who have contributed immensely to secular and humanist values, to the movement. People like; Wole Soyinka, Femi Falana, Professor Attahiru Jega, and many more.

Jacobsen: I like Falz, the Nigerian artist. I like the social commentary in his music— frank, direct, and compelling. As he notes, many Nigerians, many people in general, can be carried away with entertainment and not be conscious enough of the political message. What importance do some Nigerian artists place upon making people more conscious of the serious issues facing Nigerians in the political and social spheres? He expands the controversial and social commentary to Africa as a whole, especially when he stresses the importance of needing to vote and how young people can help change the social, political, and economic context for many Nigerians by voting. Many of the problems facing Nigerians are issues facing Africans in general.

Aliyu: Artists are crucial in raising consciousness regarding serious issues. That’s right, I like Falz too, we need many more of his like in Africa. Yes, we have many who are also addressing serious social issues.

Jacobsen: As a humanist, how are you coping in Nigeria in the midst of the pandemic?

Aliyu: It’s been very difficult. It’s hard to cope here, most people don’t seem to believe in the truth of the pandemic. Sometimes I find it frustrating attempting to rebut the various conspiracy theories about coronavirus being a political disease and not an actual one. Can you imagine? How deluded can one be?

Jacobsen: Is the humanist community becoming stronger in weaker recently, what is the progress report in general?

Aliyu: Let me tell you something. The campaign for humanism may not be moving as fast as we would like, but it is definitely growing day by day.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/04/21

Dr. Jon Cleland Host is a scientist who earned his Ph.D. in materials science at Northwestern University & has conducted research at Hemlock Semiconductor and Dow Corning since 1997. He holds eight patents and has authored over three dozen internal scientific papers and eleven papers for peer-reviewed scientific journals, including the journal Nature. He has taught classes on biology, math, chemistry, physics and general science at Delta College and Saginaw Valley State University. Jon grew up near Pontiac, and has been building a reality-based spirituality for over 30 years, first as a Catholic and now as a Unitarian Universalist, including collaborating with Michael Dowd and Connie Barlow to spread the awe and wonder of the Great Story of our Universe (see www.thegreatstory.org, and the blog at evolutionarytimes.org). Jon and his wife have four sons, whom they embrace within a Universe-centered, Pagan, family spirituality. He currently moderates the yahoo group Naturalistic Paganism and posts videos on his YouTube Channel. Jon is also a regular columnist at HP. His column is called Starstuff, Contemplating.

Here we talk about his views, projects, and life, and extensively about Naturalistic Paganism and Humanistic Paganism.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You host a super-minority and intriguing view within the Humanist community, internationally. I haven’t seen much like it. So, I wanted to get the view out there, as another consideration. Often, there can be grazing the orbit of this manner of looking at the world in some popularizations of agnosticism, Humanism, and science, in à la carte manner. For example, the late Carl Sagan and Sagan’s intellectual descendant, Neil deGrasse Tyson (Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History), speak of the awe, majesty, power, and wonder of nature qua nature for them. This amounts to the sensibility without the formal personal identification and philosophical affirmation of Naturalism and Paganism, i.e., Naturalistic Paganism, where Tyson, for example, mightily identifies as an agnostic based on the not-knowing of certain things, trained as an astrophysicist, earned Humanist awards, gets coverage in the Humanist press, while never identifying as a Naturalistic Pagan or a Humanistic Pagan. Something like an Agnostic-Humanist with Pagan sensibilities. Let’s define some terms. What is paganism in this context? 

Dr. Jon Cleland Host: I’m glad that the term “Paganism” has evolved from its earlier use as a derogatory term applied by Christians to non-Christians (those out in the “country” – “paganus” in Latin) to a more accepting use now. Today, “Pagan” is an umbrella term encompassing many different spiritual paths. I think that the international Pagan Federation’s definition of “Pagan” is helpful:

“Pagan: A polytheistic or pantheistic nature-worshipping religion.”

Source: https://www.paganfederation.org/what-is-paganism/.

This includes a huge range of Pagan paths, including the Goddess worshipping Wiccan, the Atheist who knows how she is enmeshed in our vast web of life, the Odin worshipping Asatru, the follower of Bast, and so many more. Much of the reason for our diversity of belief is our rejection of the Christian idea of eternal torture for having the wrong beliefs. Because Pagans don’t expect anyone to be tortured for having different beliefs, it’s much more common (though not universal) for Pagans of different beliefs to accept each other. Our diversity gives us strength.

What’s most important, and what unites us Pagans, is that we Pagans explicitly celebrate our world, our Universe. We openly embrace the wonder, joy and awe we feel from being connected to, indeed being part of, our natural world. We don’t need an excuse or a reason, we feel the deep power of the atoms and cycles of which connect us. There is no embarrassment, and we don’t care if society doesn’t like it. Paganism gives us permission to dance under a waterfall, to be overwhelmed by a starry sky, to be in love with our world. We proudly proclaim that this is one F**ing awesome universe, to the point of worship, and if someone thinks that we shouldn’t say that, and that we should be worshipping only their imaginary sky daddy instead, then they can go jump in a (wonderful, awesome) lake.

Jacobsen: What is Humanism in this context?

Host: Humanism is an ethical approach to life that is based on reason, naturalism and making the best of this one life we know we have, for ourselves and for everyone. Though originally focused on humanity, Humanists today include our whole Earth, our whole web of life, recognizing that we are not separate from the web of life, so we can’t have a flourishing humanity without a flourishing web of life. Humanists want to help build a just, healthy and sustainable world for everyone, and know that decisions based on reality and focused on this world are the best way to do that. I love the Humanist community. We do a lot of good. But I’ve found that Humanist based celebrations and rituals feel stilted at best. It’s really hard for us rational people to let go of the analysis and live in the moment – more on that below.

Jacobsen: What is naturalism in this context?

Host: By “Naturalism”, we are referring to philosophical naturalism – the belief that the universe is governed by natural laws, and that there aren’t any disembodied spirits, ghosts, deities, magic, or other supernatural. This is not a claim or assumption, but is rather a conclusion – the result of simply trying to be unbiased. Why do I say that?

Well, consider the opposite. Imagine that I was to say that supernatural things are real. Well, how would I support that? Perhaps by pointing to sacred scripture, such as, say, the Amitabha Sutra. But if I accept the Amitabha Sutra as describing reality, then that means that I have to reject other sacred scripture (say, the Pearl of Great Price), because they contradict each other. In fact, the same thing happens with any supernatural belief source. Oh, I talked firsthand with a person who had a personal vision of the supernatural? But then why would I accept that over another person’s personal revelation, which contradicts it?

Should I believe one over the other simply because I randomly happened to meet one person and not the other? OK, how about I apply some critical thinking to the other revelation? I would soon find that the other revelation is not supported by the evidence. So does that mean I should just believe the first person’s revelation – hook, line and sinker? Of course, that’s not being fair. And as soon as I apply the same critical testing to the revelation from the first person, I see that it also is unsupported by the evidence. In fact, realizing that people “remember” things that didn’t happen (big topic – look it up), or that humans can and do hallucinate (with or without the aid of drugs), and that literally thousands of people have described supernatural revelations, shows that even if I myself remember having a revelation, that it too might not survive a look at the evidence. If a revelation does survive a look at the evidence, then I can just go by the evidence and then I don’t need the revelation anyway. In fact, if I accept my own memory of a revelation as a way to know what’s true, then what possible basis could I have for rejecting someone’s revelation telling them to kill people in a terrorist attack?

Additional examples of supernatural beliefs are all around us – in religions and pop culture. Looking at any of them shows pretty quickly that people believe in supernatural things for often random or emotional reasons, such as which country they happened to be born in, or what their parents believed, or who one’s friends are. If we are to fairly look at beliefs, then it’s hard to avoid a conclusion of naturalism (as explained above). Perhaps the clearest evidence for this the fact that we naturalists can say to nearly everyone (to Muslims, Asatru, Christians, Hindus, etc) that “you already believe in practically everything that we believe in”. Nearly everyone already believes in things like atoms, like gravity, sound, rockets, cooking, animals, and so on. The things that everyone agrees are real are very likely real – because the overwhelming evidence is why there is nearly universal agreement on their reality. For us naturalists, those are our beliefs (more at https://humanisticpaganism.com/religious-naturalism/). For me at least, my naturalism gives me profound meaning and purpose (link https://humanisticpaganism.com/2014/03/12/starstuff-contemplating-by-jon-cleland-host-a-naturalistic-credo/).

This means that naturalism is not an arbitrary choice among equals, and is certainly not dogmatically believing what one is told. The demographic patterns, the evidential justification, the robustness to testing, and so much more show that we naturalists are not picking naturalism willy-nilly from a menu of equally likely worldviews, listed after, say, “Catholicism, Zoroastrianism, …” and just before “Jainism, Crystal Healing, Judaism, etc.”. Unlike the others, naturalism is the only path which says that because our world is what is important, and because real understanding is most likely to give the best results, finding the most likely truth is more important than following tradition, obeying dogma or believing things for arbitrary reasons. Instead, naturalism means that we look at the evidence, form hypotheses, test them, revise them based on the evidence, and repeat. It means that we look at the tested and predictive consensus of the experts in areas we can’t test ourselves, and it means that all conclusions are tentative, getting us closer to the likely truth.

Because believing wrong things leads to taking wrong actions, and because taking wrong actions hurts real people (others, ourselves and/or future generations), naturalism seems to me to be the only ethical approach to knowledge. There are, of course, a wide range of consequences to different beliefs. I’m certainly not saying that all non-naturalistic belief systems are horrible. It’s quite clear that the Judaism of Anne Frank makes the world a better place compared to the religious belief system of the KKK. Also, all of us have been influenced by our life history, and I’m grateful for being brought to the point where I could choose to test my beliefs against the evidence (many people never get that opportunity). I’d like to think that believing things based only on evidence is simply a matter of self-respect and respect for everyone, but, of course, our life histories are more complicated than that.

Jacobsen: Following the last three questions, what knits these together in two sets of two as either Humanistic Paganism or Naturalistic Paganism?

Host: Naturalism brings hard-headed scrutiny of the evidence. While not always fun (like most humans, none of us enjoy the slow realization that one of our beliefs is likely wrong), it gives us the wonderful gift of being wrong a little less often. Like other forms of honesty, it is overall a small price to pay for the benefits to us and our world. Naturalism means that we are a little more likely to have the positive effect on the world we intend, and by at least trying to use critical thinking in every area of our lives, we are a little more likely to avoid the lies, and resulting harm, from a demagogue.

But there is another huge benefit – one that is perhaps a surprise to some. At least for me – and I’ve heard this from other too – naturalism brings an amazement, an awestruck wonder, to our lives. To see the marvels all around us, and especially to learn about the workings of each through the incredible wealth of information we now have though science, fills me with a joyous astonishment. It’s impossible to describe. I’ve tried to do so in a post (https://humanisticpaganism.com/2014/06/11/starstuff-contemplating-by-jon-cleland-host-the-wonder-amplifier/). Simply put, learning more about the scientific details of every aspect of our Universe makes them each all the more rapturous. At first, I really wasn’t sure this would continue – but it never stops. Every year I learn more and find more incredible things, and they seem to feed on each other, maybe squaring the wonder over and over as I learn more. Even after a half-century of life, there is no end in sight. I’m especially grateful to Carl Sagan for helping open this door for me.

This joy could be trapped inside. But it’s not. Raising kids helps – kids, like Pagans, don’t need permission to revel in the joy of a waterfall, forest ridge or science experiment, and neither does their Dad! Paganism also provides a life-changing, a life-giving, outlet for this joy given by our universe. The rituals, the daily practices and especially the recognition that our real universe is deeply, powerfully sacred, are things that enrich my life.

Naturalism and Paganism are knitted together in my life with the universe supplying a deep well of inspiration, and Paganism providing the tools that help me live this inspiration, to drink it in and weave it into my life. Together, they are so much more than either could be alone.

Jacobsen: How did you enter the world as a Catholic (imposed) and come to the point of Unitarian Universalism, Humanistic Paganism, and Naturalistic Paganism?

Host: My own history starts out with the very common story of one leaving Catholicism. I was raised Catholic, and unlike some, was still solidly Catholic in my teens. But then I started to see contradictions. Logical problems, like “if God is just, why are non-Catholics sent to Hell, if they are raised in another religion?” etc. I even booked a time with a priest to discuss them. I thought that since the Catholic church had been around for well over 1,000 years, with tons of top-notch scholars, these silly questions must have been figured out many centuries ago. The priest offered trite sayings that didn’t answer the questions. It began to dawn on me that there the “answers” *didn’t exist*! Such a huge shift takes time, and it was years before I could look at things based mostly on evidence instead of how I had been taught to see things. Looking at the evidence, it became clear that the traditional religions had grown from real needs, and been invented by people, partially to gain power over others. I also realized that many religions have been, and continue to be, harmful in many ways, including fighting against women’s rights, the abolition of slavery, LGBT rights, scientific advancement, and evidence-based problem-solving. I became the stereotypical Atheist, eschewing all religious observations because they weren’t based in reality. I found this to be too empty. I’m human – I need emotional connection, colour, vibrancy. I realized that humans for well over five thousand years, and probably much more, have been finding deep significance in the yearly cycle of the Sun, and especially the sunrise moment of the Winter Solstice. So I started a simple practice – watching the sunrise on the Winter Solstice. I found that it is invigorating to be celebrating, noticing, and being deeply moved by, this one moment in time when our Ancestors stood in fear and hope, and when we, with understanding given by science, can stand in confidence that the Sun will return. These powerful moments gained strength every year, connecting me to billions of lives of people who, like me, strove to attach meaning to the best and most reliable understanding out of the world around us.

I met my wife around that time, and with that powerful connection growing every year, it was only natural for us to add the Summer Solstice. The others were added over time, until we’re celebrating the Wheel of the Year. We realized how moving, how awe-inspiring, we found this approach to be – drawing on the grand Universe as revealed to us by science, and celebrating that connection with the Wheel of the Year and other Pagan metaphors. We discussed a lot of names, and settled on Naturalistic Paganism because it both described what we were (instead of what we were not, as in the term “Atheist”), while also being clear (“naturalism” has a clear philosophical definition – “no supernatural”). That was 2003. We started a webpage (Naturalpagans.org), and a yahoo group followed (Naturalistic Paganism). Later (2011), B. T. Newberg created the Humanistic Paganism website (having arrived at the same idea independently). B.T. explains this history and the longer-term history of Naturalistic Paganism in this post. https://humanisticpaganism.com/2015/06/09/exploring-the-historical-roots-of-naturalistic-paganism-by-b-t-newberg/ I joined the team around 2015, and it has been wonderful seeing this (and other) forms of Naturalistic Paganism continue to grow (such as Atheopaganism, see below).

Throughout all of this, It’s been wonderful to connect with other Pagans in the wider Pagan community, and join in many different rituals and celebrations. It can be a tricky balance at times between my own hard-nosed naturalism/atheism and the prevalence of pseudoscience/woo in the wider Pagan community. I sometimes have to remind myself to consider if a supernatural belief is very harmful or not, but overall it’s been great to simply enjoy a ritual with others, even if we personally think of the language used differently – such as if many others see a deity as literal and I see a metaphor. After all, no one thinks anyone is going to hell for being a heretic.

Jacobsen: How does materials science training help with developing a clearer picture of the world rather than one clouded by mystery assuming a form of non-technical operations to the world? I separate this form of mystery from an empirical mystery point of view standard in all or most great scientists, or the epithet used against some others as in “the New Mysterians.”

Host: The most important part of my Materials Science background has been learning critical thinking and logical skills, which are universal to the sciences and needed for avoiding common errors in thinking. These include treating evidence as more reliable than tradition, testing hypotheses (and especially being able to change one’s view if unsupported), looking for logical fallacies, and so on. A good overview of these can be seen in Carl Sagan’s “Baloney detection kit”.

Being aware of the most often abused ways to deceive people is especially important. There are too many to go into here, but one that I’ve seen a lot of, especially today, is when a single case is used to make a point, often hiding the real picture. For instance, a shared video of a single mild case of Covid-19 used to say that the whole pandemic isn’t a concern, or the voice of a black Trump supporter shown to suggest that most black people support Trump, or the case of someone who prayed and then their cancer went into remission, etc. An understanding of large and small numbers allows one to see how we are fooled and make responsible choices.

Though I personally learned these guidelines of clear thinking through science, they are much more universal than that. Nearly all of us need this to be beneficial to those around us, to ourselves, to wider society, and to future generations. These aren’t “just for scientists”. All of us make choices about our own medical care, our own lifestyle, our own votes for our leaders, our environment, how we teach the kids in our lives, etc. Clear thinking is essential for all of those and so much more.

These are at least as important today as ever. With a US president who routinely lies, pseudoscience appearing online and on the TV, and a rise in evidence denials such as the anti-vaxxer and flat-earth movements, our world needs clear thinking to reduce the damage around us.

Jacobsen: How have the working relationships with Michael Dowd and Connie Barlow developed into the present? Any particular fun and funny stories to share in the midst of collaboration?

Host: Sure! Once, we were recording an interview and suddenly Connie stopped Michael in mid-sentence. She said “wait, there – look! There’s a bald eagle going for fish on the lake!”. We turned and sure enough, there was an eagle who had swooped down to the lake surface and was working to regain altitude. We couldn’t tell if the eagle had a fish or not. Connie quipped “Yeah, life is tough not havin’ a home!” (they don’t have a permanent house, but rather are constantly travelling to different speaking engagements). We were recording the interview rather quickly before the rest of my family arrived, after which it would have been difficult due to my four rambunctious kids.

You can hear this interview (including the eagle part) here. It’s great for those of us interested in a naturalistic lifestyle. http://inspiringnaturalism.libsyn.com/4b_jon_cleland_host_it_s_all_really_there.

(the other interview recorded that day is also relevant for a naturalistic lifestyle) http://inspiringnaturalism.libsyn.com/4a_jon_cleland_host_inspiring_naturalism_for_families.

Jacobsen: You have 4 children. Can you clarify, please? What is “Universe-centered, Pagan, family spirituality”?

Host: Yes, let’s break that down.

“Universe-centered” – Focused on this real world, not on some imaginary afterlife, or any other supernatural idea. While this seems like a minor point (“why not live this life while imagining a possible heaven?”), it turns out that it’s a huge shift. If we are focused on this world, then we work to make this world better, instead of treating this world as unimportant, as one might do if they thought there were going to another world in a few short decades. If we are focused on this world, we work to make everyone’s life better, instead of trying to please this or that imaginary space ghost.

Pagan: We Pagans celebrate our Earth, its cycles, its seasons, and our universe. We do so often using the Wheel of the Year, the four directions, and Pagan metaphors, often in the Pagan community. The many practices we do have become a fulfilling part of my life, and covering all of them would be a book in itself. Here are some of them.

The Wheel of the Year: The Wheel of the Year is simply the calendar year mapped onto a circle, with 8 holidays. These are the Solstices, Equinoxes, Thermstices, and Equitherms (the peaks and midpoints of the yearly cycle of light and warmth). These are described in detail here, along with the specific celebrations we hold in our family. (https://humanisticpaganism.com/2015/03/09/starstuff-contemplating-our-powerful-sabbats-by-john-and-heather-cleland-host). We hold many of these in our stone circle – a place the has stones for the directions (the four cardinal points plus the directions halfway between them). Over time, repeatedly using this place as sacred has helped make it a special place for us all.

Ritual: We usually attend or hold a ritual for each holiday and at other times. These vary over a huge range. As humans, we feel more group energy with more people – at least more than just a single person, and over 10 is even better. Most of these are with a few other Pagan families, and are often simple enough to include the kids. Pagan rituals often start with casting a circle to designate sacred space, and then calling each direction to connect us to the Earth. Our Ancestors for millennia lived and died depending on knowing the directions, and so there is a reason they touch our hearts. To get a feel for the power and poignancy of Pagan rituals, finding one and attending it is much more effective than any words I can put down here (some rituals are much better than others). But I can give a summary of the most recent large ritual I was at (which had around 200 people, at Convocation in Detroit, February 2020). This was a ritual to honour our Ancestral mothers. In a darkened room lit by candlelight, we formed a (very large!) circle. After a basic start to the ritual, the person leading the ritual led us through a story like a description of our Ancestors, leading back through time, with a melodic, rhythmic, ritual voice. The floor had six large paintings of Ancestral mothers from our past. By this time I felt distinctly out of my day to day life, as if I was in a timeless place. A chant was raised, and with the slow chant, we formed lines, slowly walking past the images, taking time to look at each one and thank them. A mirror gave us each a chance to look at ourselves, seeing who we have become and who these mothers have given us. At the front of the darkened room was a large, dimly lit painting of the Lascaux cave bull painting. We each pressed our hand into a bowl of paint, and put our handprint on the painting, as if we were in Lascaux, 17,000 years ago. The ritual continued with more time for meditation on what we had felt, and steps to bring us back to normal time and a normal state of mind. This was a deeply centring experience – the kind of experience I would not want to be absent from my life. Similarly, even the simple rituals for the eight points of the Wheel of the Year greatly help in feeling connected to our Earth, to feel like I’m not missing watching the seasons pass.

There are a lot more Pagan practices in our family life – many are described in the links.

Family: My kids are the most important aspect of my life, and any spirituality which is completely self-centred is not healthy, so it’s not a surprise that our family is centrally important in my spirituality. As described in the link above (and here https://humanisticpaganism.com/2014/12/14/starstuff-contemplating-by-heather-and-jon-cleland-host-celebrating-meaning-in-our-lives-through-family-holidays/), there are specific, fun ways that we celebrate each holiday with the kids. If you want to find out what is important to someone, asking them is not necessarily the best way to find out. Instead, look at two things: their calendar and their chequebook. Where we put our time and money will show what is important to us – and likely what our effect on future generations will be. Holidays are no different – they teach our kids (and ourselves!) what is important. If holidays are empty consumerism, or worse, “celebrate” things we don’t believe or support, then what do the kids learn from that? This is why we make sure that our holidays teach the kids that we are part of the Earth, that our Universe is awesome, and that having fun is both important and can be done in a reality-based way. For this reason, what we do with the kids is at least, if not more, important than me personally being moved by a ritual. It’s a delicate balance to make our family celebrations honest and real, while still being similar enough to the surrounding culture so that none of this becomes too hard to maintain over many years. For instance, for Yule, we do have gifts and a tree. The gifts are opened on Winter Solstice morning, and the tree is fully reality-based.

Jacobsen: Any upcoming projects to announce for us?

Host: Yes! Though everything is shut down now with the pandemic, when life returns to normal I hope to continue discussions in the Detroit area Pagan community about an outdoor sacred ritual location. One cool thing about Pagan ritual is that we like to hold them outdoors. A ritual at sunrise or under the moonlight, in a forest or clearing, taps into environments that put our brains into a different state due to millions of years of evolution.

Also, a good friend of mine in the Naturalistic Pagan community just started a nontheistic Pagan podcast, called “The Wonder: Science Based Paganism”. The plan is for a podcast every week! Here is the link. https://thewonderpodcast.podbean.com/.

Jacobsen: Any recommended, authors, organizations, or speakers?

Host: For the wonder of Naturalism, I highly recommend the original Cosmos Series by Carl Sagan. It’s on Netflix and other outlets. Even after decades, the only thing out of date is Dr. Sagan’s turtleneck sweater. The recent second Cosmos Series by Neil DeGrasse-Tyson is a very close second. These are both perfect for family viewing and discussion except for the youngest kids. For the youngest kids, start them off with the first and second seasons of Scooby Doo (where all supernatural claims turn out to be a fake money making scam), Grandmother Fish (by Jonathan tweet), and walks in the woods.

Though our Naturalistic Pagan community is still small, we are growing, and already have resources out there. I edit the Humanistic Paganism blog (https://humanisticpaganism.com/, also on Facebook), there is a rapidly growing Atheopagan community (https://atheopaganism.wordpress.com/, also on Facebook) which Mark Green started, and two books have also just come out – “Atheopaganism” by Mark Green and “Godless Paganism” Edited by John Halstead. I’m available to speak, as are probably others. I’d also recommend checking out your local Pagan or CUUPS (Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans) group. It’s hit or miss, but many of us are out there, and we are growing every day. There is a reason, after all, that myself, B. T. Newberg, Mark Green, John Halstead, and many others realized this same idea of Naturalistic Paganism independently.

Also, my wife (Heather) and I wrote a book about some of our family practices – specifically about how we celebrate birthdays by atomic number (so a 6^th birthday is has a carbon theme – the 6^th element, an 8^th birthday has an oxygen theme, etc.). The book is “Elemental Birthdays” by Jon and Heather Cleland Host, and it has birthday party plans, science experiments for each birthday, etc. It’s available at (http://www.solstice-and-equinox.com/elementalbirthdays.html).

Jacobsen: Any final feelings or thoughts in conclusion based on the conversation today?

Host: Sure. There is an important concept that I haven’t touched on yet. I’ve explained why naturalism is not just another belief system among all the different superstitions out there, but instead is the simple result of trying to be as least biased as possible when looking at the world. I haven’t explained why Paganism is important, at least to me.

Understanding the literal mountain of evidence from geology, biology, anatomy, cladistics, genetics, and more makes it clear that we have evolved from non-human Ancestors. The evidence shows that our brains have evolved, just as our arms, livers, feet and ears have evolved. We can better understand those organs by looking at their evolutionary history and resulting structure. People often shy away from doing the same with our brains, I think due to the cultural prevalence of philosophical dualism, itself a hangover from Christianity (which is fully dualistic). Dualism is beyond the scope of this interview, but the point is that we can look at our brains the same way we look at any other part of our bodies – in light of the reality of evolution.

Looking at our brains in the light of evolution, we see that they have evolved from the inside out, with primitive, basic functions deepest down, at the brain stem, and subsequent additions on top of that. Of course, this is a model, and is not perfect. Evolution doesn’t make anything perfect, but jury-rigs everything, making connections here and there, and some happen to survive. This gives us a roughly four-part brain, with the deepest part, the brain stem, governing basic survival. This is our Lizard brain, in control of the four “F’s” – Feeding, Fleeing, Fighting, and Mating. The next part out is the mammal brain (the limbic system), which is where our emotions, “gut feelings” and feelings of love, connection, and bonding come from. The biggest part is the neo-cortex, our “monkey mind” or primate brain – able to figure out complex puzzles, handle language, and analyze data. Lastly, in the front, we have the Frontal Lobes – our “higher human”, which can make long term plans, think about the future or even the time long after we die.

We need to feed and satisfy all parts of that brain which we all have (notice that Maslow’s hierarchy is simply the brain structure described above). Religion taps into the needs of the limbic system – the mammal brain which needs community, needs ritual, and needs feelings of purpose and bonding (and hopefully the parts above that too). Religion activates many of our most powerful motivators and response centers, guaranteeing the person’s attention and devotion. This means that humans, with rare exceptions, need a spirituality/religion. Humans will seek one out, and even build one themselves (often only a temporary solution). If a healthy, reality-based, beneficial religion is not available, millions of people will join harmful religions, harming our future world. If we are to have any hope of building a just, healthy, sustainable world for ourselves and future generations, we need to build a spiritual approach that is both reality-based and still includes ritual, symbolism, practices, and community. Carl Sagan recognized this too, when he said:

A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.

Building such a religion is not easy. Building anything like that is a lot of work, and this is even more difficult because many of the most effective survival tools of supernatural religions (thought control, supernatural threats, etc.) are harmful, and so avoiding them is needed, but makes our task harder. Our own evolved brains require the emotion, connection, and feelings of rituals and ceremonies, while at the same time, Humanist rituals and ceremonies are often stilted and uncomfortable (as I alluded to earlier), if they happen at all. That’s a huge topic, which I’ve written a 15,000-word essay on (maybe I should clean it up and publish it as a book?). I won’t be able to cover it well, but here is a summary.

Why and how are Humanist (and any new, reality-based) rituals often stilted and uncomfortable? Two of the main reasons are because they lack emotion, and because they are unfamiliar.

Humanist rituals often lack emotion because we Humanists are often very rational, evidence-based, people who care what is really, literally true. We know that to keep from being fooled (especially by ourselves!), we need to control our emotions and instead use evidence and logic to determine what is most likely real. In addition to this, we see the immense harm of emotional thinking around us every day – from nationalism, racism, devotion to lying leaders, religious wars, quack health “cures”, and so much more – usually preying on the most vulnerable. Emotion is like fire – it’s very useful, and essential to our lives – yet it can be intentionally abused or accidentally released out of control, and in either case, real people suffer. This can make us uncomfortable when we try to harness it in even healthy ways when those are in a context (ritual or ceremony) so similar to the ways it is usually abused. Effective ritual and ceremony draw on the power of our emotions which requires that we mute the rational, analytical parts of our brains. We Humanists don’t easily mute that part of our brain (for good reason).

The other reason might be harder to see. A major part of the power of a ritual or ceremony is the feeling of familiarity and comfort it brings (do you remember the warmth from rituals of your childhood?). It feels safe and familiar because you’ve been doing it over and over for years. But hold on. Humanists don’t have rituals we’ve been doing for years! The familiarity isn’t there, and so you feel “unnatural” and self-conscious instead of comforted and secure. Worse, we can’t do the Christian rituals many of us are familiar with, because they are based on a false and harmful worldview which we don’t want to promote. It’s a catch-22: it takes repetition for the rituals to fully work, but it’s hard to repeat them when they aren’t fully working. With repetition, the rituals eventually begin to fully work, but it’s a big enough barrier (like an activation energy in chemistry) that prevents most people from getting to the other side. This is doubly true for a small group seeking new people, because everything we do will be new to a new person, and hence will not feel as natural as rituals done around longtime friends or family.

Both of these reasons are why rites of passage rituals are so much easier for us Humanists than seasonal or other rituals. With a baby blessing (previously called a baptism), wedding or funeral, the powerful emotions make easy for us to let the emotion take over – so that essential step is accomplished. Similarly, the situation gives us a clear and unquestioned focus (a baby, couple, or deceased loved one), and also provides a lot of familiarities – both from the many dear friends and family often present as well as with known parts to the ritual (such as vows, rings, etc.). It seems that a good path forward for any reality-based religion, whether Humanism or Naturalistic Paganism, is to first hone our ritual skills by celebrating these rites of passage rituals, while slowly adding the repetition and practice needed to get similar power from other rituals. Other components and methods of effective ritual are too big a topic for this interview, but my earlier description of a ritual contains many of them, and you can also learn them both by reading on this topic, and even better – by attending rituals, which is part of why I attend Pagan rituals.

I can’t know if Naturalistic Paganism will be the religion that succeeds in both rituals and overall. However, attempts at Naturalistic Islam or Christianity are chained to the anchor of their vicious, flat-earth “holy” books, as are many other religions. Any religion that rejects naturalism sets us up for the wars of “whose supernatural revelation is right” that have already killed literally dozens of millions of people. I’m sure there are other ways too. We’ll have to see how things go, but I know that for me, Naturalistic Paganism gives me hope for the future, and joy, meaning and purpose for today.

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

Host: Thank you!

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/04/13

Wesam Ahmad works for Al-Haq. He is a Palestinian-American born and raised in the U.S. He earned a B.A. in Political Science and Sociology, and a J.D., from Louisiana State University. Also, he completed an LL.M./M.L. in International Human Rights Law from the National University of Ireland – Galway. Al-Haq is an independent Palestinian human rights organization based in Ramallah, West Bank (occupied Palestinian territories). It was founded in 1979 devoted to documenting human rights violations of “parties to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” or Israeli-Palestinian issue with the continual production/issuance of reports and detailed legal studies.

Here we talk about the blockade, the Question of Palestine, humanizing the issue, the Great March of Return/Great Return March, illegal settlement businesses in the West Bank, and more.

*Interview conducted on April 1, 2020.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Okay, so, let’s start with some of the more perennial issues well past a decade since their inception to do with the blockade, what is the current status of this? What have been some of the impacts? Some people may not know, but the serious impacts on the lives of Palestinians due to this. The blockade and how this affects Palestinian society in general in the oPt.

Wesam Ahmad: The situation in Gaza has been dire for an extremely long time. Even U.N. agencies addressed the issue, the current situation, about Gaza being an uninhabitable place with extreme population density and lack of access to resources, and various other factors like water and electricity, it makes the situation very difficult. This has been the result of concerted efforts by the Israeli occupation to confine and punish the Palestinian population living in the Gaza Strip as part of its broader policy of occupation toward the entirety of occupied Palestinian territory (oPt). The impact is having a very dire impact on Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip. The ability to pursue the most basic elements of a dignified life are stripped away. They are unable to access one of the greatest resources, which is the Mediterranean Sea, whether for fishing or, in a larger sense, the access to natural gas reserves. So, Israel controls the entirety of the occupied Palestinian territories, but, in many ways, takes advantage of the resources there, as well.

Jacobsen: In regard to some semblance of justice, this has been marginally acquired for Palestinians and Palestinian society in general. This is one of the longest-standing issues in the United Nations entitled the Question of Palestine. Also, it is one of the major, last colonial facets of the 20^th-century spanning into the 21^st. There have been some developments with regards to the International Criminal Court, the ICC, with Fatou Bensouda (Chief Prosecutor of the ICC). What, from the perspective of Al-Haq, are some of the updates there?

Ahmad: I mean, like you said, Scott. The issue is very much a connection between the colonial past of the world and the present situation Palestinians are facing. It is a test for international law in terms of its development to stop these colonial practices. Practices the world has deemed as inappropriate behaviour in international relations. We see the ICC as a manifestation of the development of international law as an institution to hold perpetrators accountable who are involved in the breach of international law and various crimes. The test is for the ICC to stay true to its principles and show the revolution of international law, and the institutions associated therewith, are principled and withstand even politically sensitive issues. Otherwise, it would only be another institution in which only the weak are subjected to account.

Jacobsen: In the Gaza Strip, in the West Bank, and in East Jerusalem, what are the conversations among civilians? How do they view it? Their attitudes and feelings to humanize the issue, where the abstract legal and other aspects are covered along those lines.

Ahmad: In one sense, it is about trying to control that segment of the population and ensure the costs do not outweigh the benefits of the control. So, Israel is able to benefit from the captive population therein, in terms of sales of products. Also, it is able to exploit the natural gas reserves off the coast of the Mediterranean preventing Palestinian access to it. So, it becomes part of the broader matrix of control, where Israel is trying to manage the colonial practices and the people under its control while, at the same time, exploiting whatever resource are available, whether natural resources or the people themselves, in order to maintain this cost-benefit calculus.  

Jacobsen: Every week, for some time (March 30, 2018, to December 27, 2019) [Ed. Originally, these were planned from Land Day (March 30) in 2018 to Nakba Day (May 15) in 2018.], there was the Great March of Return/Great Return March. What were some of the communities’ reactions to this and the international community?

Ahmad: Look, the Great March of Return, like any developments in a Palestinian context, is part of a much bigger issue. We can’t look at that in isolation. It is very much connected to the ongoing blockade and the creation of this uninhabitable situation. You don’t have to be Palestinian. You don’t have come from Gaza in order to understand human nature and the reaction to a horizon of an uninhabitable society before you. The ability to see how people would react to this prospect. It is against human nature to simply sit back and accept this kind of demise. We are seeing this around the world today. Even the freest societies have fights over toilet paper, so, we have to look into the nature of the human being. What makes them react in a particular way within a particular context? Then you can very much see the parallels.

Jacobsen: Regarding some of the issues in some of the freer societies, and in some of these societies with more abundant resources, for example, the mentioning of the hoarding of toilet paper hitting the newsstands in some of these more abundant countries. How is COVID-19 impacting Israeli society and Palestinian society?

Ahmad: A dramatic impact on everyone in the world. Given the Palestinian context, the inability of the Palestinians to decide their own fate because so many things are under Israeli control. It highlights how interconnected we are and how important it is for us to have freedom. Not simply for the purposes of determining our fate, but the ability to ensure our survival, these things are very much becoming more acute in the developments with regards to the pandemic. Even more so in the current moment than before, there is an opportunity for the world to, not only sympathize with the Palestinians but, empathize and relate more than before.

Jacobsen: As you were noting, many of the issues Palestinians are facing, which are numerous and enormously impactful in their daily lives. The issue around COVID-19 and the lack of resources – intensive care beds, masks, testing kits, etc.; the lack of these can be largely attributed to the blockade.

Ahmad: With regards to the Gaza Strip, absolutely, the blockade exists in different manifestations and different parts of occupied Palestinian territory. It is the sea access, which gives it a unique dimension with regards to Gaza. Anything Palestinians want to import or export is subject to Israeli discretion, whether it is in Gaza or in the West Bank. It is much more difficult when you’re dealing with the situation in Gaza.

Jacobsen: In fact, there was another thing. The U.N. Human Rights Council released a list of businesses dealing internationally – Israel, Luxembourg, France, Netherlands, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Countries doing business, basically, on illegal settlements in the West Bank with the number coming out as 112. Is this a healthy first step in moving things towards justice rather than not in this domain of businesses in the illegal settlements in the West Bank?

Ahmad: It is an important positive development. It is a U.N. body providing affirmation to this issue. However, at the same time, it is a very conservative document, which does not take into account the much broader scope and engagement of multinational corporations within the Israeli settlement enterprise. For us, it is about keeping the U.N. involved in this issue, but, also, to not forget the information in the U.N. database does not cover everything. We have to ensure all actors are not involved in violations of international humanitarian law and not profiting from the conflict.

Jacobsen: From the point of view of Al-Haq, what would be the scope required to more accurately represent, not only the businesses listed in the U.N. Database but also, the aforementioned multinational corporations and others?

Ahmad: I can direct you to a fellow organization, which is an Israeli human rights organization. It has a much more extensive listing of corporations. It gives a sense of the scope because there is direct and indirect involvement. There is a supply chain. There is a benefit. All of these things. If you really want to address the issue of fatality, then you have to look at this in a more holistic manner. As they say, “Follow the money.”

Jacobsen: What other organizations would you recommend for readers today?

Ahmad: There are many great organizations working very hard, even within the current situation. I’ve mentioned “Who Profits.” B’Tselem, some of the Israeli organizations, Adalah (Palestinian organization in Israel), some other great Palestinian organizations in the Gaza Strip (Al Mezan, Palestinian Center for Human Rights). You have a lot of other great Palestinian organizations here in the West Bank focused on specific issues, e.g., Defense for Children International – Palestine (DCI-P) focused on children. Anyone who wants more information can go to Al Haq’s website and see the various organizations, which we work with, to get more information.

Jacobsen: Will there be any upcoming reports or reportage that will be particularly prescient and important for some of the topics covered today, including the ICC, COVID-19, and the blockade?

Ahmad: The pandemic has had an impact on a lot of the work that we’ve been doing. It is a question of balancing the things that were in the pipeline before and addressing the current situation. I think a lot of the timelier work will be related to the current situation and the COVID-19 outbreak, and how that plays out within the dynamics of the conflict. Other issues will be continuing to address the ICC, which is really within the hands of the Court because we’ve already submitted necessary documentation. Only last week, we had involvement in issues regarding the blockade in Gaza with other organizations. So, it is a very fluid situation, which we try to continue to balance more short-term issues and more long-term issues.

Jacobsen: Any final feelings or thoughts in conclusion based on the conversation today?

Ahmad: No, I think it’s great to have your readers interested in the situation here. I hope that as the situation develops over time; that we come to see our interconnectedness, to see ourselves as a collective of humanity rather than individual states competing with one another. Hopefully, this will lead to positive change for all.

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

Ahmad: Thank you, Scott, take care.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/04/10

Dr. Darrel Ray is a Former Clinical Psychologist in Practice (30 years) and an Organizational Psychologist, Speaker, and Activist, as well as one of the Founders of Recovering from Religion. Recovering from Religion is a 501(c)3 non-profit dedicated to helping people leave religion. He earned a B.A. in Sociology, an M.A. in Religion, and an Ed.D. in Counselling Psychology from the Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Also, he founded the Secular Therapy Project in April of 2012 providing support for those who are leaving or have left religion.

Here we talk about, once more, religion and work Dr. Ray does in supporting individuals who happened to have had highly bad, traumatic, experiences with religion and chose to leave it, with a connection to formal therapeutic interventions provided by Recovering from Religion in general as a resource and the Secular Therapy Project as a means by which to connect with secular therapists in particular.

*Interview conducted on March 20, 2020.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, some of the issues that we are seeing now. They have been a World Health Organization declaration of a pandemic with the symptomatology of COVID-19 produced by, SARS-CoV-2. It is, basically, the sequel that no one wanted from the 2002/2003 movie SARS-CoV-1. When we are looking at some of the services to those who are leaving or who have left the negative impacts of a traditional fundamentalist religion, what are some of your concerns, as someone who has studied this, looked into this, over time?

Darrel Ray: I am concerned that not only is the virus being spread biologically in normal ways. But that humans are facilitating the spread. So, you get ministers refusing to quarantine and having services anyway. You have priests, in Italy, going to visit people and, probably, spreading the virus themselves. Calvinists say that you can all drink out of the communion cup. And if they come to this particular religious group, God will protect you. Others will say that God will protect you, if you believe in their God virus. I call this a virus. People are taking advantage of people’s concerns to get more and more money for their religious organizations. I also see people coming to us. “Us” being Recovery From Religion. Those who are trying to suck people back into religion based on normal fears of this invisible virus. It is invisible as humans. We only know about it because we have molecular biology [Laughing], to back us up.

Jacobsen: Psychologically, for someone who might be on the fence around some of their fundamentalist upbringing, those believing in apparitions, miracles, efficacy of intercessory prayer. How do they, in times of crisis or in crises, get pulled back into that world of supernatural, magical thinking, wishful thinking?

Ray: Scott, we always go back to childhood. That is when you get infected with religious ideas. At the age of 3, 4, or 5 years old, I am guessing that you were taught English.

Jacobsen: Yes.

Ray: Somebody in Germany was taught German. You just accept it. You imbibe what is in your environment. Now, it would be nice to learn German or French. However, this is in retrospect. You did not have a choice. If you were raised in a very religious environment like Iran, Pakistan, a Jehovah’s Witness home in Colorado or a Mormon home in Utah, you would have not – at the age of 3, 4, or 5 – have thought, “Why aren’t my parents teaching me Catholicism or Buddhism?” It would not have occurred to you. While you are learning the language, you are learning a religion. Parents are very important to a child. You live or die based on the protection your parents give you. Your parents, let us go back to the old times, 100,000 years ago; you’re in the Savannah of Africa. Your parents say, “Don’t go over there in the bushes. There are lions that will eat you.” The next day, the parents say, “Don’t go over by that tree because there are demons that will infect you, or get you.” As a child, you have no way to know which to believe. So, you believe both. The same is true today. Parents say, “Don’t read that book or the Devil will get you. Don’t watch that television or Satan will infect your mind.” It is the same as “don’t go play outside in the street.” The children do not know which is true, so believes both. It is the way in which you imbibe language at that time in your life. Now, you are 30, 40, or 50 years old. You have believed this stuff as a child. You realize it was all bullshit.

There are no demons over there. Yet, your pre-conscious mind still harbours those fears and those ideas, and those beliefs. They are something that you learned right away. Certainly, you cannot unlearn them just as you could not unlearn the language learned at 3-years-old. You got language at 3-years-old. You got religion at 3-years-old. It is very difficult to unlearn something like that. What we are doing is to help people build strategies for bypassing those, it is not like you are going to unlearn it. I drive down the street. I see the “Love Jesus” signs.

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Ray: It pisses me off now. It is probably based on some learning from my grandmother many years ago. That is the reason people have a hard time leaving the religion. And why after leaving it, the draw is there. Literally, last night, I had an extended conversation with a former Baptist minister. Now, he has been out of the ministry for 5 years. He was up there preaching fire and brimstone as recently as 5 years ago. Now, he realizes it was all a con game. He is out. He talked about how difficult it is now with the coronavirus stuff going on, and the fear with it. Even though, he knows the science. He did not know before. He wants to go back to church. He still wants to pray. He wants to feel as he felt as a child when they sang children’s religious songs. I want the feeling of safety within my family, within my tribe. That is what your tribe did. Your tribe sang. Here is how we know that; the hymns of the Baptist church will make you feel comfortable. If you raised in a Baptist church, then you will feel comfortable with Baptist kinds of music. But if you wanted to get the religious music fix by going to a Catholic or an Anglican church, then those songs will not make you feel comfortable. In fact, they will make you feel uncomfortable. To this former Baptist preacher, I said, “You need to sing religious songs, sing them in a Lutheran church, see what happens.” He laughed. He laughed at me, “That won’t work. It has to be Baptist songs and stuff” [Laughing]. Therein lies the secret for how religion works, you are so young that you cannot reasonably understand what is going on. You feel secure with your tribe. But it can only be Baptist tribal stuff. You can be a full-on atheist and still get the comfort of singing Baptist songs.

Jacobsen: What about some of these multimillionaire mega-church pastors in the United States who are beginning to and will continue to abuse crises, epidemics, for personal financial gain? Do any particular examples come to mind?

Ray: Yes, Kenneth Copeland is probably the wealthiest mega-church minister out there. Joel Osteen is another major mega-church minister who is very wealthy. A good friend of mine, Hector Garcia, wrote an excellent book called Alpha God. It helps us understand how our primate nature to follow an alpha leader is so strong in us. That those people are simply taking advantage of a deeply embedded, probably almost instinctual, desire to find the alpha male and follow the alpha male. I do mean male. Because it does not work as well with the females of our species. As we all know, every species has a pattern and behaviour with regards to sex and sexuality and how people respond to sexual dominance, and sexual submission. So, you watch a troupe of chimpanzees. The top two or three males dominate the sexuality of all of the females. The females themselves do not present themselves to beta males. They only present themselves for sex to the alpha males. It is easy to understand as primates because every primate has this kind of pattern. They differ by species, of course. But we have the same pattern. We can see this in bonobos. We can see this in chimps. We can see this in gorillas. We can see this in ourselves. So, you have the sheikh who has four wives in Saudi Arabia, but then you have Mohammed who had fourteen wives as the alpha male. In Christian culture, you have the same things happening. Even if a male cannot have more than one wife, many, many ministers have been caught with his pants down with the wrong female.

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Ray: Because Christian mega-church ministers very well have groupies, like rock stars. Mick Jagger has groupies. We have women who will go to bed with him anytime. Chances are Kenneth Copeland does too. Same with Joel Osteen. They get caught. Then they seem to always get forgiven. They are forgiven because they are so valuable to the spreading of their particular God virus. You cannot fire a Catholic priest. It took 8 years or more to train that priest. You are not just going to throw him out because he raped a few children. They will send him to a new parish. The same thing happens with Baptist ministers. A Baptist minister rapes a 14-year-old girl in his congregation. They overlook it. They overlook it two or three times. Until, they send him off or send him to prison. What I am trying to illustrate, I am not saying this is about sex alone. I am talking about dominance and dominance hierarchies. Humans have an incredible need to follow the dominance hierarchy. That is why our current President got elected. He acts more dominant than just about anyone since Teddy Roosevelt. It is the way that he acts. It is attractive to a certain sector of the population that craves that form of leadership. It is how you get Hitler or Mao Zedong. These people have a way of tapping into the human need for dominant alpha males in our society. It makes them feel comfortable, even at the risk of their own life. This is what you see in alpha males, whether it is a great Assyrian ruler, or Julius Caesar. You name it. They know how to tap into the alpha male. The alpha male in any culture. That is what Kenneth Copeland does. That is what religious leaders do. People need to feel safe. That is what these people provide. A very visceral sense of safety under this alpha male. The biggest one in this framework is Yahweh, God, or Jesus. These guys represent that alpha male. That alpha male says that he protects you. There’s evidence that he can because the police and the army all follow the same alpha God, “In God we trust,” is on our license plates.

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Ray: It is all there and ties into alpha males, dominance hierarchies, and sexuality. You cannot divorce these things. We are animals, like chimpanzees.

Jacobsen: When you are having conversations with former religious leaders, in your country, it will be Christian of various forms. What are some of their transition points? What were the lynchpins? Because, in my experience in talking with people, not in a clinical way or with the background of knowledge you may have, it is the general sense of not all at once. Because the entire system of belief was built piece-by-piece and so falls away piece-by-piece. You noted this in an earlier response with an individual who may not believe in any god, but may still feel comfortable in the music or the community, or the worship aspect of faith while not believing any of it. Similar to those who may have left an abusive religious upbringing, do not believe in any of it, while has a visceral fear of hell, this sort of thing.

Ray: We see this a lot with people who come to us for help. That is, the journey is generally fast. Some people will say, “I can tell you the night that I figured it all out.” They can name the night or day. However, they bring with them the residuals of the former religious structure. The residuals hide. They are hard to find sometime, but they are there. For example, it comes out often in waking up in cold sweats over a nightmare of hell. We get thousands of chats per year – literally thousands, many may deal with the fear of hell. I mean 50% or, maybe, more of things that we deal with: the fear of hell or the fear of punishment in the afterlife. It may not be hell in the Christian sense. It may be hell in the Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist sense. They all have a kind of punishment. Some kind of consequence if you don’t live the life prescribed by them in life. Fear of hell is #1. It comes up over, and over, and over, again. There are other indicators of them bringing religious residuals into their new secular life. It often centres around sexuality. So, #2 behind the fear of hell are issues around their sexuality and things like, “I know it’s not wrong to masturbate, but I still feel guilty,” “I am a sex addict because I look at porn.” There’s tons of evidence that the most religious people self-identify the most as “sex addicts.” Not to mind, there is no such thing as sex addiction. There’s no way to define it. I have argued with atheists that have been atheists for 20 years who say that they are sex addicts. Help me understand, how did you get that diagnosis? “My mother-in-law diagnosed me” [Laughing]. “I look at porn once or twice a week.” I do not care if you look at porn once or twice an hour. You are still not a sex addict. So, get over that. You may have other issues. You may have some compulsions. You may have some fear of driving the issue. But it almost always comes down to early childhood religious training, as we spoke about earlier. So, people are simply responding to the programming. Even though, they are atheist, secular, agnostic. I do not care what you call yourself. You are still dealing with the programming. Sometimes, you can go an entire lifetime with a guilt, a shame, a fear, rooted in religion. You do not even know it is there. You may not even know that your inability to have good, positive sexual relationships with somebody is directly related to being spanked by your mother or father for touching yourself when you were 6 years old. All of that stuff that people get programmed with. It is a journey. It may be a lifelong journey. It may be 10 months. It is rarely, rarely under 2 or 3 years. Unless, you were raised in something like Episcopalians or Unitarians. Those people do not have much to get over. The Baptists, the Catholics, the Muslims, the Hindus, and the Buddhists, all of those religions. Do not let anybody tell you, “Buddhism is not a religion.” It is a fucking religion just like any of the others. It teaches as much shame and guilt about your body. It is as misogynistic as any patriarchal religion. That is my lecture on Buddhism.

Jacobsen: What are some examples of Buddhist sexism?

Ray: First of all, they take 9-year-old boys and put them in a monastery. There, they are victims of monks who could do whatever they want to do; the sex scandals in Thailand are as bad as any Catholic sex scandal. It is not just in Thailand. Although, this is the place where this has most clearly been exposed. Another thing is the theology: women are second-class citizens. It is harder for women to get the rewards of the so-called afterlife – nirvana, etc. – than a man. Also, women are second-class citizens within the hierarchy. Have you ever heard of a Dalai Lama who is female?

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Ray: [Laughing] There is no such thing. Because men are always dominant in Buddhism. It is a patriarchal religion down to its founding. So, people are always saying, “Buddhism is different.” No, it is not. Maybe, California Buddhism is different. But how many female Buddhist gurus are there? How many female gurus in Hinduism are there? There are few if any. It is, basically, misogynistic and patriarchal.

Jacobsen: When individuals make a transition, there are points that can be little mini-phase changes for them. When they start to do this within a community that may be highly religions, so, the ones that hit the newspaper stands and the online media outlets for Canadians when looking at the United States in the current moment would be the Evangelical Christians. In other cases, it is going to be Catholics. In general, it is two: the Evangelical Christians and the Roman Catholics taking the media time when Canadian secular people are looking at the United States, probably. Similarly, in Canada, it is about the same. It is, typically, the Evangelicals in certain areas of the country. In other cases, it is going to be Catholics. I think the Roman Catholic example is due to demographic dominance similar to the United States. When it comes to communities that are particular to the jot and tittle of Catholicism and Evangelicalism in the United States, and I would extend this to the Canadian landscape as well, what are typical things individuals can expect from that community when they find that they are not believers or are questioning their belief? How does this impact social life? Then how does this impact professional treatment, when they are talking with colleagues or at their workplace?

Ray: Wow – there are two big questions there. A third thing that I want to address right off the bat. You have a big problem in Alberta and in Manitoba because we get a lot of calls from them. We know it. Not very highly populated provinces of Canada, they are more like Alabama in some ways, Mississippi. They may not like me saying it [Laughing].

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Ray: I also want to expand the question. It is a universal pattern. It is not whether it is Catholic or Evangelical. We see the same pattern coming out in Mormonism and the same pattern coming out Jehovah’s Witnesses. We see the same pattern coming out of highly Islamic families in America as well as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. It is more a matter of degree than religion. If the religion is extremely fundamentalist, then the degree is going to be a hell of a lot more in terms of how they will be treated upon leaving that religion. We see a whole lot of Southern Baptist families disowning their children at any age, whether still teenagers at home or adults, over simply not believing their doctrine anymore. Even if the person leaves Baptists and becomes a Methodist, they may still be disowned. It is not just leaving the religion. We know of Catholic families who have disowned their children because they became Evangelical Christians. That pattern is a tribal thing: “You are no longer a part of our tribe. We are not going to protect you anymore. We are not going to give you the benefit of our largesse. You are not going to get a casserole when you are sick. You are no longer a part of us. You are ex-communicated socially if not theologically from our religion.” The pattern is the same whether Westboro Baptist Church, which is only 45 miles from my house, by the way. Or a Mormon polygamist [Laughing], if you will, family from Salt Lake City, Utah. The patterns are almost identical.

First, they get a rather strict warning and an offer to get back under Jesus’ protection. If they do not follow that warning, then they will be ostracized and put out of the community. They will be allowed back into the community in the case of the Mormons or the Jehovah’s Witnesses only if they show certain penances. With the Evangelicals, they cannot control people quite as much. But you are still not going to get back in as easy. Also, the Evangelicals do not have the formal structure that one sees in Mormonism or Catholicism being put out or being brought back in. You ask about the professional. There are two professional things that I want to talk about. If you are in a community dominated by a particular religion, such as Mormons in Utah or Baptists in Alabama, your boss is probably Mormon of Baptist too. You may not go to the same church. But once the boss finds out that you are now an atheist, your job may not be secure in the future. They will find ways to fire you. We get lots of examples, “I tried to hide my atheism. I did it for three years. My boss found out and fired me.” Even if you are fired for illegal means, who is going to sue him? What Lawyer is going to take his case? There is a whole structure for supporting and forcing people to stay inside of the religion or, at least, to keep their mouth shut. That is the crime. Scott, the crime is not necessarily becoming an atheist or becoming secular. It is opening your mouth about it. That is the crime.

Jacobsen: That is a very good point.

Ray: I told my parents at 16, “I don’t believe in this stuff anymore.”My parents said, “Okay, just keep your mouth shut and don’t tell anyone, because it will be a disgrace to the family. By the way, you still have to go to church, still have to sing in the choir, etc.” If the child agrees to not talk about their atheism, then they may be able to survive. We have many college kids saying, “I don’t believe any of this shit anymore. My parents said, ‘As long as you keep your mouth shut, we will keep paying your college bills. The minute that you open your mouth. We are cutting you off.’” That is a real thing that we see a lot.

Jacobsen: The parents are afraid of social opprobrium.

Ray: That is exactly right. Religion teaches, bring up your child in God’s name and nothing will go wrong. When the child questions or leaves, it becomes a judgment on the parents, “You must have done a bad job as a parent. Otherwise, your child would not have strayed.” It is a reflection of the parents. That is what they are afraid of suffering. That they were a bad parent. There is a scripture. But I cannot quite it right now – ‘Bring up the child in the ways of the Lord, and he will never go astray,’ which is bullshit. Children have a mind of their own.

The second thing that I want to talk about. When people leave, there are enormous mental health and emotional consequences for leaving a religion that dominates an entire community. Let us just give a radical example, which is not really that radical, a girl in Iran tells her family that she no longer believes. She may find herself being stoned to death. In Saudi Arabia, she may get her head cut off. She will, certainly, be abused by her family. It is no wonder that somebody leaving a religion under those circumstances might experience depression.

A mental condition, I am hesitant to call it a mental illness because it really is not. You may become depressed in that environment. But that is probably a pretty reasonable response to that environment. An illness denotes a problem or some internal problem. The internal problem in this case is the structure does not parallel the internal belief system. So, the cognitive dissonance that you are having to deal with every single day is difficult. It would cause emotional distress and, finally, depression. Back to the second part of that question. What will that parent do when their child is depressed, the child knows, “I am depressed.” They do not know the psychological component. The child knows, “I do not believe in this stuff anymore. Mom and dad are making me go to church and read the Bible. I don’t want to do that.” The conflict is causing cognitive dissonance and the child does not know how to deal with that, which causes depression. The parents say, “Our child is not acting right, Our child has flunked out of school and was a good student.” They send this person to a counsellor or a therapist. When the child gets there, it may be a Christian counsellor. Therein the professional piece, which I want to talk about, is being sent to a fucking Christian counsellor to deal with the depression brought on by the religion of Christianity.

We are seeing a massive number of schools training and graduating Christian counsellors who are licensable in many states. Liberty University is graduating licensable Christian marriage and family counsellors. Regents University, Oral Roberts University, Pat Robertson, George Fox University, all these universities are graduating people. Brigham Young University too, they teach that gayness is a disease and God will judge you, put you in hell, for being anything except straight, missionary position. There is another professional issue there. There is very little help for people leaving religion, even children, in the mental health world. There is a hell of a lot of apparently qualified counsellors, psychologists, psychotherapists, psychiatrist. I say, “Apparently qualified,” because their underlying belief structure is one of supernaturalism. If you pray good enough, then you will get over your depression. I have literally heard psychiatrists. This is an M.D. person. They say, “Yes, I will pray with my client.” They themselves have a religion “because I think prayer helps people get over depression.” The depression was caused by the thing that you were praying to in the first place.

That is why I created Recovering From Religion in 2009. We are 11 years old now. In 2012, I created the Secular Therapy Project because there are so damn many religious counsellors. You cannot find a counsellor who does not bring Jesus into the therapy session. To diagnose the depression and relate this to the non-belief, it is practically illegal in the therapy world because we are taught as therapists: You cannot challenge somebody’s religion. Religion is the cause of a hell of a lot of mental illnesses. If it is not the cause, then it, certainly, exacerbates. You are a child with a tendency towards depression. Your religion tells you that you are a worthless piece of shit and you are going to hell; and your body is your enemy. Is it any surprise that you will experience intense depression? That is just not allowed in many training programs, even secular – so-called secular – programs at state universities. They teach, “Don’t challenge someone’s belief system. Don’t challenge someone’s religion.” I am calling bullshit. We need to challenge them. But we need to challenge them in a respectful way. The job of the therapist is not deconversion. The job of the therapist is to help deal with the dysfunctional beliefs underlying the issue.

Jacobsen: If someone comes to a counsellor, and if someone has done their homework, then they may come to someone who is a highly religious oriented and trained counsellor or therapist while being a secular person reaching to someone for some psychological help, whatever the help might be. If someone has not done their homework, they made that mistake. What can they do in terms of reporting malpractice of a highly religious counsellor attempting to convert a client themselves, in sessions, for one? For two, what are the ways in which those highly religious counsellors who are trained at these highly religious universities use these ideas to help people through real psychological problems with supernatural ‘therapies’?

Ray: It is very hard for somebody who has a fundamental supernatural belief structure to have a well-formed, well-trained therapeutic approach. I will tell you why. Right now, we call this evidence-based practice, EBP. If you are using evidence-based practice, and if you are well-trained, the fundamental foundation for all EBP is rational-behaviour therapy, cognitive-behavioural therapy. It is the same thing, different name. Let me say, the inventor or the developer of cognitive-behavioural therapy, which virtually every EBP therapist will have been trained in was founded by Dr. Albert Ellis. My mentor, I studied with him back in the 70s. Dr. Albert Ellis founded the whole school of cognitive-behavioural therapy. He was a fucking out atheist, big time. He was named Atheist of the Year by American Atheists back in 1981 or something like that. There are no ifs, ands, or buts, Using cognitive-behavioural analysis, you are analyzing belief structures and your rational /irrational ideas. If you use that effectively, there is not a single religious idea that will stand up to that examination. It is almost – I won’t say this 100%, but will come real damn close to it – I can’t see how you can be a good therapist and hold any kind of supernatural beliefs because, by definition, those supernatural beliefs are irrational. How can you help somebody else deal with an irrational belief that you believe? That is my question.

That is a fundamental problem of any therapy training program that graduates people that have supernatural beliefs. I am pretty strong about that. That is why I started the secular therapy project. If someone has not done their homework, before seeing a religious therapist. I am sorry. You have wasted the first 4 hours of sessions on that therapist who is a Jesus believer. What I would suggest, first thing, you can tell your therapist, “I am an atheist. I expect you to use evidence-based practices with me. Period.” You have to be assertive because they may not respect your boundaries. That is a boundary that you need to put in place, as soon as you find out the therapist has any supernatural beliefs, e.g., New Age, crystals, chakras. Anything like that. There is no scientific evidence for this stuff. If they cannot respect the boundary, you have got a problem and need to get out of there. Here is the thing, Scott, poor therapy is frequently worse than no therapy. You may feel better because they are a good listener. There are many therapists who are good listeners. But listening is different from therapy. So, you need somebody who really know show to guide you into the place that you want to go. You cannot do that if they don’t know how to do good therapy. Second thing, if you want help beforehand, you contact us. People can chat into Recovery From Religion has a chatline at the website. Ask, “Can you give me guidelines for finding a good therapist?” We have a whole set of guidelines.

You can sign onto the Secular Therapy Project and find if there is a therapist near your zip code. These days, you will need to schedule a teleconference with them because of the pandemic. If you find a therapist that is violating their own ethics, trying to convert you, or to bring religion into it. If a client brings religion into their session, then the therapist can work with the client working in their framework. The therapist should never bring their religious framework into a session, ever. If that happens, then they should report that person to the licensing office of their particular state. I would love it if they would contact us: www.seculartherapyproject.org. You can ask for Dr. Travis McKie-Voerst. We have to challenge illegal and unethical practices in the United States. There are ethical guidelines against these violations. The legal entities and the associations are ignoring those guidelines when it has to do with religion. Religion is getting a pass. Even though, it is illegal and unethical.

Jacobsen: What is the state of the peer-reviewed evidence on teletherapy versus in-person therapy?

Ray: Oh! Good question, there is a growing amount of evidence that teletherapy or distance counselling is almost as effective. We won’t say, “As effective.” But it seems almost as effective as face-to-face. I do not know how you would put a percent on it. There have been a few studies comparing the two. It is hard to do. It is really hard.

Jacobsen: Let us say someone is having some issue, in an in-person session, it takes, on average, 10 weeks of therapy to work through and process that issue for an average person. Averaged over a general population, etc. We do all the proper controls – p-values, effect sizes, and so on. We look at the tele-help. It takes 12 weeks. Then we can say, “It takes 20% longer with teletherapy compared to in-person therapy for this particular issue for an average North American in Canada, America, or Mexico.” What I am getting from you, the evidence still needs to poor in, in addition to some form of metanalyses of efficacy.

Ray: We are not there, yet. I am not an expert here. What I have seen and heard, and read, there has been very few studies. What we do know, it is still in its infancy. There is a big problem with legality. It is hard to do a study. It is almost like, “Let’s do a study of the efficacy of marijuana in Kansas versus California.” It is fucking illegal. So, it is hard to study the stuff as openly if it is against the law. This is what we are facing here. Teletherapy is – literally – illegal in some states. It is prohibited across state lines in virtually all states. I can do counselling in Kansas. But if someone wants me to call them, or wants to do a Skype session over the internet in Massachusetts, Kansas will not allow it. Insurance will not pay for it. Medicare will not pay for it. By the way, my professional insurance will not cover me if I get sued. So, there are enormous obstacles to providing teletherapy in the United States. There is not in Canada. Thankfully, you guys do not have this level of regulation. However, also, this means people do not have the level of security in the people providing therapy. It has its ups-and-downs, pluses-and-minuses. That is a big problem for us, now.

We have this gigantic crisis with the coronavirus. People are desperately in need of mental health support. They cannot get out of their house to see the therapist. What is the therapist supposed to do, it is illegal to provide it. I live just outside of Kansas City, Kansas. If I had a client living in Missouri 25 miles away, I could not provide tele-help for them. They would have to drive in their car over to Kansas to get therapy in my office. But I am retired. I do not practice anymore. I do not want anybody calling me. So, those are some of the obstacles that we are facing. This crisis is going to force the world of psychology and psychotherapy, as a legal structure, to re-examine how we deliver services. We have been pitching for teletherapy for a long time, called tele-health, because a doctor has the same problem. Going across state lines, the licenses do not necessarily protect you. If you mis-diagnose something, or provide less than whatever the quality of care is, you are not protected. It is not just psychology. It is also medicine. But medicine is solving some of those problems. I think psychology will have to solve them too. We depend more upon the spoken word and face-to-face contact. A physician can look at tests, interview you while looking for symptoms. They are not necessarily looking if you have depression or bipolar. There is a real difference in how a physician and a psychologist would practice tele-health. Gosh! We got off pretty far on that tangent. Man-oh-man [Laughing].

Jacobsen: A few things will not be affected at Recovery From Religion. One will be the blog. Another will be the podcast. Another – ding-ding – will be donations. They will not be impacted because you can do them online. When it comes to the Fall Excursion, what is the status of that? Because I know some secular event shave put question marks up around their happening based on the SARS-CoV-2 crisis.

Ray: Wow – Scott, that is a great question. You know more about our organization than I probably thought that you did. Fall Excursion is, literally, still up in the air.  We had a conversation yesterday. Even if the crisis is over by September when we scheduled it, people’s financial issues may be difficult. We are not sure people will be able to afford it. So, this is not official. It is not looking good. However, we are working really hard to make some lemonade out of the lemons that we have been given. We have meetings. These are local meetups for Recovering From Religion. We have gotten meetings here in Kansas City, in San Diego, in Columbus, Ohio. They meet once or twice per a month. People can come and sit down in a library or in somebody’s coffee shop and talk about their recovery with a trained facilitator. They are not a psychologist or a therapist, but are trained to help people process their emotions in leaving religion. We cannot have those, anymore, at least until the crisis is over. We’re rapidly transitioning into an online format. We believe this will allow us to serve a lot more people. We are also transitioning the Secular Therapy Project into some psychoeducation programs, which will be online, free. We charge nothing for any of our services. Everything at Recovering from Religion is free.  So, we are going to be putting together a team of therapists to put together some psychoeducation.

Basically, we are not doing therapy, but educating people on things that might help them to help themselves. In fact, I did a talk for Atheists United in Los Angeles by Zoom. I will be doing three more talks on Monday evenings by Zoom and we will have more over the coming months by other people and therapists. We have 100 placements available on Zoom. We are looking to do more of that stuff. We think that we can provide a lot of support to people online. Since a lot of people are sitting at home with nothing to do…

Jacobsen: …[Laughing]…

Ray: …we recently had two online events, where we would normally expect 20 people to show up. 29 showed up to one and 50 at the other. So, I think people are hungry for this. They want to have a connection back to their group. They want to have the support of someone who is competent and willing to listen. Also, they want education. How many people know how to deal with this kind of a situation? I confess. I am probably as well trained as anybody. I am still trying to figure out what is the best approach to things. That is what we are doing at Recovering From Religion. Unfortunately, it may mean we have to cancel the Fall Excursion, which was a success beyond our wildest dreams. We were amazed at how well things went for us. This is coming from someone who was skeptical at first. However, our social media person, Shannon Nebo, convinced us to give it a shot. I am glad that she did.

Jacobsen: What do you see as the main service, non-tangible service, of the Secular Therapy Project and Recovering From Religion?

Ray: Our premier service is the chatline and the phone line. You can call from anywhere in North America, Australia, or the UK and get a human being to talk to. There are no robots. It is human beings. They will talk to you. We are hoping to open phone lines to  South Africa, New Zealand and other countries in the future. There is a big market. Our premier program, at this time, serves probably 1-on-1 somewhere between 3,000-5,000 people per year. However, behind that, we have our resources. Our resources website is massive. It is by far the biggest resource page for any kind of recovery stuff on the planet. I have never seen anything that even comes close to it. You name it. The gay kid in the Mormon home. We have a whole set of resources just for you. Or, you are Catholic, Buddhist, etc. We have a lot of resources for ex-Muslims. I dare say our resources are second only to the Atheist Republic or Ex-Muslims of North America. I am not sure. We do not compete with any other organizations. We’re sending people all the time to their organizations. The big thing is the resource webpage. It is the heart and soul of Recovering From Religion. Even though, you would not know it. When you call into us, and tell us about your problems, we will not do therapy with you. We will say, “We have this page. We have this website. This book to read.” We will be pointing to very, very targeted resources that fit your particular needs. To me, this is amazing. That is our real service. It is helping people get connected with resources for their particular needs and conditions.

We will help you to find a therapist. You can do this yourself or tell us the postal code, to help find a therapist in your community. The Secular Therapy Project is 30% of our program. We are connecting people with therapists. However, it is an extension of our resources if you think about it. If you look at the resources, then a big part is finding a therapist. We have 427 (Ed. April, 2020 numbers) registered, evidence-based therapists in the Secular Therapy Project (STP). Over 19,000 people have registered as clients to find therapists over the years. The STP is growing about 28% per year, in clients, but only about 9 or 10% per year in therapists [Laughing]. We need more therapists, a lot more therapists, in other words. So, if that is what you are asking, the other program I told you about earlier – the meetup program, where we have face-to-face meetings in coffee shops. That program is growing. We will continue this when the crisis is over. Right now, that one is transitioning into online support rather than face-to-face. We have a bunch of other things, which we are working on now. For example, before the crisis, we were about ready to launch ourselves into South America. We have been looking to launch into Germany for over a year now. We may not go as fast as we wanted now, due to the crisis. We do not have the bandwidth to process everything we want to do. The Recovering From Religion blog; we will be opening this for the Spanish-speaking world with a Spanish-speaking blog and resource page. Golly! Is that what you are asking, or did I go off it?

Jacobsen: This is good. I think a question in terms of not only what you are providing with the Secular Therapy Project. But, what do you need?

Ray: Money! [Laughing] Money, the bottleneck for any organization is the funds to expand and grow. We started 11 years ago without a dime. We built this whole thing to over 120 volunteers and over 420 therapists. All of the webpages, the development, software development, for the Secular Therapy Project – alone! – was massive, just gigantic. To the degree that we have funds, we can expand. For example, I told you. We have been thinking about opening phone lines. We will only be able to open those phone lines in Australia and the United Kingdom if we have the funds to back those up. When we get grants, we are happy to get grants every now and then. They get you started. They do not keep you going. If we open a program, we want to be able to sustain it. It takes a long time to build a program. If it goes offline as it takes a lot of time and effort to bring it back online. If we know people are giving $5, $10 or $50 per month, then it helps us plan what we want to do. The big grants that come in every one or two years help us get started, but we need to know how to keep things going. Small donors giving us money each month. We love it. A lot of those people got services from us, or volunteer for us. What else do we need? Volunteers, we always need volunteers, Scott. We have a 24-hour helpline, phone line. We are every time zone on the planet. We are always looking for more volunteers both inside North America, and outside. We are looking, potentially, into getting some Spanish-speaking volunteers too. We think there is a real possibility in expanding into the Spanish-speaking world and into the Arab-speaking world. That is where we are now with the programs and the plans.

Jacobsen: Any final feelings or thoughts in conclusion based on the conversation today?

Ray: I think as a secular person; you are stuck with making your own meaning. As a religious person, it comes from a god. A secular person, meaningfulness comes from actions. That is why we are here and started Recovering From Religion. I see Recovering From Religion as a way for people to give back to the community and to help other people who are in the same place that they were five years ago. Actually, Scott, it is highly therapeutic for our volunteers. I just listened to a conference between our volunteers recently. I realized, these people are really dumping their hearts out to one another. It is very therapeutic for them. I think that is the big part that  I discovered. I did not start Recovering From Religion to be therapeutic for the volunteers. I intended this as therapeutic for our clients. As it turns out, this is creating a sense of purpose and meaning among our volunteers. This is where I come from. I like to make meaning and feel like what I am doing has an impact on other people’s lives.

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

Ray: Yes! You went a lot farther than I thought you would [Laughing]. Catch you later.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/04/09

Omar Shakir, J.D., M.A. works as the Israel and Palestine Director for Human Rights Watch. He investigates a variety of human rights abuses within the occupied Palestinian territories/Occupied Palestinian Territories or oPt/OPT (Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem) and Israel. Language recognized in the work of the OHCHR, Amnesty International, Oxfam International, United Nations, World Health Organization, International Labor Organization, UNRWA, UNCTAD, and so on. Some see the Israeli-Palestinian issue as purely about religion. Thus, this matters to freethought. These ongoing interviews explore this issue in more depth. He earned a B.A. in International Relations from Stanford University, an M.A. in Arab Studies from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Affairs, and a J.D. from Stanford Law School. He is bilingual in Arabic and English. Previously, he was a Bertha Fellow at the Center for Constitutional Rights with a focus on U.S. counterterrorism policies, which included legal representation of Guantanamo detainees. He was the Arthur R. and Barbara D. Finberg Fellow (2013-2014) for Human Rights Watch with investigations, during this time, into the human rights violations in Egypt, e.g., the Rab’a massacre, which is one of the largest killings of protestors in a single day ever. Also, he was a Fulbright Scholar in Syria.

Here we continue with the 6th part in our series of conversations with coverage in the middle of February to the middle of March for the Israeli-Palestinian issue. With the deportation of Shakir, this follows in line with state actions against others, including Amnesty International staff member Laith Abu Zeyad when attempting to see his mother dying from cancer (Amnesty International, 2019; Zeyad, 2019; Amnesty International, 2020), United States Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and United States Congresswoman Ilhan Omar who were subject to being barred from entry (Romo, 2019), Professor Noam Chomsky who was denied entry (Hass, 2010), and Dr. Norman Finkelstein who was deported in the past (Silverstein, 2008). Shakir commented in an opinion piece:

Over the past decade, authorities have barred from entry MIT professor Noam Chomsky, U.N. special rapporteurs Richard Falk and Michael Lynk, Nobel Peace Prize winner Mairead Maguire, U.S. human rights lawyers Vincent Warren and Katherine Franke, a delegation of European Parliament members, and leaders of 20 advocacy groups, among others, all over their advocacy around Israeli rights abuses. Israeli and Palestinian rights defenders have not been spared. Israeli officials have smeared, obstructed and sometimes even brought criminal charges against them. (Shakir, 2019)

Now, based on the decision of the Israeli Supreme Court and the actions of the Member State of the United Nations, Israel, he, for this session, works from Amman, Jordan.

*Interview conducted on March 16, 2020. The previous interview conducted on February 17, 2020[1].*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Since February, middle of February (Jacobsen, 2020), what have been some of the updates in terms of rights abuses within the Israeli-Palestinian issue?

Omar Shakir: Of course, we had Israeli elections on March 2^nd (Federman, 2020a; Federman, 2020b; Zion, 2020; Goldenberg, 2020a).[2] A lot of the attention has been taken up by the elections and what that might mean for the human rights situation on the ground. As of now, there are still ongoing negotiations (Federman, 2020c). Benny Gantz[3], the leader of the Blue and White Party (2020), has been tasked with the first opportunity to form a government.[4] He will have some time now to do that.[5] The impact on rights remains to be seen. Another significant development as part of a global environment has been the spread of the coronavirus in Israel and Palestine (Federman, 2020d). Israel has recorded hundreds of cases (Ibid.). We have a few dozen cases in the West Bank as well (Daraghmeh, 2020). Of course, those numbers will continue to likely increase.[6] The spread of this virus has brought about a series of measures taken by both Israeli and Palestinian governments that intersect with a range of human rights issues (Daraghmeh, 2020; Federman, 2020d).

Jacobsen: When we’re looking at some other nations, some will go into complete national or provincial/state lockdown (Barry & Calanni, 2020; Barry & Geller, 2020; The Associated Press, 2020a). Others will deal with things bit-by-bit by closing down schools (Neumeister & Villeneuve, 2020), closing down sporting events (Reynolds, 2020a; Reynolds, 2020b), telling the public not to go into public spaces (Khalil, 2020), because there is no major immunity in the population at large[7]. What are some of the measures being taken in Israeli society and Palestinian society?

Shakir: The Israeli and Palestinian authorities have taken different steps (Federman, 2020d; Daraghmeh, 2020). On the Israeli side, of course, we have seen a series of restrictions on travel (Gambrell, 2020). Most significantly, the Israeli government requires all Israeli citizens and residents returning from travel to go into home quarantine for a period of 2 weeks (The Associated Press, 2020b). So, obviously, this effects thousands of people. The Israeli government is not actively enforcing this, though there have been press reports of folks being questioned, even arrested, for violating that order. The Israeli government has also announced surveillance measures that they are taking against those suspected of having the virus (Mitnick, 2020). That has been a policy that has raised significant rights concerns on the intrusion on the right to privacy (OHCHR, 2020). It also opens the door to discrimination and other rights abuse (Ibid.). In addition, on the Israeli side, there has been a policy that all non-citizens and residents, all foreigners, will be denied entry if they cannot prove that they have the ability upon arrival to self-quarantine (The Associated Press, 2020b).[8] We have also seen, of course, measures taken with regards to Palestinians on the Israeli side.

Among them has been the virtual closure of Bethlehem, once Bethlehem reported a number of coronavirus-related cases (Daraghmeh, 2020). We have also seen a restriction on Israel’s land borders, in terms of entry to Gaza being restricted to humanitarian cases. So, certainly, a lot of these preventative measures have been quite wide. We have seen schools and other institutions closed (Federman, 2020e). Israel hasn’t gone to the point of complete lockdown, as have some countries (Gambrell, 2020; Barry & Geller, 2020). Of course, these policies affect many, but most drastically affect, vulnerable communities. On the Palestinian side, we have seen in the West Bank, authorities have instituted restrictions (Vahdat & Kullab, 2020; Akour & Karimi, 2020). They first imposed some restrictions around access to Bethlehem. Of course, they have limited authority, but their security forces have set-up more checkpoints to monitor movement by Palestinians. Just today, we have seen the Hamas authorities, apparently, closed their side of the border with there’s crossing with Israel. They have announced measures on the Rafah Crossing, where they were putting folks arriving into a quarantine, an institutional quarantine, at a school (Vahdat & Karam, 2020). There have been reports of there being abuses there, having taken place.

Jacobsen: What about issues around conflict increases or decreases along borders? Have there been escalations in conflict before some of these quarantine measures were being more taken into account since we last talked along the border between Israel and Palestine, or (occupied) Palestinian territory?

Shakir: With respect to the Gaza Strip, there was a period earlier in the year with low-grade hostilities between both sides (Federman, 2020f; The Associated Press, 2020c; The Associated Press, 2020d). There were some explosive devices being sent off from Gaza (U.N. News, 2020) and measures by the Israeli’s being taken on restrictions on a fishing zone and a number of permits being given (Federman & Akram, 2020). We have seen those sorts of actions being taken. But there have been on-and-off situations, interim agreements reached, reportedly reached between the sides. Those took place earlier in the year. Things have, obviously, shifted, now, with some of the restrictions taken around the coronavirus.

Jacobsen: What will be the likely policy and political outcomes over the term of, another term of, Benjamin Netanyahu?

Shakir: It is quite clear. Over the course of over a decade of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s rule, his government has pursued a policy seeking to only further entrench and make permanent Israel’s rule over millions of Palestinians in the West Bank and control over the populations in Gaza (Goldenberg, 2020b; Goldenberg, 2020c). In the elections, he made crystal clear his intention to annex settlements to Israel, all settlements, and to continue and maintain restrictions in place against Palestinians (Goldenberg, 2020b). Over the course of the decade, we’ve seen increasing attacks on human rights groups and on critics of Israeli government policy (Human Rights Watch, 2018; Human Rights Watch, 2019a; Human Rights Watch, 2019b; Human Rights Watch, 2020). It is quite likely that those will continue and potentially intensify.[9] There have been several election cycles now, where the Netanyahu government, their coalition partners, and even other parties, have engaged in regular race-baiting and expressed a total disregard for international law and norms (Weiss, 2020; Hodgkins, 2019; Dugard, 2019). All indications are that these abusive policies could very well continue under a Netanyahu government.

Jacobsen: There’s been much commentary around the “Deal of the Century” of the Trump Administration (White House Staff, 2020; Heller & Lee, 2020; Daraghmeh & Akram, 2020). There has also been counter-commentary comparing setup, the eventual setup that would be the setup on this, to the Bantustans of apartheid South Africa (Jabari & Smith, 2020). What are some of your thoughts on this “Deal of the Century” (Jacobsen, 2020)?

Shakir: Look, the Trump plan seeks to make permanent Israel’s discriminatory rule over Palestinians (Ibid.). It is presenting the repressive status quo as a final solution. It is quite clear the Israeli policy towards Palestinians has been about boxing them into dense population centers and maximizing the land on the West Bank for illegal Israeli settlements (Ibid.). This policy would, essentially, put the United States’ stamp, which has already been firmly placed through decades of support and decades of unwillingness to use leverage to stop policies on the one-state reality on the ground today where Israel effectively rules the entire area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, and discriminates institutionally against the Palestinians, treats them unequally in all these areas, and ensures the control and domination by Jewish-Israelis, this would lock in that reality (Ibid.).

Jacobsen: In the case of an outbreak of COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2, what will be the political fallout of that over time, potentially?

Shakir: I think it is difficult to predict. This is, in many ways, a fast moving and unprecedented sort of development. There have been efforts by some Israeli political forces to use the outbreak of COVID-19 as a way to establish a unity government between the Blue and White Party and the Likud Party (Heller, 2020c). Those efforts, at the time of recording, have not yet materialized. It is certainly possible that the imperative of dealing with this situation could, particularly if things continue to escalate, create a situation in which it facilitates a unity-type government. Certainly, with regards to human rights situation the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the poor state of healthcare, in particular in the Gaza Strip as a result of decades of restrictions on movement of people and goods and the occupation more generally, makes Gaza more susceptible to a large-scale type crisis should the virus make its way into the Gaza Strip, particularly in its refugee camps (The Associated Press, 2019; The Associated Press, 2018). There are, obviously, some in the West Bank as well. In many cases, the virus around the world has affected vulnerable populations, be they minorities, elderly or refugees. Certainly, it raises the real risk that these communities would face heightened challenges should this virus continue to spread.

Jacobsen: What should we be paying more attention to between March and April looking forward?

Shakir: I think right now the world’s attention is around containing this virus. I think the key things to look for in this period, obviously, will be Israeli government formation and what that might mean for the human rights situation for Palestinians, annexation, and the situation in Gaza. Will we see COVID-19 make its way into Gaza? Will the crisis continue to develop across the world and in Israel and Palestine? Also, of course, we have the International Criminal Court studying the question of jurisdiction over Palestine in light of the prosecutor’s request. A decision on jurisdiction could come in the spring, although that could very well drag out further.   

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

Shakir: Alright! Thank you.

Previous Sessions (Chronological Order)

Interview with Omar Shakir – Israel and Palestine Director, Human Rights Watch (Middle East and North Africa Division)

HRW Israel and Palestine (MENA) Director on Systematic Methodology and Universal Vision

Human Rights Watch (Israel and Palestine) on Common Rights and Law Violations

Ask HRW (Israel and Palestine) 1 – Recent Events

Ask HRW (Israel and Palestine) 2 – Demolitions

Ask HRW (Israel and Palestine) 3 – November-December: Deportation from Tel Aviv, Israel for Human Rights Watch Israel and Palestine Director

Ask HRW (Israel and Palestine) 4 – Uninhabitable: The Viability of Gaza Strip’s 2020 Unlivability

Ask HRW (Israel and Palestine) 5 – The Trump Peace Plan: Is This the “The Deal of the Century,” or Not?

Addenda

Ask HRW (Israel and Palestine) Addendum: Some History and Contextualization of Rights

Other Resources Internal to Canadian Atheist

Interview with Dr. Norman Finkelstein on Gaza Now

Extensive Interview with Gideon Levy

Interview with Musa Abu Hashash – Field Researcher (Hebron District), B’Tselem

Interview with Gideon Levy – Columnist, Haaretz

Interview with Dr. Usama Antar – Independent Political Analyst (Gaza Strip, Palestine)

References

Akour, O. & Karimi, N. (2020, March 21). Jordan goes on virus lockdown as Iran’s death toll mounts. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/200ce5cb66dc03650ef6af8911bce3ef.

Amnesty International. (2019, October 31). Israel/ OPT: Amnesty staff member faces punitive travel ban for human rights work. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/10/israel-opt-amnesty-staff-member-faces-punitive-travel-ban-for-human-rights-work/.

Amnesty International. (2020, March 25). ISRAEL/ OPT: End cruel travel ban on Amnesty staff member. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/03/israel-opt-end-cruel-travel-ban-on-amnesty-staff-member/.

Barry, C. & Calanni, A. (2020, March 9). Italian premier locks down entire country to stop virus. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/3ff579e06d07428f0bc993c0a98c001d.

Barry, C. & Geller, A. (2020, March 9). Italy expands lockdown, Israel tightens entry to halt virus. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/e1fe7ed2e111436c68c9673bee1c0d4c.

Blue & White Party. (2020). Blue & White Party. Retrieved from https://kachollavan.org.il/.

Central Elections Committee. (2020, March 2). Elections for the 23rd Knesset. Retrieved from https://bechirot23.bechirot.gov.il/election/english/Pages/default.aspx.

Daraghmeh, M. (2020, March 5). Bethlehem’s storied Nativity Church closes amid virus fears. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/c57bc457c0c1c02a910c1564d8f76715.

Daraghmeh, M. & Akram, F. (2020, January 28). Palestinians angrily reject Trump Mideast peace plan. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/0dcb0179faf41e1870f35838058f4d18.

Dugard, J. (2019, April 17). Why aren’t Europeans calling Israel an apartheid state?. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/aren-europeans-calling-israel-apartheid-state-190410081102849.html.

Federman, J. (2020b, March 2). Exit polls: Netanyahu short of majority in Israel vote. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/1465b297a02795783f5d8927b7058c72.

Federman, J. (2020d, March 15). Israel takes step toward monitoring phones of virus patients. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/97dbcb6d4ef71a48d15a7ec5dd7b4c48.

Federman, J. (2020e, March 12). Israel’s Netanyahu calls for emergency government with rival. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/0ba6a56ddc9fc6645027d2f18cc999de.

Federman, J. (2020f, February 23). Israel Strikes Gaza, Syria After Palestinian Rockets Attacks. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-02-23/palestinian-rockets-strike-israel-after-gaza-border-clash.

Federman, J. (2020a, March 3). Netanyahu’s future still uncertain after Israeli election. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/39e3dfb7abe5d933933dd6e117b341f8.

Federman, J. (2020c, March 15). Netanyahu rival Gantz chosen to form new Israeli government. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/63f367ec108720d910b436d2ff1e45c7.

Federman, J. & Akram, F. (2020, February 24). Shaky truce appears to take hold in Israel-Gaza fighting. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/945ef225d5958ef5dedaa10673b3fca5.

Gambrell, J. (2020, March 9). Saudi Arabia, Israel tighten restrictions to counter virus. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/2c9415e2787d325c14a097a836d533f9.

Goldenberg, T. (2020b, February 20). Israel leader vows thousands of new homes in east Jerusalem. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/b39239157fd5818fee6fe213ad103f48.

Goldenberg, T. (2020c, February 24). Netanyahu banks on Trump plan to drive up pro-settler votes. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/5e699d2478ef6f1b560dcc7214f423eb.

Goldenberg, T. (2020a, March 4). Netanyahu still short of majority after Israel’s election. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/6156d9095e470602fea55c449c724226.

Harvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health. (2020). The latest on the coronavirus. Retrieved from https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/the-latest-on-the-coronavirus/.

Hass, A. (2010, May 16). Noam Chomsky Denied Entry Into Israel and West Bank. Retrieved from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5121279.

Heller, A. (2020b, March 10). Israeli court rejects Netanyahu request to delay trial. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/b1b8983151165281d695d47bd38536c5.

Heller, A. (2020a, March 8). Israel election challenger gets extra security after threats. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/ac1891327f4bc1157d6f10bbb2c1c319.

Heller, A. (2020c, March 16). Israel swears in new parliament under coronavirus shadow. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/8ed9580624d342a650d52a38cdc2b449.

Heller, A. & Lee, M. (2020, January 28). Retrieved from https://apnews.com/f7d36b9023309ce4b1e423b02abf52c6.

Hodgkins, A. (2019, Winter). Israel in the Age of Netanyahu. Retrieved from https://www.thecairoreview.com/essays/israel-in-the-age-of-netanyahu/.

Human Rights Watch. (2019b). Born Without Civil Rights: Israel’s Use of Draconian Military Orders to Repress Palestinians in the West Bank. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/palestine1219_web_0.pdf.

Human Rights Watch. (2018). Israel and Palestine: Events of 2017. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/israel/palestine.

Human Rights Watch. (2019a). Israel and Palestine: Events of 2018. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/israel/palestine.

Human Rights Watch. (2020). Israel and Palestine: Events of 2019. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/israel/palestine.

Jabari, L. & Smith, S. (2020, February 22). Facing a Palestinian state, Arab Israelis find Trump’s Mideast plan unworkable. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/facing-palestinian-state-arab-israelis-find-trump-s-mideast-plan-n1140331.

Jacobsen, S.D. (2020, March 26). Ask HRW (Israel and Palestine) 5 – The Trump Peace Plan: Is This the “The Deal of the Century,” or Not?. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2020/03/ask-hrw-israel-and-palestine-5-jacobsen/.

Khalil, A. (2020, March 9). Hundreds in DC asked to quarantine after exposure in church. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/575774c710e6413383dd1c7fd9419002.

Mitnick, J. (2020, March 16). Better Health Through Mass Surveillance?. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/16/israel-coronavirus-mass-surveillance-pandemic/.

MEMO: Middle East Monitor. (2020, March 9). Israel bars entry to foreigners over coronavirus. Retrieved from https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200309-israel-bars-entry-to-foreigners-over-coronavirus/.

Neumeister, L. & Villeneuve, M. (2020, March 15). News New York City schools to close Monday to fight coronavirus. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/a514b654b61395e8bc236b6678040bf0.

OHCHR. (2020). The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/DigitalAge/Pages/DigitalAgeIndex.aspx.

Reynolds, T. (2020b, March 12). MLS shutting down for 30 days due to coronavirus. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/36359214c3d5b244ac1d502542ccf4a5.

Reynolds, T. (2020a, March 12). NBA suspends season until further notice, over coronavirus. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/226da6f7fadbb1968af3552c25e7d09c.

Romo, V. (2019, August 15). Reps. Omar And Tlaib Barred From Visiting Israel After Trump Supports A Ban. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2019/08/15/751430877/reps-omar-and-tlaib-barred-from-visiting-israel-after-trump-insists-on-ban/.

Shakir, O. (2019, April 18). Israel wants to deport me for my human rights work. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/18/israel-wants-deport-me-my-human-rights-work/.

Silverstein, R. (2008, May 27). Shut out of the homeland. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/may/27/shutoutofthehomeland.

The Associated Press. (2020b, February 26). Israel advises against foreign travel over virus concerns. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/448c9bdc5eee3714948b2794bbefdcd4.

The Associated Press. (2020d, March 5). Israel demolishes homes of 2 alleged Palestinian attackers. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/8a5e114eeadfc8939dd69b1ccfd0d717.

The Associated Press. (2020c, March 11). Palestinians: 15-year-old killed in clash with Israeli army. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/2fb8b72bb4b5f49db4070b41003757d9.

The Associated Press. (2019, January 22). Trump’s Palestinian Aid Cuts Means Thousands Lose Access to Food and Healthcare. Retrieved from https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/with-the-loss-of-u-s-aid-palestinian-dreams-of-peace-move-even-farther-away-1.6866397.  

The Associated Press. (2018, January 14). Trump to cut millions from UN agency for Palestinian refugees – officials. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/14/trump-cut-millions-united-nations-agency-palestinian-refugees.

The Associated Press (CGTN). (2020a, February 28). Wuhan’s war on COVID-19: How China mobilizes the whole country to contain the virus. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/0c86d5814f1c243e0c4778c231ef121c.

U.N. News. (2020, February 24). With Gaza violence ‘escalating as we speak,’ UN envoy calls for ‘immediate stop’. Retrieved from https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/02/1057971.

Vahdat, A. & Karam, Z. (2020, March 14). Iran death toll from virus passes 600, Syria shuts schools. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/0b65f7d3f64d44f2027f8af20bd940b9.

Vahdat, A. & Kullab, S. (2020, March 16). Virus toll in Iran climbs as lockdowns deepen across Mideast. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/f28047fc8972b4b1dd688e5590a02f43.

Weiss, P. (2020, March 10). Trump’s interference in Israeli election backfired, leaving Netanyahu and ‘Deal of Century’ at risk. Retrieved from https://mondoweiss.net/2020/03/trumps-interference-in-israeli-election-backfired-leaving-netanyahu-and-deal-of-century-at-risk/.

White House Staff. (2020, January). Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of the Palestinian and Israeli People. Retrieved from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Peace_to_Prosperity.pdf.

Zeyad, L.A. (2019, December 16). Facebook Twitter Why is Israel preventing me from accompanying my mother to chemotherapy?. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/12/why-is-israel-preventing-me-from-accompanying-my-mother-to-chemotherapy/.

Zion, I.B. (2020, March 1). AP Explains: Israel’s upcoming vote, its 3rd in under a year. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/2445d92222cc13de54c55cc64d5376eb.

[1] For more information, the 5^th session in this educational series seems the aptest for updates up to and including the middle of February. See Jacobsen (2020).

[2] Election results showed the following outcomes by the party and the parenthetical numbers of seats won, given by the most recent (of several) elections:

1. Likud (36)
2. Blue & White (33)
3. Joint List (15)
4. Shas (9)
5. Yisrael Beiteinu (7)
6. United Torah Judaism (7)
7. Labour-Gesha-Meretz (7)
8. Yemina (6)

Central Elections Committee. (2020, March 2). Elections for the 23rd Knesset. Retrieved from https://bechirot23.bechirot.gov.il/election/english/Pages/default.aspx.

[3] There has been substantial and strong rhetoric in the midst of this interim period, circa the time of the interview:

“Netanyahu: The public atmosphere and the threats worry every national leader,” he said, pointing his finger forward. “The incitement is raging everywhere and you are silent.”

“I won’t allow you to sow fear. I won’t allow you to turn man against his brother. I won’t allow you to bring about modern Israel’s first civil war in return for a ticket out of your trial,” he added. “Your regime has trampled all norms.”

Also, Netanyahu remains in difficulties in terms of criminal charges and legal issues:

Netanyahu is scheduled to go on trial next week to face corruption charges of fraud, breach of trust and accepting bribes. Israel’s longest-serving leader is desperate to remain in office, because installing a new government would give him an important political boost and potentially allow him to legislate his way out of the legal quagmire.

On Monday, Amit Haddad, one of Netanyahu’s lawyers, said he would seek a delay in the start of the trial. He said the request was “technical” and meant to give the defense time to review investigative materials that it still has not received.

The main question, at the time of the Heller reportage, remained who would lead the coalition between the Blue & White Party and the Likud, and the specific length for the initial leadership. See Heller (2020a).

[4] Duly note, there have been significant issues with the security for Benny Gantz of the Blue & White Party because of the continual and growing acrimony between the Blue & White Party and the Likud with each successive election. Gantz faced death threats and received increased security. See Heller (2020b).

[5] With ongoing issues around the charges against Benjamin Netanyahu, the death threats against Benny Gantz, human rights violations with the illegal settlements in the West Bank, the perilous potential for a calamity with SARS-CoV-2 entering Palestinian society, and the ongoing negotiations for the joining of the parties, the situations for human rights and for respect for international law may remain at its current standstill until the context becomes more stable.

[6] All countries once having a few cases continued to increase for some time with many on exponential, or worse, increases or curves in the number of the cases and, thus, the numbers of deaths due to the novel coronavirus.

[7]Harvard University (2020) stated:

COVID-19 will be defeated forever only when enough people develop immunity to it so that it can no longer spread easily from person to person, according to experts. This so-called “herd immunity” can happen in one of two ways. A vaccine—the preferred way—is at least a year away. The other way happens naturally, when a large percentage of the population becomes infected and develops antibodies to the disease that protect from reinfection. The problem with the second way is that many will die in the process. In addition, it’s unknown what percentage of the population needs to become infected to provide herd immunity. Even for those who have developed immunity, “we don’t know how effective it is or how long it will last,” said William Hanage. He said that, until a vaccine is available, repeated rounds of physical distancing may be needed.

See Harvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health (2020).

[8] Israel stopped entry, at the time of the interview, to all internationals. See MEMO: Middle East Monitor (2020).

[9] That is to say, with the continual assault on international human rights, international humanitarian law, and the like, the trendline appears strongly in favour of the argument of a continuation of the breach of international law and the disregard for international human rights disproportionately by the Israeli government.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/04/06

Sigurður Rúnarsson was born in Iceland in 1974 and works as a humanist officiant for both Siðmennt (The Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association) since 2013 and HEF (The Norwegian Humanist Association) from 2015. He was on the board of HEF in Drammen and Lier (Norway) local affiliate and served as a board member alternate for Buskerud county affiliate in Norway. He now lives in Oslo, Norway, but works both in Iceland and Norway.

Here we talk about some of the cultures of Norway and Iceland, and the ways in which this can be influential on the forms of humanism, gender equality progress, and the like.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I went to Iceland last year in the Summer. All light during the day; mostly light-ish during the night with pubs and bars open until 4:00 am or later – completely baffling and incomprehensible to a North American and, as I was told by Europeans, to Europeans. Also, a super gender-equal country by most metrics, as I found out based on conversations with many Icelandic women and looking at the real statistics. The public opinion matches the statistical rankings of gender equality – truly a remarkable achievement. How does this gender equality and openness of the people and tourism create the basis for a global, internationalist outlook on the world in Iceland?

Sigurður Rúnarsson: We have been going from Christian opening hours to more normal humans [Laughing]…

Jacobsen: …[Laughing]…

Rúnarsson: …opening hours for restaurants and bars. So, that’s what really has been happening in Iceland for the last 30 years because we have been so tightly connected to the church, the state church. We cannot have restaurants, bars, and clubs open on Good Friday. We cannot have them open on Easter Day, and so on. Because we have been very tightly connected with the Christian religion and the church. So, to address that, it is the state furthering itself from the Christian values in many ways. Because when I was younger, we had to close at 2 o’clock or 3 o’clock. But it is getting longer and longer opening hours for the clubs. Things are changing. We are distancing ourselves from the religion.

Jacobsen: How is this influencing the way young people talk about religion?

Rúnarsson: In Iceland, and, actually, in Norway too, young people do not talk that much about religion. They’re not very connected with religion. Until, it comes to the age of about 14 years old, when they are supposed to be confirmed. Religion, for young people, if that’s the question, is not something people talk about or practice in Iceland. So, in many ways, it is like a private club somewhere in the background. There are some people practicing the religion. But many people who are doing that; they are doing this very privately. They don’t boast about it, don’t tell others about, even if they go to young Christian camps, which we still have. It is not very much spoken about. People don’t talk about it in school. It is a private thing. It is getting more and more unusual or special to be very religious in many ways. Young people try to steer away from talks.

Jacobsen: I want to focus on gender equality too. Because most religions through most of the last several thousand years have had an emphasis on not being fair or equal to women. Iceland, according to the World Economic Forum, has been the most gender-equal country in the world for many years, probably almost a decade straight. Obviously, this is a conscious move and affects culture. I can give a personal example. When I was in the pubs in Iceland, it was a common and casual thing: if a guy likes a gal, he buys her a drink, which is normal in North America and expected, but the reverse was also the case. If a girl liked a guy, she would buy him a drink. So, it was less a gender thing and more, “Do you like this person? Do you make an offer to them?” It was different. Is gender equality part of the erosion of religious traditionalism?

Rúnarsson: I think the short answer is, “Yes.” I think the long answer is, “Women don’t want to be owned anymore.”

Jacobsen: Right.

Rúnarsson: They don’t want to be in debt or get the feeling that they owe a man something because of all of the drinks. I think we have come so far in equality in Iceland. It is not about religion anymore. It is about the independence of the woman. The women, they are exactly the same free spirit as men. They can do what they like with their mind, body, and soul. They can have boyfriends and lovers. They can choose to buy a guy a drink. They don’t owe anybody anything. This is more to do with the independence of the woman. In the last years with the Me Too revolution, but it started much sooner in Iceland, women went out and fought for equal pay. They fought for an equal pension. All of those things. We have gone through them for the lost 30 or 40 years. You are seeing something today at the bars; a process that has been boiling for 40 or 50 years in Iceland. You are seeing very strong, independent women who take matters into their own hands. They go by the Iceland women’s strong spirit. Definitely, Iceland women possess it.

Jacobsen: At the University of Iceland bookstore, one of the gentlemen behind the counter recommended a book to me. I think it was called Independent People. I did buy it. It was by Laxness.

Rúnarsson: [Laughing] By Halldór Laxness, yes, winner of the 1955 Nobel Prize in Literature.

Jacobsen: I was told this was the most famous or prominent late/deceased author in Iceland. He told me, “This particular author really got the heart of what Iceland is, Icelandic people are, truly about.” I think it goes right to the point that you’re making in terms of the evolution over the last 30 to 40 years of independent people.

Rúnarsson: Yes.

Jacobsen: That really encapsulated a lot of my experience there. It really did.

Rúnarsson: I think, without being a book critic, and I have read this book, but not in recent years, that he is writing about how the men and the fathers control everything. In the book, in a clever way, he is talking about how the mothers and the women control a lot without it being at the forefront. So, women’s equality, he is dipping his toe into it. This is very early, the last century. So, he is, actually, describing the beginning of women’s evolution or revolution. I think, in many ways, Iceland as in other countries, like in Africa, and so on, the mothers have always controlled things a lot, e.g., the ‘big mommas’ or whatever you call this – when the mother controls the home, the food, the food supplies, the children, and the men are more outside working. This is very early 1920 to 1935, where this book is written and taking place in Iceland in the early 20th century. You can probably see this in the book. But I don’t have the details. This is starting there. I don’t know if this is the same feeling that you get. When we Icelanders read it, we definitely see a man writing the book. But he is definitely talking about how the mothers and grandmothers are teaching their children and grandchildren how to do their job, how to do the work of the farm, even speaking the Icelandic language correctly.

Jacobsen: Fishing still is a big, but was a much bigger, part of the economy.

Rúnarsson: Fishing hasn’t really reduced in the last 50 years. But we have had other export industries that have grown bigger. Fishing is as big as it was before. But we have had other IT, medical, and, of course, tourism, starting to be bigger than fishing export. Fishing is, definitely, as big as before. At least, we are catching as much cod as before. We have had other technological advantages, as well as tourism being much bigger in Iceland than it was.

Jacobsen: How about tourism? Is this a big industry and a way in which there’s an internationalist view of the world, but by Icelanders?

Rúnarsson: I don’t think so. I really don’t think so. I think Icelanders are very well informed. They watch a lot of foreign TV. We have always watched TV in the original language and with text instead of dubbing. We have seen a lot of TV from the States. We have seen a lot of TV from the UK. We have seen a lot of TV from the Nordic countries, from Germany. We are very well informed about international politics. I am not sure how big the tourism industry has done for us. I think this comes from within the Icelandic soul and from within the Icelandic culture. We’ve always been explorers in many ways. Before, we got a lot of our international information from Denmark because Denmark used to be our mother country until 1944. We had a Danish crown over us until 1944 in the Second World War. Copenhagen used to be our capital city. That’s just in recent years. For example, with my grandparents, they remember that. So, before, we got all the information from Scandinavia, mainly from Denmark. After the information revolution, we started to see Sky News, CNN, and Al Jazeera. We have Icelandic News Television. In many ways, we are interested in the world. We have always looked for information. We have never been closed in our small country.

Now, I am talking about the last 30 years. Before, we only got the information from the capital city of Copenhagen in Denmark. In the last 50 years, we’ve been educating our students abroad. We sent them to universities; or, they have chosen to go to universities abroad. They go on to academic teaching and working, e.g., doctors, historians, and whatnot. We are very interested in what’s happening in the world. We have always, some percentage of us, been up to date in everything in international politics. For example, let’s just say, India, everyone was watching what was happening when she was running for office or Putin when he was going from the presidency to be the prime minister and from being prime minister to being president. We were always watching international politics, of other countries. Let’s not forget the States, we are very interested in what happens in the States, in the pre-caucuses, and have been for many years. So, tourism is only expanding in the last 10, 15, or 20 years. I don’t think that we get our information from tourists or because of the tourists. I think we started much earlier doing that.

Jacobsen: What do you consider the sensibilities of Iceland that are easily aligned, now, with Humanism? What values of Iceland are similar to the values of Humanism?

Rúnarsson: I think, in many ways, my previous answer to the interest with international things, international politics and discussions, are also a primer to this. In many ways, we are very taken by technology, very taken by science in everything, of course, nature, and religion. You could say, “Where science deepens the theories of Christianity,” for example, “about the Earth, the weather, the plagues, medicine, and many things.” So, I think when you have a nation, which is much better than before. People start to wonder, “Why are we believing in a book – Bible (New Testament, Old Testament)?” It is just storybooks, like Hansel and Gretel. It is just storybooks. After they grow up, you could say; they grow out of this – we call it – “children’s belief in God.” Somehow, the children believe in God, but not the parents. But the parents allow them. I think many parents have, in many ways, relaxed about it. Because the parents found out when they grew up. They just went away from this religious belief and thing. Children, somehow, do this when they get older.  I think the answer is that people are aligning with the humanist take on life, the human, and the world – the mind, science, not least all the beautiful things in the world like music and art. We have a relaxed attitude against everything.

The humanists in Iceland are not very extreme. They take part in public talks about the church and religion, but not very extreme. They do a lot of services to the people or to their congregation. They do naming conventions, confirmations (coming of age), weddings and do funerals. They are providing these essential services and ceremonies to the people, where people can relax and go on with, if you can say, a typical ceremony without the burden of religion. I think, in many ways, Iceland started the humanist revolution in Iceland with – we call it – “a citizen confirmation,” where a 14-year-old girl. What do you call this in English, “Coming of age”? Many people were enlightened. They didn’t need to go through the church system or back to the church. Their parents hadn’t been in their church for many years. A part of the success of the humanists in Iceland and the reason that people are aligning with them is that they have a relaxed attitude against procedures and religion. But they are still doing ceremonies in a way that the people want to have them done. Siðmennt humanists have taken a position in some cases on assisted death, opening hours of public places that I mentioned at the beginning of the interview – opening hours of restaurants and bars, how we are not able to play Bingo on Friday and such.

They have been trying to take part in public discussions and telling the governments to relax a little bit with the old law that banned this and that on Easter days and Christmas days. For example, there are not many years since we weren’t allowed to have restaurants open on Christmas Day. Then we had already started Christmas trips to Iceland for foreigners. We have had problems finding a restaurant for travellers.

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Rúnarsson: Because out of religious belief, we are not allowed to be open on Christmas Day, Long Friday, and Easter Day, and so on. So, it was very strange, very old-fashioned thinking. We needed to correct it; and, we did. So, it is much better now. The humanists have been taking a lead in some or, actually, many of the discussions, where rules and regulations are still built on church rules or religious rules. I think humanists are aligned with the thinking of many people in Iceland. I think that’s part of the magic that has happened with the humanists in the later years.

Jacobsen: How is the humanist community in Norway?

Rúnarsson: The humanist community in Norway is big and well known amidst the Norwegian people. The Norwegian Humanist Association has, as of 2018, over 90,000 members registered in the organization.

Jacobsen: How is the humanist community in Iceland? How do these two compare to one another?

Rúnarsson: In March 2007 a giant step towards this goal was taken when Baard Thalberg, one of the leaders/trainers at the Norwegian Humanist Association’s ceremonies service came and held a training program for Icelandic celebrants. The course was aimed primarily at training celebrants for secular funerals but also covered baby namings and weddings. Of the 10 Icelanders who undertook this training, 6 of them became the first official Siðmennt celebrants when our ceremonies service was inaugurated in May 2008. Siðmennt has run several training programs in recent years and now has 25 celebrants.

Jacobsen: How does one become a humanist officiant?

Rúnarsson: I got to know of humanist ceremonies through my upbringing in Reykjavik. Siðmennt  – the Icelandic Ethical Humanist Association was founded in February 1990, a year after a group organized the first coming of age education program or civil confirmation (Icel. borgaraleg ferming) in Iceland.

Even though, I did not take part in their ceremony; I always found this new approach to teenagers fascinating and heard of many that went through their course.

Later, Siðmennt started offering celebrant for civil funerals and weddings. And it was in 2010 that my brother and his fiancée where married in a humanist ceremony at Geysir in Iceland by a humanist celebrant on behalf of Siðmennt.

In 2013 I was working at a funeral home as a funeral director as I hade done from 1990 when I was 16 years old in my family business.

That year we got surprisingly many requests for funerals without priests or a church being involved. We arranged for that and some ceremonies were conducted by a humanist celebrant and somewhere just conducted by us, the funeral directors and family member. After this experience, I contacted Siðmennt and met with them. I signed up for the course they were starting for new humanist celebrants in the fall of 2013 and graduated a few months later with a diploma and a license from the Icelandic government, arranged for by Siðmennt as a registered secular life stance organization, to officiate weddings. The following week I got my first chance to conduct a funeral for a woman and soon after that, I had my first naming convention for a young girl. This was the start of my career as a humanist officiant both in Iceland and Norway.

I’m still doing humanist ceremonies today. 2019 was a very busy year for me as I conducted over 20 humanist ceremonies in Iceland and Norway, both wedding and naming conventions, where over 70 children got a name. 2020 is already looking to be the busiest as I have 10 weddings already booked until Christmas 2020.

More ceremonies will follow, but naming ceremonies in Iceland tend to be booked with very short notice.

The custom in Iceland for naming ceremonies is to hold one ceremony for every child, and they are either held in the home of the parents or family member or in a small venue like a hotel or community halls.

In Norway the procedure is different. There the parent’s book in advance on one of the prearranged naming convention days of one of the local branches of the Human-Etisk Forbund (The Norwegian Humanist Association) and up to 10 children are joined with parents and family in a public ceremony in one of the community halls.

Jacobsen: What makes a humanist ceremony aligned with the principles of Humanism? What are the necessities and negotiables of humanist ceremonies?

Rúnarsson: People can choose ceremonies, which are purely secular or those which also contain Humanistic values. Our naming conventions do not involve inducting the child into our life stance organization, the way baptism involves induction into a religious organization. Siðmennt discourages people from enrolling babies and children into life stance organizations until the age of 16. For this reason, our civil confirmation program does not require joining Siðmennt and is open to everyone. Neither our naming conventions nor our confirmations require any oath or commitment to follow any leader or accept any dogma, as is done in Christian confirmations.

Siðmennt supports human dignity, human rights, and a broad-minded diverse secular society.

Jacobsen: What have been some intriguing requests and outcomes for some humanist ceremonies?

Rúnarsson: The vast and changeable nature of Iceland, the venues in Iceland, the clothes we the celebrants wear. Standing on a stone or a cliff, near bubbling volcanic waters and blue lagoons, the gazing wind, the rain and snowstorm, performing and conducting the ceremonies in sync with the magnificent nature and unpredictable and ever-changing weather.

Over 50% of weddings conducted by Siðmennt, in 2019, was for foreign citizens travelling for the sole purpose of getting married there. Many of them only travel alone and have nobody from their family or friends circle.

Jacobsen: Any final feelings or thoughts in conclusion based on the conversation today?

Rúnarsson: Many of the things that I have already said also apply with Norway. I think, in many ways, this is Scandinavian thinking. Of the four Nordic countries, Denmark and Sweden have not gone as far as Iceland and Norway. So, but there is more to be done in this part of the world, the humanists in Scandinavia and the Nordic countries need to work more together and put pressure on governments to relax in the same way that the governments in Norway and Iceland have done. That’s probably my special take on the matter because I worked in Norway and Iceland.

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

Rúnarsson: Sure! You can find more information here: https://Siðmennt.is/english/history/.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/04/03

Gideon Levy is an Israeli Author and Journalist, and a Columnist for Haaretz. He has earned several awards for human rights journalism focusing on the Israeli occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the OPT (or oPt). Language recognized in the work of the OHCHR, Amnesty International, Oxfam International, United Nations, World Health Organization, International Labor Organization, UNRWA, UNCTAD, and so on. Some see the Israeli-Palestinian issue as purely about religion. Thus, this matters to freethought. These ongoing interviews explore this issue in more depth.

Here we talk about coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2)/COVID-19, Israeli elections, medical infrastructure or lack thereof, coronavirus on the ground, and a lot more.

*Interview conducted on March 28, 2020.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Last time we talked was May​ (2019)​​​​, there have been some general changes. Some have been game-changers with coronavirus giving symptoms of COVID-19. Perhaps, we can start with that as the most pressing thing based on its global scope and hitting the general territories (oPt) as well as Israel. With regards to the coronavirus with Israel, what is the situation on the ground? What has been some of the reaction of the authorities?

Gideon Levy: I think there has been confusion and some sense of fear. A lot is unknown, like any other place. With some more hysteria, which is typical to Israelis and going from one extreme to the other, we are really in the middle of it. So, no one can really judge. What is it? What will be the outcomes? What will be the consequences? It is too early to judge. The government and the politicians​ are using it for their own purposes. Obviously, for me, personally, it was a reminder for the Israelis to the conditions that we are enforcing on the Palestinians, because, now, we are in a kind of closure, which, in many cases, is the best that the Palestinians can dream about in many times in history. But maybe this, but this is just a sidekick. Maybe, this will make more Israelis understand how the Palestinians live under our occupation.

Jacobsen: Have you heard or read anything in terms of the reaction on the oPt side, whether through some of the work, brave work, of Amira Hass or others?

Levy: First of all, Amira Hass is not in the country now. I know very little, but I understand that everything is very similar there. They are also living under fear, in many ways. There is isolation. There is some kind of closure. The big issue is Gaza, not the West Bank. Because if God forbid, if it happens in Gaza, then it might develop into an unbelievable catastrophe, unbelievable disaster because, in Gaza, you cannot isolate anybody. You don’t have ventilators. You don’t have anything. You don’t have the infrastructure for fighting the coronavirus. Right now, things are on hold. I don’t think much is happening.

Jacobsen: Is one of the main reasons for the lack of infrastructure, medical infrastructure, in Gaza due to the blockade?

Levy: It’s not one of the reasons. It is the reason. Undoubtedly, it is almost 13 years of closure​.​ After 13 years of remarkable brave behaviour of the medical teams there, ​those ​who​,​ don’t forget, had to deal with bloodshed in certain periods and with very, very little means. For sure, anything that happens today in Gaza is due to the closure. Gaza is a cage. Life in a cage can be only like life in a cage.

Jacobsen: Last time we talked, also, you were very explicit about: the two-state solution is dead. And that the main orientation from your own professional opinion is that it should be a one-state perspective, and then a question as to what kind of state it will be. Have you had any developments in that opinion since May of 2019?

Levy: Unfortunately, not, because the issue is totally off the table, we had some time when there were some talks about the “deal of the century,” which just ​​enforced me. Because the “deal of the century” was the final funeral of the two-state solution. If anybody needed proof of the fact that there is no chance for a two-state solution, ​then ​came the American plan, it showed it clearly. This was a clear plan for annexation. But all this is now off the table because nobody talks about it. Nobody deals with it. Right now, everything is about the coronavirus.

Jacobsen: What about the numbers on the ground for the coronavirus? How is the testing? How are the cases in terms of critical/serious cases or mortalities?

Levy: It is growing like any other place. I think the coming days are very critical because, if it will not be stopped, they will have to take more serious measures. Namely, to tighten the closure even more than it is, it will, obviously, have a lot of economical and other effects. We have already within weeks. We are facing 21% [Ed. circa March 27, 2020] unemployment from a figure of 4% or 5%. We are having over 700,000 unemployed, declared unemployed, people. It all goes to very dangerous directions. The question is, “What will be in those days?” Right now, there are 11 death cases, which is rather low. But the figures of those who got the disease is tripling every 2 or 3 days.

Jacobsen: You mentioned the known “unemployed.” What about those who are not registered as unemployed? They are not necessarily on the books – so to speak. Would things be worse if they were taken into account – if there are such numbers on that?

Levy: No, they ​are not taken into account. They will not be compensated. Here, again, we fail the weakest parts of society. Namely, the asylum seekers, African asylum seekers, who have no rights. Obviously, tens of thousands of Palestinians who came to work here every day. Most of them are prevented now. No one will compensate them. Over the long run, this could become a catastrophe.

Jacobsen: You have been reporting on the African asylum seekers for some time now. From their perspective, what is their attitude about the institutional treatment around compensation before the coronavirus became an issue, and leading up to it?

Levy: First of all, the figures, Israel has really minimized their numbers to something around 30,000 asylum seekers. It’s much less than ever before. We had 60,000, 70,000, and 100,000. They succeeded to deport, to convince, anything possible to get rid of them. Really, it is only about 30,000 people who are really nothing. It is a tiny minority. For those people, even for those people, Israel is not ready to be generous and human enough to take some minimal measures like giving them possibilities to make their living. They deposit some of their income. They are obliged to deposit some of their income at the government until they’re leaving. Now, when they are unemployed, the most natural things are to freeze some of those. It’s their money. They should get it. Until now, the government didn’t do anything about it.

Jacobsen: Any issue following from the economics is the issue around businesses. The United Nations Human Rights Council, as you know, released its report on 112 businesses around the world who are doing business on illegal settlements. 94 of which or of whom have been listed as Israeli. Others including places like Luxembourg, United Kingdom, United States, and so on, have companies doing business on that list. How is this impacting, in a positive manner, moving the dial towards justice and respecting international law rather than not?

Levy: It is still a very, very long way to go, but it is the first step. It is very hard, first of all, to separate companies making business in the occupied territories and companies making business with Israel​​ because occupied territories are part and parcel of Israel. You never know. Who doesn’t do business in the occupied territories? I can think only about McDonald’s, which decided not to have any branch in the occupied territories. But they are almost the only big company that I can think about; that wouldn’t work in the occupied territories directly or indirectly. This separation is very at issue. Finally, Israel is invested in the occupation project. All Israel, all Israelis, all Israeli companies, in one way or another, indirectly or directly, even my newspaper Haaretz (which is fighting the occupation like no other) sells the newspapers for the settlers. Even us, we are not completely clean because we have to survive somehow. It is a good beginning, though. I don’t want to underestimate it. It is a good beginning, but it is one way. Above all, it is not enough to have a list. It is enough to take measures.

Jacobsen: Has Amos Schocken given any statement on this?

Levy: No, not that I know, but Amos also has other troubles because if this situation goes on. Then we are all afraid about the future of the newspaper. This coronavirus will kill many institutions. I don’t know exactly the situation. I do not see any advertisement whatsoever. I don’t know how long it can survive in those conditions. I can just tell you. Amos Schocken, in the past, wrote an article favouring international pressure on Israel and international economical pressure on Israel, which are responsive. I am not sure if he is supporting BDS.

Jacobsen: I think this leads naturally to, not only social and political commentary but also, politics and governance. Israel had the election, recently, with the Blue and White Party and the Likud, basically, having an alliance set up with the front person, now, going to be Benny Gantz. What seems to have been the reasoning around this? What are the consequences for ways​ ​in which governance will be running forward through 2020 and some of 2021?

Levy: Gantz declared that he will join the Netanyahu government. This was very surprising for many people. Not least surprising, that I am supporting it, because I don’t see, now, any alternative except for more elections, which is really unbelievable. I mean, we cannot go for fourth elections. We have to pass this period of coronavirus with some kind of government. Therefore, I think he did the right step joining the Netanyahu government, because he had no option to create a government by himself. Above all, I am not sure if I see many, many dramatic differences between Netanyahu and Gantz when it comes to the major issues, like the occupation. Both are equally supporting the occupation. For me, the rest is much less important.   

Jacobsen: Is there any political party, whether they have a chance or not, that has any policy or platform piece that is favourable to the human rights and dignity of the Palestinian peoples in the occupied Palestinian territories?

Levy: Yes, there is one. This is the Joint List, which is mainly Palestinian, Israeli-Palestinians, Israeli citizens who are Palestinians. I must tell you. They are the third party in the Parliament. They had great success in the last elections. They have 15 seats out of 120. The only problem is, until now, that they were quite excluded from the political game. The influence is, therefore, very limited.

Jacobsen: You used the phrase “political game.” How, or in what ways, was this third party kept out of this political game?

Levy: They were treated as non-legitimate partners by almost ​all ​of the other parties. Netanyahu incited against them and called them “terrorist supporters.” Also, the other parties did anything possible to delegitimize them.

Jacobsen: What was the reference for “terrorist supporters” of Benjamin Netanyahu, when making that charge against them?

Levy: First of all, it doesn’t need any references. When you incite, you incite. You don’t need any facts for it. They have one section because it is a combination of 3 or 4 parties. One section is more nationalistic. Among them, there was one new member of Parliament who once posted or ​tweeted​​ some sentences that might be construed as supporting terror. It is all ridiculous, but it is incitement where facts are not relevant.

Jacobsen: Also taking another pivot into the international rights realm and the advocacy for rights realm, there are a few cases in, maybe, 2007/08 to present with either deportation​s​, travel bans, or restricted entries. Some individuals coming to mind would be Noam Chomsky, Norm Finkelstein, Laith Abu Zeyad, and Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. They’ve had, at least, one of those applied to them, in that period of time. Since our last conversation, in November, the Human Rights Watch Israel and Palestine Director, Omar Shakir, had his work permit revoked, what was the media conversation outside of Haaretz regarding this particular event? Basically, it resulted, at present, ​in ​Shakir working from Amman, Jordan.

Levy: It was mainly hardly covered, which is ​in ​many cases more criminal than being covered in a biased way. Because ignoring it is saying, “It is not important,” “not interesting,” or both​. It is the same, like with many other things concerning the occupation. The Israeli media just prevent any coverage by self-censorship, not that anyone pushes us to do so. But those issues, if not Haaretz, it is hardly discussed. When it comes to more famous figures like congresswomen who were banned here so obviously, it was also in the other media. But when it comes to the activists, even a Human Rights Watch representative, the coverage was poor. And it was a non-issue.

Jacobsen: Will this kind of action be extended into the future if there are no consequences for restriction on those who are either reporting on human rights violations or advocating for human rights?

Levy: Like many other things, it depends on one thing. Will the world let Israel go like this? If the American, the Canadian, or other governments don’t take measures, because this is the right of their citizens, if they don’t treat Israelis in the same way, then Israel will continue to do so. The day that it will change will be the day that Israelis will be treated the same and banned by entering the United States, Canada, or elsewhere. Until now, the governments in the West couldn’t care less about those cases. None were really protested or took any kind of measures. As long as this will continue, Israel will continue. Why not?

Jacobsen: If we look at a self-critical examination of the North American case, even, in particular, in the Canadian case, what is Canadian society, at least as you are aware, have read, have heard, doing right and doing wrong in regards to the human rights and international law norms in Israel or the occupied Palestinian territories?

Levy: I think there’s no argument about the fact that Israel is ignoring international law, maybe like ​no ​other country​ in the world: systemically, over a long, long period of time, just ignores international law. This really is the world’s fault, not less than Israel’s fault. Because by the end of the day, the world knew very well how to treat violations of human rights in other places on Earth. If the population of the West ​did not go ​against the apartheid system in South Africa, then the apartheid system in South Africa would last until this very moment. The question is, “Why, what was so evident in South Africa, is not existing when it comes to Israel?” Almost, the same kind of violation of human rights; the same kind of regime; the same kind of thinking. That there are two kinds of peoples. One has all the rights. The other should not get any rights. You see the world either apathetic, indifferent, or even continues to hug Israel, to see Israel ​as an ​outpost of the West, of Western values, in the Middle East. As long as this continues, as long as Israel is not punished, as long as Israel will not pay for the occupation, the occupation will last.

Jacobsen: If we look at American history, as we both know, it started – or recent pre-American history started – with a near-genocide of Native Americans, annexation of territorial lands, annexation of Mexican land, enslavement of different tribes of Africans forced to come from Africa to North America. In addition, in the Canadian case, with our first colony in New France, we had slaves. 2/3rds were Indigenous. There’s a long history of both the state sanction and church carrying out of things like Residential Schools as an extension of colonization. Is part of the national reluctance, of several countries to criticize the very obvious parallels in the Israeli-Palestinian issue, a reluctance based on the fact that a country or a nation has that history itself is applying the rights standards externally in the particular case that is ongoing, live, for more than half of a century then imply having to apply the same standards to their own situation and rights record that runs back farther?

Levy:  I am not sure. Because if this would be the case, how did the world react against South Africa? Why this didn’t appear then, emerge then? I think it has to do with history, but more with Jewish history. I think that guilt feelings of the world and, mainly, of Europe, obviously, toward the Jewish people have a bigger role, and the way Israel is manipulating those guilt feelings; together with the belief that Israel is a special case. Together with the unbelievable strategy of Israel. Namely, to convince the world – that is a normal success in recent years, to convince the world that any critique of Israel is anti-Semitism, and once you identify or label any criticism of Israel on the occupation as anti-Semitism, you paralyze almost ​any ​criticism of Israel. This was really successfully implemented in recent years. So, altogether, it has more to do with more than what you mentioned. Also, we cannot ignore Islamophobia, which is growing in the last decade playing into Israel’s hands. Because Israel says, “You see. We are facing those Islamists in our backyards.” Altogether, there are many, many factors because the question still stands, “How come the world continues to let the last colonial country continue?” How the world does so little? If you ask civil society, there is a clear majority all over the world resisting or being against the Israeli occupation. But when it comes to governments outside of lip service, you get nothing.

Jacobsen: Also, internationally, external to Israel, there was the issue around charges of rampant anti-Semitism within the Labour Party within the United Kingdom under Corbyn. That’s quite past some of our previous interview. However, just as a retrospective, what do you think can be learned in terms of how the public was told about this particular case and the reality of the case?

Levy: Look, I don’t live in the UK. I really don’t know how far anti-Semitism is in Labour. But I have no doubt knowing the actors. I have no doubt Israel, and the Jewish establishment and the Jewish lobby, did manipulate even this to the service of the Israeli propaganda. Corbyn, who had really a chance of changing the international discourse about Israel or, at least, to be the first important Western leader who would change the discourse throughout Israel, had no chance once Israel, the Zionists, the Jewish establishment, labelled him and his party as anti-Semitic, as an anti-Semitic party. Unfortunately, it was very, very effective. By this, I don’t mean to say that there is no anti-Semitism in The UK or in Labour. I guess​,​ there is. The first question is, “How deep, and how spread, is it?” The second question is, “Are you really convinced that what you call anti-Semitism is not just pure criticism about the Israeli occupation?” Those questions are not very clear.

Jacobsen: In your own opinion, what is a proper definition of anti-Semitism? What might be improper ones, where, for example, there’s an extension, as you were noting, to any criticism of Israeli policy then becomes tied to a charge of anti-Semitism, which would ignore the fact that there are Arab-Israelis?

Levy: So, first of all, it is very clear anti-Semitism should be fought and should be condemned. There is anti-Semitism. There was anti-Semitism. It brought, maybe, the ugliest phenomena in human history. No doubt about this. No doubt about the role of anti-Semitism in World War II, in the Holocaust. Even after, having said this, this does not mean that any criticism of Israel or even on Jews is not legitimate. When it gets to generalization or prejudice, like any racism, then it is unacceptable, like any other kind of racism, like Islamophobia, but when it comes to criticism about Israel, about Zionism, what is more legitimate than criticizing Zionists? What does this have to do with anti-Semitism if someone thinks that Zionism is a form of colonialism? What is legitimate? What is illegitimate in fighting against the Israeli occupation in any way, which is a non-violent way, like calling for boycotting Israel? What is not legitimate in this? What does this have to do with anti-Semitism? You have the right to boycott sweatshops in far East Asia because of their morality, or lack of morality. You have the full right to boycott the meat industry because you believe animal rights are violated. Why don’t you have the full legitimacy, right, and, in my view, duty​,​ to fight against the Israeli occupation?

Jacobsen: Also, on another note, we were talking before, in May, I think, about 12 or 11 months out of some of the therapies, which you had for​ another instance of cancer. How is your health now?

Levy: I am okay. As far as I know, there are no checkups. But I hope I am okay.

Jacobsen: Good, I’m glad. Have there been any individuals or books that have shed an interesting and unique, or simply a novel, light on the Israeli-Palestinian issue or on Israeli society that have come out since 2019 to now?

Levy: Not that I know. Not enough is written. Not enough is published, for sure not in Israel. Even Ilan Pappé’s classical book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, it was never published in Israel. So, not that I know.

Jacobsen: For those reading this when it eventually comes out, Gideon did correct me, last time. That the Israeli press is free, and so it’s private interest when beginning to have a bias. There’s no complicated situation there, in terms of the influence on media. Are there any topics that I’m not quite covering today?

Levy: Same as one year ago, and even worse. The occupation is not covered. The asylum seekers, their struggle is hardly covered. Anything which might bother the readers or the viewers will not be covered because of economical considerations, not because of any ideology. The Israeli media is very courageous when it comes to fighting corruption, when it comes to fighting the Israeli politicians, very independent, very powerful. When it comes to certain topics and above all the occupation, Israel is living in denial. This denial has a lot to do with the way that the occupation is covered by the Israeli media.

Jacobsen: Another thing, on the 28^th of January, there was a press conference with ​(Israeli) ​Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and​ (U.S.)​ President Donald J. Trump without any Palestinian representatives at the time. There is an optics matter there, as well as simply how things play ​out ​matter as well. The Trump peace plan, the mid-east plan, or the “Deal of the Century,” what is its status within the Israeli political scene? What will be the outcome of this? As far as I know, I think, one The Associated Press article reported 94% of Palestinians based on a survey rejected the plan, which is overwhelming.

Levy: I don’t know about the 6% who is supporting it. I am sure there is some error. Because there is not one single Palestinian who can support this plan. It is not a peace plan. As I said before, it is an annexation plan. But in any case, it is off the table right now. If Donald Trump will not be re-elected, then it will be totally forgotten. If he will be re-elected, then it will be back on the table, but not before the upcoming elections in the United States. Anyhow, this would not lead to anything but annexation.

Jacobsen: Something I hear and read a lot of in some of the secular communities are the influence of the fundamentalist Evangelical Christians – some – within the United States of America, and different factions of those with somewhat similar ties in Canadian society. What is the real influence of, broadly speaking, some sectors of fundamentalist Christianity with political aims on Israeli society?

Levy: You mean Christian religious movements.

Jacobsen: Yes, fundamentalist in particular.

Levy: They have very little ties with Israel. In Israel, they are quite involved in the settlement project. They are even sending all kinds of lunatic volunteers to help the settlements, even in settlement work and in the fields. Their main influence is within the United States and, maybe, even Canada. Their main influence is there, not here. They are one of the main powers, which shape the American policy toward Israel.

Jacobsen: Who are the other ones?

Levy: I guess, the evangelists, the military establishment, the weapons industry, and, obviously, the Jewish community.

Jacobsen: In some prior commentary, if I recall correctly, you were making some mentions in an interview in late 2019 about Benjamin Netanyahu evading justice in various ways, but, inevitably, this would not be an indefinite evasion. What – if I am completely misrepresenting, please just tell me, but if I am remembering this right – was meant by those just general sentiments? And what would be the timeline in non-indefinite evasion?

Levy: For Netanyahu, look, for me, this is a minor issue. But he has to go to court. No doubt about it, like any other citizen. He does anything possible, and even more so, to avoid it. He did so much until now. Right now, I am not sure if he will get to court at all. He is really a magician, super-magician – manipulations, of political maneuvers. Until now, he was very successful in postponing his trial, including this coronavirus, which, by all means, he has nothing to do with it. But he is using it so well for his own personal interests. Until now, very successfully.

Jacobsen: There have been some cases of coronavirus, I believe, in Palestinian territories. Have these​ raised hairs for you?

Levy: Look, there are no borders to the coronavirus. There is even one dead person already in the West Bank. I didn’t get into it because I can’t go there, ever since it started with isolation and closure. Also, I have to take of myself. But by the end of the day, there are no borders here. The only difference is that the conditions there are much, much poorer. My main, main, main concern is Gaza. I do not want to think about Gaza under epidemic. This will be a catastrophe. I really cross my fingers that the 2, maybe 3, cases found in Gaza are the last ones. Because if it is there, then we will see something that we didn’t see anywhere else. Because there isn’t any other cage anywhere else in the world.

Jacobsen: If I recall ​some commentary on a report on Gaza, for the 2,000,000 people there, they have only 60 intensive care beds. That’s nothing.

Levy: Right, and, therefore, the concern is so great.

Jacobsen: Any final feelings or thoughts in conclusion based on the conversation today?

Levy: No, except for being interesting, nothing more.

Jacobsen: Sir, thank you so much, I’m glad you’re doing well.

Levy: I’m very happy. And we’ll do it again if you wish.

Jacobsen: I’d be pleased and honoured.​

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/04/01

Arantxa León is a Master’s student in socioreligion, genders and diversities. Here we talk about the research on religion in Central America.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the main question within the research for you?

Arantxa León: I will give some information to make this easy to understand why I asked this specific thing [Laughing]. I was in university. It was six years ago. Something like that. We were doing research about how teenagers stick with his or her mother. So, we asked some things like, “What was the main thing that you discussed with your mother?” Things like that. They said, “My mother is so annoying, she doesn’t let me go to parties,” or something like that. We were really surprised that they said, “My mother doesn’t let me go to church.” We say, “Okay?” [Laughing].

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

León: One says, “My mother drinks beer on Fridays. I don’t like it.” You are 17. So, maybe, this is weird for us. We began to think about this. I remember that in the history. Sometimes, you have the concept circling back. You go far, go back, go far, and then go back. It is like a circular trip. I think, “Maybe, this generation is thinking to go back to church, back to religion, again. Because we have a period of time, where people went far away.” That’s why I started thinking, “I will see why young people are going to church.” I gathered 12 young people. 6 are going to different churches, 3 Roman Catholic and 3 Evangelical. I began to ask them some things about their experience. When the research came to an end, they all go to churches and have a religion. I chose 4 of them, who I realized have real trouble in this society. They have real ideas about human rights, abortion, marriage, etc. They said, “I am okay with it. My church is not.” I am sure how to deal with that information. I choose from the 6 people who have these characteristics. I started to see their past few years, how they understand that, and their thoughts about that.

Some of them realized that their religion was not the best for them. Yet, they still believed something different while attending the church. Others, 2 of them, decided, “No! I am okay with my religion. My religion gives me things that I want. But I am not okay about everything in my religion.” It was really interesting. My main question was to understand how people face these different thoughts between what they believe on a personal ground and what the church said to them; that they had to believe. It was about human rights. That’s some of the research.

Jacobsen: In your undergraduate work, you looked at religious phenomena through the lens of psychological science, as well as taking into account the political context of Costa Rica. What is the significance of religion in Central America?

León: I think it is really difficult to think of Central America as a homogeneous region because we are really different. Costa Rica really stands out in the region. Costa Ricans, we are a confessional state. I don’t know if you know that.

Jacobsen: No, I don’t.

León: So, we are the only one in all of Central America. It means the country has a state religion. In our case, it is the Catholic Church. It is about in vitro, abortion, and so on. Those are opposed by the Catholic Church. For example, until last year, there was the day after pill. Even in the case of rape, you could not take it. We are different than other countries in that specific way. We are like 100 or more years behind other countries in Central America. It is different in other cases. Things like education, like health. We are very advanced in those, but we are not in terms of human rights. I cannot talk about Central America in its entirety. But also, something that we are speaking about now. The recent political parties have been allied with really radical Evangelical courts. Partisans and populists are really Evangelical. This is something that is happening more in the region. It is happening more in Guatemala, El Salvador, Colombia, even Brazil in South America. So, that is something that is really dangerous. We are trying to figure out how that happened [Laughing]. Costa Rica is part of that. So, my hypothesis, in that case, is that the Evangelical churches arrived where the government hasn’t, in some of our countries. That’s because the church has a really foundational role in our communities. They have free social activities and provide them with food, sometimes a house. Things like that. So, I think the church and, specifically, the Evangelical church has reached where the government hasn’t, doesn’t want to, or have the goal to give it.

Jacobsen: What about Costa Rica, in particular, as it regards religious experience? So, you have a political context in Central America. You have a unique context with a confessional state. Then you have a religious population that identifies with the tenets of Catholicism, by and large, and then have them bolstered by something that cannot be questioned through scientific, objective inquiry for most people. By which I mean, they have a personal experience. They label this as proof for their religion. This becomes a motivation for their social and political views as well. When people have religious experiences in a Costa Rican context, how does this influence how they see the world, how they vote, how they live their lives?

León: In Costa Rica, it is different than other countries, as I told you. The other reason is in Costa Rica, I think, the vast majority of the people believe in a God. Like, everybody has to have the religious approach. Even if you do not believe, you will be around people who believe. You can, maybe, say, “I don’t believe.” People gasp. Maybe, you have to hide that part of you. There are people who are trying to say, “Yes, I believe. However, I have my own beliefs about some stuff.” People can be unsure about you while not knowing the religion for you. These religious values are important for the society. They think: if you are religious, then you are an honest person. You will be willing to help other people and will be a good person. If you do not believe, then you will be seen as a person who does not have the right values. Maybe, not a bad person, but a person who you can not believe in, or have confidence in them. It is difficult in Costa Rica here to say that you do not believe and do not have a religion. People are not doing activism about it. Maybe, most activists and those who do not believe exist in the feminist groups who are thinking about human rights, e.g., abortion, sex education, and things like that. That’s like the nearest approach for activism. Otherwise, you have to hide it. It is important to believe in Costa Rica, in our country. It is okay if people do not go to church ever. If you say, “I’m Catholic.” People think, “Okay!” But you have to say it, “I believe.” They think, “Yes, that’s good.” It is all of these things. It is different and is really interesting in the universities. As part of my research at the universities, if you believe, it can be something really bad; but out of the universities, if you believe, it is really okay. There are few places that you can be you if you do not believe. Most of the places, you cannot be yourself. It is difficult for young people.

Jacobsen: Another follow-up to that would be: if someone says, “I don’t believe in Catholicism. I am agnostic. I am a freethinker. I am a humanist. I am an atheist,” whatever it might be, how are they seen by the general culture?

León: Someone who does not have values. Someone who is not honest. Someone who is a person that you cannot trust. Someone who can’t be a friend because he will try to change your mind and your religion. Some people do not want to be near them. That’s why people do not identify as those as much. It is even more difficult in a social context. At work, maybe, or with family, it will be like, “Oh!” No one may be your friend. No one will talk to you. It is changing. But here in Costa Rica, it is very little steps. As I said, there are some places where it is okay. But I just heard a really sad story about a girl who is 14 or something like that. She said, “I do not believe in God,” in her school. People were like, “You are so bad,” and then bullied her. So, that’s what happens here in Costa Rica. You cannot say it.

Jacobsen: There’s different social treatment depending on what you believe.

León: Of course, of course, it will be tricky in some spaces or some places. Maybe, if you are going with your family, please don’t tell them, they might not want you back. People will say, “Please don’t tell dad or mom, or my friends,” because you will be treated differently. It is a bad thing here.

Jacobsen: I have heard that same story all over the world. It doesn’t matter if a rich country or a poor country. It is the same phenomenon. It depends on the laws and the social privileges of the religious. In general, though, there is always a backlash. The kind of it and the strength of it depends on the culture and the laws. What are religious experiences from a scientific view? What are religious experiences from a cultural, Costa Rican view?

León: As I understand religious experiences, they are an individual experience. But it is collective, as it is understood collectively. Here in Costa Rica, they are seen as good experiences, which help people in some way. I believe in an objective way: religion is here for a reason. There is a reason why. If religion doesn’t work, then the religion wouldn’t be there. For some people, it is an important part of their lives. It gives them hope and some material things. Maybe, if you are a poor family, then the church will help you. It is important for them. If you are a teenager, then there is a space for culture and art, as it is expensive to do anything here. So, for young people, it is like, “Wow! There is a space near my house where I can go and see other people.” They do parties, the way they do them, but they do them. I can talk with other people, meet with other people. Maybe, I can play an instrument or help with a younger child. Something like that. There’s a really good experience for them because the church and the religion gives them the kind of things that they can’t have in other spaces. Also, there are really bad experiences about feeling bad about themselves because religion says they are wrong. That you will never be liked. That you are really a bad person. But at the same time, it is like, “God loves you,” but you are a bad person. You don’t deserve anything in your life. It depends on the individual experience. It depends on the religion and the church, specifically, where you are going. Also, it depends on individual experience before. So, it is different for everyone. I can’t tell you, “Religion is all good or all bad,” because it is a personal thing based on researching.

Jacobsen: When you are looking at these 4 individuals in the graduate research, what are their demographics? What is a common theme in their stories?

León: They are young people. They are between 18 and 23. Their life experience is emerging adulthood. They are at the university. Same, I think, as in other countries. Here in school, you have to be in religious classes (Catholic religious classes). You have to believe. If you do not believe, then you still have to attend all of the classes. It is still very difficult. Then you go to the university. There are a lot of professors who say, “I am a freethinker. I am a humanist.” Something like that. You open your mind to other things. For people who went to the universities, some of them went to the public universities. Some of them went to the private universities. They are different from each other. They are like middle-class people. They are women and men. I think that’s the graphic. They are from San Jose, too. The common theme is that they have issues about inclusion and human rights. It has to do with their careers and their group of friends too. They have issues about it. Because, of course, the Catholic Church, “You can’t include everyone,” for example, homosexual people, or people in the LGBTIQ community, etc., or some groups. You can’t have an abortion or something like that. It is like the common theme in the stories. They are not sure about what to do with what they’re doing because they believe in god. It is really interesting because some of them believe in god because of his/her father or mother, or even their grandparents. Also, 2 of them, it was something that they started to believe when they were teenagers. Their close group of friends, at the moment, believed. They started to attend the church, even when the mother or the father was more like a part of that. One of their mothers is an atheist. She is at the point in life, where church is not that good for her. That’s the main topic. That they don’t know if one way or another, or just to be in the middle. They have really different stories. They started different things in different universities. Everything is different [Laughing] from one person to the other, but the common thing is them being in the middle and then trying to decide.

Jacobsen: Other than impressions, what are the emotions or thoughts that these people are telling or conveying in their transition from religion to non-religion?

León: First, there is a lot of confusion because they free thinking about what they thought that they believed. It is a really confusing time of their lives. Also, there is the position that to not believe is fully against what they learned over several years. It is like, “Well, maybe, I was just thinking that this was the right thing for me, for like 5, 6, 11 years. Now, I am thinking, ‘It isn’t for me.’ It was a dogma moment of life.” Also, they experience a lot of fear, for different things. First, they are not sure what will happen to them because they are not sure if there is a life after this life. So, it is like, “Oh, maybe, I will go to hell because I do not believe. They told me for 20 years that I will go to hell. I was never sure of that. I will never be sure of that.” They experience a lot of fear and, also, have a lot of fear about what the other people will say to them. The people in the church who they grew up with. They will feign saying, “Oh! I am going to another church.” Because they don’t want people to think, “Oh, he/she is a bad person.” They cannot be real with the people around them. Also, with their families, they say, “Oh! I cannot go to church because I have a lot of homework.” The family will say, “Oh, yes, you haven’t gone in like 2 years” [Laughing]. They have experienced these kinds of things. Also, they have a fear of being alone. But also, when the time passes, and then they start to believe in realizing what is happening, and start to read about it, and get more information, they feel satisfaction about the decision that they are making. They feel more free to really have their own thoughts and to do those things that feel right rather than the things that other people say are right. I think everyone will have a happy ending, I hope. Some of them are experiencing this in this moment. Some of them aren’t. I always think one of the them may return to church because I see this as always a possibility; because it is really difficult for them. Maybe, the easiest way for them is simply to return. It will be right for them.

Jacobsen: Those will be common stories. I have seen them. Individuals will leave a faith, then will have difficulties professionally and personally. In the professional sphere, they experience lack of promotions, harassment, condescending comments. In personal life, a lot of the same stuff, but without the boundaries of discourse and conduct that professional life puts on others. So, they are subject to more visceral forms of prejudice, bigotry, hate, bias, appeals to emotion, evangelism, and then the ironic claim that they themselves are not allowed to talk to the people who are evangelizing about their faith. It becomes a one-sided issue. That steadfastness becomes an important marker, I think. It becomes a marker of being solid in oneself. I noticed the dropping of fear in the commentary there. It becomes an important point at which people do not have to fear others or, from their view, now, an imaginary realm of hellfire and demons and angels, and blessings and curses, and so on.

León: I feel like it’s really important that I was reading a lot of papers. There is something that happened at this point in their lives, their journeys. But when they have a real couple or even kids, they return to that because it is the way that society tells them. They are only a good couple or a good dad in this way. It is always tricky. You will never be like in a comfortable situation in society, as someone who does not believe.

Jacobsen: How can someone challenge a confessional state to make it not a confessional state?

León: That’s really difficult. 51% or 52% of the people think that things will be better without a confessional state. But it is only half of the people. There is a reason. That is, people don’t understand what is a confessional state and do not realize what is happening. It is believed 1 or 2 years ago. The statistics would be like 20% of the people. There is really good work by some feminist groups, collectives. Also, some universities that are talking to people about it, and what that means. The percent of people who give to state go to church. For the Catholic Church, maybe, if you are idealistic, then it might not be that good for you. The kids have to have Catholic classes in their schools or something like that. I think the main topic here is to make the people understand what we want as changes. The Catholic Church says, “Oh no! They will be really upset about it.” It’s like, “No, we won’t be upset about it.” Let’s talk about it first, it is about a political thing and do not be mad because 5,000,000 people don’t make their choices about what the Catholic religion says. I don’t know if I am making the point clear. It is making the point that it’s not about them not being able to attend church, have faith activities, and so on. It is just that not all people in Costa Rica are the same as you, and that’s okay. You should be open to other beliefs and just let the people in the society decide in a political way, in a democratic way, not just what the Catholic Church says. That’s why in Costa Rica; there’s a lot of false information.

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

León: No! Thank you.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/03/26

Omar Shakir, J.D., M.A. works as the Israel and Palestine Director for Human Rights Watch. He investigates a variety of human rights abuses within the occupied Palestinian territories/Occupied Palestinian Territories or oPt/OPT (Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem) and Israel. He earned a B.A. in International Relations from Stanford University, an M.A. in Arab Studies from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Affairs, and a J.D. from Stanford Law School. He is bilingual in Arabic and English. Previously, he was a Bertha Fellow at the Center for Constitutional Rights with a focus on U.S. counterterrorism policies, which included legal representation of Guantanamo detainees. He was the Arthur R. and Barbara D. Finberg Fellow (2013-2014) for Human Rights Watch with investigations, during this time, into the human rights violations in Egypt, e.g., the Rab’a massacre, which is one of the largest killings of protestors in a single day ever. Also, he was a Fulbright Scholar in Syria.

Here we continue with the 5th part in our series of conversations with coverage on regular updates, the American context for the Israelis and the ongoing human rights issues, the release of the American peace plan, the reactions of the international community, the release of the U.N. Database of Settlement Companies, and some clarification on claims about relations between HRW and Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya. As a note, Shakir’s work permit revoked based on the decision of the Israeli Supreme Court in late 2019 (Krauss, 2019). One can see similar actions with travel bans, ongoing, against others, including Amnesty International staff member Laith Abu Zeyad (Amnesty International, 2019a; Zeyad, 2019; Amnesty International, 2020). Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar were subject to being barred from entry (Romo, 2019). Dr. Noam Chomsky was denied entry, previously (Hass, 2010). Dr. Norman Finkelstein was deported in the past (Silverstein, 2008). With the deportation of Shakir based on the decision of the Israeli Supreme Court, Shakir, for this session, works from Amman, Jordan.

*Interview conducted on February 17, 2020.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In the previous session, Session 4, we covered some of the feedback and responses coming my way (Jacobsen, 2020a; Jacobsen, 2020b). However, I can see some of these coming probably to others covering similar human rights abuses and violations of international law [Ed. Shakir noted, in “Human Rights Watch (Israel and Palestine) on Common Rights and Law Violations,” the following, “It is a similar pattern everywhere. Israel-Palestine, we have seen the same dynamic. The Israeli government says that we are biased against them. When we released reports, as we have done for more than two decades, on arbitrary arrests by the Palestinian Authority or Hamas, or the unlawful use of force by them, we are accused… of being part of an agenda of Israel and the United States to undermine them. Even in the last year, we have seen accusations from both Israelis and Palestinians” (Jacobsen, 2019)]. Now, people can reference that if any concerns regarding some of these secondary concerns. For February 17^th, what are some updates on the Israeli side? And then we can move into some other questions, basically, in a logical progression here.

Omar Shakir: Sure, I think, the most significant newsworthy development has been the release of Trump’s “Deal of the Century” and reactions for what it might mean in terms of the human rights situation on the ground affecting Israelis and Palestinians (White House Staff, 2020; Heller & Lee, 2020; Daraghmeh & Akram, 2020).[1] That plan unveiled in late January (White House Staff, 2020). Of course, it elicited a wide range of responses in the international community.[2] And, of course, within Israel and Palestine, that in conjunction with statements made by the Palestinian Authority, as well as the build up to the Israeli election, has been among the more significant developments (Krauss, & Daraghmeh, 2020).[3] Obviously, while these are political considerations, the ramifications for human rights are rather significant (Jacobsen, 2020b).

Jacobsen: Has the American context for relations with Israel, basically, since the inception of this particular human rights issue (Ibid.) been central to human rights issues down the line, whether indirectly or directly in other words?

Shakir: Sure, Americans for much of the past quarter century have played a leading role in negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The United States has never been an honest broker.[4] It has always taken the Israeli side and frequently turned a blind eye to its human rights abuses or would underplay their prominence (Jacobsen, 2020b). Under this U.S. Administration, we have seen a shift in the United States, as it has greenlighted and, in some cases, is complicit in Israeli human rights abuses on the ground (Lederer & Sanminiatelli, 2019). This plan, while departing from U.S. positions on a number of issues, lays bare what the peace process has become: a fig leaf for Israel’s discriminatory rule over Palestinians from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea (White House Staff, 2020; Lederer & Sanminiatelli, 2019). There are many possible paths to peace that ensure a better future for Israelis and Palestinians, but none that are not rooted in the dignity and rights of those on the receiving end of any peace deal (Jacobsen, 2020b).

Jacobsen: When this was released on the 28^th of January, no Palestinian representatives were present (Heller & Lee, 2020). However, the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, was present in terms of a press conference with President Donald Trump (Ibid.). Is this in line with the obvious message being sent?

Shakir: Of course, the United States government under the Trump Administration has taken a series of steps that are intended or have the effect of utterly decimating organized Palestinian politics, and the institutions that work on issues related to Palestinians, as well as the issues themselves, but it goes beyond the optics of having only one side present (Lederer & Sanminiatelli, 2019). I think this plan takes the status quo, which is a reality that can be characterized by institutional discrimination, systemic repression of Palestinians, and serious human rights abuses, and calls it its final solution (Human Rights Watch, 2019a; Human Rights Watch, 2019b). It strives to make permanent a one-state reality in which 14 or so million people, about half of whom are Israeli or Palestinian, live in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea with Palestinians treated unequally.[5] This would make permanent this reality and facilitate Israeli annexation of the West Bank and allow it to, in essence, maintain full domination and control over Palestinians and its abusive system of control over them (The Associated Press, 2020a; Krauss & Daraghmeh, 2020).

Jacobsen: How are American allies reacting to the release of this? Is it complacency or explicit support in many cases?

Shakir: There has, of course, been a mixed response in the international community (Daraghmeh & Akram, 2020). I think, on one hand, there is a desire by many states for a political process in a context where for a number of years in which there has been little movement. I also think there has been a widespread rejection of the way in which this proposal undermines international law (Lederer & Sanminiatelli, 2019; Daraghmeh & Akram, 2020). Of course, any process should be open to different and new ideas, but this proposal does nothing more than entrench an abusive, discriminatory status quo. But I think you have seen some interesting developments. You have seen a rejection of the plan by significant blocs of states, including the European Union (Emmott, 2020), the League of Arab States[6] (Fahmy, el-Din, & Laessing, 2020), the Organization of Islamic Cooperation[7] (Kalin & Abdullah, 2020), among others. You have also seen the European Union and some states in Europe make clear that any future resolution should be rooted in the equal rights of all people[8] (United Nations, 1948; Jacobsen, 2020b), which, while a straightforward notion, has not been the sort of language and framing that has been used in this context. I think it underlies the basic reality that Israel cannot continue to use the logic of occupation to justify the mass suspension of basic Palestinian rights (Jacobsen, 2020b). There have been some states (Daraghmeh & Akram, 2020) that have reacted more positively to this initiative, but, at the same time, I think the overall trend has been a rejection of the attempt to liquidate core rights for Palestinians (Human Rights Watch, 2019a; Human Rights Watch, 2019b; Jacobsen, 2020b).

Jacobsen: How are the conversations taking place over time since the 28^th[9] in the Gaza Strip, in the West Bank?

Shakir: Look, I think for many Palestinians this plan is nothing new. [Laughing] It is the reality that they have lived under for more than half of a century of ugly occupation characterized by entrenched discrimination and serious rights abuse (Human Rights Watch, 2019a; Jacobsen, 2020b). Polling data indicates that 90%+ of Palestinians reject the plan (The Associated Press, 2020b).[10] There have, certainly, been demonstrations and uses of force by Israeli security forces against demonstrators (Daraghmeh & Akram, 2020; Goldenberg, 2020). There have also been more violent attacks by Palestinians against Israeli security forces and civilians (Akram, 2020; Krauss, 2020a; Krauss, 2020b; The Associated Press, 2020c). We have seen a range of different reactions (Lederer & Sanminiatelli, 2019; Krauss & Daraghmeh, 2020; Daraghmeh & Akram, 2020; Heller & Lee, 2020). I think Palestinians understand this plan for what it is: an attempt to make permanent the discriminatory status quo (The Associated Press, 2020b).

Jacobsen: The U.N. also recently released a list of companies, 112[11] [Ed. Countries with companies on the listing (number of companies in parentheses per country): France (3), Israel (94), Luxembourg (1), Netherlands (4), Thailand (1), United Kingdom (3), United States of America (6) (U.N. Human Rights Council, 2020).], who are doing business on Israeli settlements in the West Bank (Nebehay, 2020; Federman, 2020; Federman & Keaten, 2020). What does this mean for this similar discourse of rights violations through the annexation of land? What are the particular types of rights violations in this reportage?

Shakir: The long-awaited release of the U.N. Database of Settlement Companies should really put companies on notice: to do business with illegal settlements is to aid in the commission of war crimes (U.N. Human Rights Council, 2020).[12] Companies have hid for too long behind the idea of these issues as too controversial or complex as a way to excuse their direct contribution to rights abuses. The underlying reality is that settlements are not only a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and a war crime (Diplomatic Conference of Geneva, 1949; Amnesty International, 2019b).[13] They also entail systematic abuses to the rights of Palestinians. Settlements are built on land confiscated, stolen, from Palestinians (Amnesty International, 2019b). In order to maintain the settlement enterprise, Israel has erected a two-tiered discriminatory system[14] in the West Bank that treats Palestinians separately and unequally (Human Rights Watch, 2010). Companies that do business in settlements not only further entrench the illegal settlement enterprise, but they actually profit from the theft of Palestinian land and contribute to the further dispossession of Palestinians.[15] I think the release of this database is an important step towards ensuring transparency around these activities, but also towards protecting human rights, not only of Palestinians, but setting a precedent that can be used in other contexts to improve the standards around business and human rights.

Jacobsen: Is there a project ongoing with the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (2020a)? Is there a partnership between HRW and IDC Herzliya in terms of a rule of law project called “Reconnect” (Cronin, 2020)?

Shakir: No, there isn’t. The RECONNECT project is a multidisciplinary research project focusing on rule of law in Europe (2020b). It involves several universities and academic institutions. The international advisory board, on which one Human Rights Watch staff member serves in her private capacity, is solely linked to the RECONNECT project (IDC Herzliya, 2020c), and it does not involve any dealings with the individual academic institutions and their individual programs, curricular, research etc.

Jacobsen: Have there been any force or military engagements in the last month as well?

Shakir: There have been, of course, in the aftermath of the U.S. plan. There have been demonstrations. There have been instances, certainly, of Israel in keeping with its practice of apparently using excessive force and policing operations in East Jerusalem and along the fences separating Gaza and the West Bank. Those practices, certainly, have continued. There have also been instances in emanating from Gaza and the West Bank of Palestinians using violence that affected civilians. So, those have continued in line with the practices that have been documented before.

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

Shakir: Bye now.

References

Akram, F. (2020, January 21). Israeli army kills 3 Palestinians after attack at Gaza fence. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/dc0239c088f22d3f5a6639b171a3f181.

Amnesty International. (2019b, January). Chapter 3: Israeli Settlements and International Law. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2019/01/chapter-3-israeli-settlements-and-international-law/.

Amnesty International. (2019a, October 31). Israel/ OPT: Amnesty staff member faces punitive travel ban for human rights work. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/10/israel-opt-amnesty-staff-member-faces-punitive-travel-ban-for-human-rights-work/.

Amnesty International. (2020, March 25). ISRAEL/ OPT: End cruel travel ban on Amnesty staff member. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/03/israel-opt-end-cruel-travel-ban-on-amnesty-staff-member/.

Cronin, D. (2020, January 27). Why has Human Rights Watch teamed up with Israeli warmongers?. Retrieved from https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/david-cronin/why-has-human-rights-watch-teamed-israeli-warmongers.

Daraghmeh, M. & Akram, F. (2020, January 28). Palestinians angrily reject Trump Mideast peace plan. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/0dcb0179faf41e1870f35838058f4d18.

Emmott, R. (2020, February 4). EU rejects Trump Middle East peace plan, annexation. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-eu/eu-rejects-trump-middle-east-peace-plan-annexation-idUSKBN1ZY1I9.

Fahmy, O. el-Din, M.S., & Laessing, U. (2020, February 1). Arab League rejects Trump’s Middle East plan: communique. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-arabs/arab-league-rejects-trumps-middle-east-plan-communique-idUSKBN1ZV3QV.

Federman, J. (2020, February 13). Pompeo ‘outraged’ by UN list of firms with settlement ties. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/c0ec6c0a8ebb1b68b4d233a894634b51.

Federman, J. & Keaten, J. (2020, February 12). UN list targets firms linked to Israeli settlements. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/5c4eb3c4dd04a1ea0880dd735ebb0544.

Goldenberg, T. (2020, February 6). Mideast violence flares as anger mounts over Trump plan. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/c3ce0c94b262b60fe3fc0ce317450aa1.

Hass, A. (2010, May 16). Noam Chomsky Denied Entry Into Israel and West Bank. Retrieved from https://www.haaretz.com/1.5121279.

Heller, A. & Lee, M. (2020, January 28). Retrieved from https://apnews.com/f7d36b9023309ce4b1e423b02abf52c6.

Holland, S., Williams, D., & Mohammed, A. (2020, January 28). Trump leaps into Middle East fray with peace plan that Palestinians denounce. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-plan/trump-leaps-into-middle-east-fray-with-peace-plan-that-palestinians-denounce-idUSKBN1ZR1SR.

Human Rights Watch. (2019a). Born Without Civil Rights: Israel’s Use of Draconian Military Orders to Repress Palestinians in the West Bank. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/palestine1219_web_0.p.

Human Rights Watch. (2019b). Israel and Palestine. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/israel/palestine.

Human Rights Watch. (2010, December 19). Separate and Unequal: Israel’s Discriminatory Treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/report/2010/12/19/separate-and-unequal/israels-discriminatory-treatment-palestinians-occupied.

IDC Herzliya. (2020a). About IDC. Retrieved from https://www.idc.ac.il/en/pages/home.aspx.

IDC Herzliya. (2020c). International Advisory Board: Lotte Leicht. Retrieved from https://reconnect-europe.eu/project-info/iab/.

IDC Herzliya. (2020b). RECONNECT: Interdisciplinary Centre Herzliya. Retrieved from https://reconnect-europe.eu/partners/idc/.

International Committee of the Red Cross (Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949). (1949, August 12). Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. Retrieved from https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=AE2D398352C5B028C12563CD002D6B5C&action=openDocument.

Jacobsen, S.D. (2020a, March 20). Ask HRW (Israel and Palestine) 4 – Uninhabitable: The Viability of Gaza Strip’s 2020 Unlivability. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2020/03/ask-hrw-israel-and-palestine-4-jacobsen/.

Jacobsen, S.D. (2020b, March 20). Ask HRW (Israel and Palestine) Addendum: Some History and Contextualization of Rights. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2020/03/ask-hrw-israel-and-palestine-addendum-jacobsen/.

Jacobsen, S.D. (2019, May 25). Human Rights Watch (Israel and Palestine) on Common Rights and Law Violations. Retrieved from https://www.newsintervention.com/human-rights-watch-israel-and-palestine-on-common-rights-and-law-violations/.

Kalin, S. & Abdullah, N. (2020, February 3). Organization of Islamic Cooperation rejects Trump peace plan: statement. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-oic/organization-of-islamic-cooperation-rejects-trump-peace-plan-statement-idUSKBN1ZX1BH.  

Krauss, J. (2020b, February 7). Palestinians deny US charges of incitement, blame Trump plan. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/b6504c5c673c656b233657655b6fe8c1.

Krauss, J. (2020a, January 31). Palestinians protest Trump plan, Gaza militants fire rockets. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/8b1e187b73181b12f29f5709a95b8f9b.

Krauss, J. (2019, November 24). Rights researcher deported by Israel vows to continue work. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/0affecdba13e41afbdeb9be9825f97b5.

Krauss, J. & Daraghmeh, M. (2020, February 6). Anger at Trump plan could mobilize Arab voters in Israel. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/37982cbe5f3596249c70b907ec87aee2.

Lederer, E.M. & Sanminiatelli, M. (2019, September 26). Abbas slams US for ‘depriving peace process of credibility’. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/c865a01d924542caa0aac0607ba8a63c.

Nebehay, S. (2020, February 12). U.N. report names 112 companies doing business with Israeli settlements. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-un-companies/u-n-report-names-112-companies-doing-business-with-israeli-settlements-idUSKBN206234.

Romo, V. (2019, August 15). Reps. Omar And Tlaib Barred From Visiting Israel After Trump Supports A Ban. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2019/08/15/751430877/reps-omar-and-tlaib-barred-from-visiting-israel-after-trump-insists-on-ban/.

Silverstein, R. (2008, May 27). Shut out of the homeland. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/may/27/shutoutofthehomeland.

The Associated Press. (2020b, February 12). 94% of Palestinians Reject Trump’s Plan; Support for Armed Struggle on Rise, Poll Says. Retrieved from https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/poll-94-of-palestinians-reject-trump-s-plan-support-for-armed-struggle-on-rise-1.8527500.

The Associated Press. (2020c, January 16). Israel hits Hamas target in Gaza as balloon attacks resume. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/ebebb6d4bdf31c9f7a004a86326ff4a1.

The Associated Press. (2020a, January 28). Netanyahu to ask Cabinet on Sunday to endorse plan to annex parts of West Bank. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/c253924f9bd9c5e0d385cb5f8bed5305.

U.N. Human Rights Council. (2020, February 12). Database of all business enterprises involved in the activities detailed in paragraph 96 of the independent international fact-finding mission to investigate the implications of the Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. A/HRC/43/71.

U.N. News. (2020, February 14). Database of businesses linked to Israeli settlements ‘important initial step’ towards accountability: rights expert. Retrieved from https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/02/1057451.

United Nations. (1948, December 10). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/.  

White House Staff. (2020, January). Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of the Palestinian and Israeli People. Retrieved from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Peace_to_Prosperity.pdf.

Zeyad, L.A. (2019, December 16). Facebook Twitter Why is Israel preventing me from accompanying my mother to chemotherapy?. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/12/why-is-israel-preventing-me-from-accompanying-my-mother-to-chemotherapy/.

—

Footnotes

[1] In terms of the presence at an announcement or an unveiling of the “Deal of the Century,” the Mideast plan, the Trump peace plan, or the release of the publication entitled “Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of the Palestinian and Israeli People,” it was reported by the Associated Press:

“It’s going to work,” Trump said, as he presented the plan at a White House ceremony filled with Israeli officials and allies, including evangelical Christian leaders and wealthy Republican donors. Representatives from the Arab countries of Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates were present, but there were no Palestinian representatives [emphasis added].

See Heller & Lee (2020).

[2] The Associated Press stated:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said “a thousand no’s” to the Mideast peace plan announced Tuesday by President Donald Trump…

…“We are certain that our Palestinian people will not let these conspiracies pass. So, all options are open. The (Israeli) occupation and the U.S. administration will bear the responsibility for what they did,” senior Hamas official Khalil al-Hayya said as he participated in one of several protests that broke out across the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip…

…EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said Trump’s initiative “provides an occasion to re-launch the urgently needed efforts towards a negotiated and viable solution” to the conflict…

…U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the United Nations supports two states living in peace and security within recognized borders, on the basis of the pre-1967 borders, according to his spokesman…

…Saudi Arabia said it appreciated the Trump administration’s efforts and encouraged the resumption of direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians “under the auspices of the United States…”

…Jordan, meanwhile, warned against any Israeli “annexation of Palestinian lands” and reaffirmed its commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state along the 1967 lines, which would include all the West Bank and Israeli-annexed east Jerusalem…

…Egypt urged Israelis and Palestinians to “carefully study” the plan and said it appreciates the administration’s efforts.

See Daraghmeh & Akram (2020).

[3] The Associated Press stated:

The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank also has adamantly rejected the plan [emphasis added], which would allow Israel to annex all of its settlements and large parts of the West Bank, leaving the Palestinians with limited autonomy in an archipelago of enclaves surrounded by Israel.

See Krauss & Daraghmeh (2020).

[4] The Associated Press stated:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas took to the world stage on Thursday to slam the United States for “depriving the peace process of any credibility” and undermining prospects for a two-state solution to the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In a speech before the U.N. General Assembly, Abbas also criticized the U.S. for recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, for saying that Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories are legitimate and for cutting development aid to the Palestinians.

U.S. policy, he said, is “pushing large segments of the Palestinian people to lose hope in the possibility of long-awaited peace,” and renewed his call for an international peace conference.

See Lederer & Sanminiatelli (2019).

[5] This differs from the United Nations stance up to the U.N. Secretary-General making the stance explicit as recent as early 2020. The Associated Press stated:

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the United Nations supports two states living in peace and security within recognized borders, on the basis of the pre-1967 borders, according to his spokesman.

“The position of the United Nations on the two-state solution has been defined, throughout the years, by relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions by which the Secretariat is bound,” the spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, said.

See Daraghmeh & Akram (2020).

[6] Reuters stated:

The Arab League rejected U.S. President Donald Trump’s Middle East peace plan [emphasis added] at a meeting of foreign ministers in Cairo on Saturday, saying it would not lead to a just peace deal.

The Arab League will not cooperate with the United States to execute the plan, a communique said. Israel should not to implement the initiative by force, it said.

See Fahmy, el-Din, & Laessing (2020).

[7] Reuters stated:

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation said on Monday it rejects U.S. President Donald Trump’s Middle East peace plan [emphasis added].

The 57-member organization which held a summit to discuss the plan in Jeddah said it “calls on all member states not to engage with this plan or to cooperate with the U.S. administration in implementing it in any form”.

See Kalin & Abdullah (2020).

[8] The United Nations stipulated:

…recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world…

…THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations… 

…All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood… 

…Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty…

…All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

See United Nations (1948).

[9] The “Deal of the Century” or the “Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of the Palestinian and Israeli People” released on this date. See Holland, Williams, & Mohammed (2020).

[10] The Associated Press (in Haaretz) stated:

Ninety-four percent of Palestinians reject President Donald Trump’s Mideast initiative according to a poll released Tuesday, which also found plummeting support for a two-state solution with Israel and nearly two-thirds backing armed struggle [emphasis added].

The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research was published the poll as thousands of Palestinians rallied in the West Bank and Gaza to reject the Trump plan and express support for President Mahmoud Abbas in his efforts to gain backing at the UN Security Council for a resolution opposing it.

The survey, the first of Palestinian public opinion to be released since Trump’s plan was announced, undercuts the administration’s claims that opposition to the plan is largely confined to the Palestinian leadership, and raises concerns that the implementation of the proposal, which heavily favors Israel, could ignite a new round of violence.

Trump’s Mideast plan, announced at the White House on January 28, sides with Israel on virtually all of the most contentious issues of the decades-old conflict…

…The Palestinian leadership, which cut off ties with the United States after Trump recognized disputed Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in 2017, have adamantly rejected the plan.

The opinion survey found that an overwhelming majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza also oppose it.

“I don’t think we’ve ever seen such a level of consensus among the Palestinian public,” said Khalil Shikaki, the head of the polling center…

…“All Palestinian people and all the factions, national and Islamic, are standing behind President Mahmoud Abbas,” Prime Minister Mohammed Shtayyeh told the crowd in Ramallah. “All the streets are full,” he said. “This is the Palestinian response.”

See The Associated Press (2020b).

[11] U.N. News stated:

A database of 112 businesses connected to Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory has been hailed by an independent human rights expert as “an important initial step towards accountability and the end to impunity”. 

Ninety-four of the businesses are domiciled in Israel and the rest are in six other countries. 

“While the release of the database will not, by itself, bring an end to the illegal settlements and their serious impact upon human rights, it does signal that sustained defiance by an occupying power will not go unanswered”, Special Rapporteur Michael Lynk said on Friday…

…“Without these investments, wineries, factories, corporate supply and purchase agreements, banking operations and support services, many of the settlements would not be financially and operationally sustainable. And without the settlements, the five-decade-long Israeli occupation would lose its colonial raison d’être”, he stated. 

The rights expert urged UN Member States to implement laws banning the import of goods produced in illegal settlements located in any occupied territory. 

“The international community has rightly condemned the illegal status and harmful impact of the Israeli settlements,” the Special Rapporteur said. “But by engaging in trade and commerce with the settlements, the international community sustains their viability and undercuts its own pronouncements”. 

Special Rapporteurs are appointed by the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council to examine and report back on a specific human rights theme or a country situation. The positions are honorary and the experts are not UN staff, nor are they paid for their work. 

See U.N. News (2020).

U.N. Human Rights Council lists the companies in this footnote below the rest of this contextualization text. The report stated, “OHCHR found that 112 of the 188 business enterprises considered for inclusion in the database met the required standard of reasonable grounds to believe that they were involved in one or more of the listed activities (see table below). The remaining 76 business enterprises did not meet the standard of proof and were not included in the database.” The classifications for the “Category of listed activity” in the table of the 112 businesses references II. Mandate 6. (a) through (j), as follows:

(a) The supply of equipment and materials facilitating the construction and the expansion of settlements and the wall, and associated infrastructure;

(b) The supply of surveillance and identification equipment for settlements, the wall and checkpoints directly linked with settlements;

(c)  The supply of equipment for the demolition of housing and property, the destruction of agricultural farms, greenhouses, olive groves and crops;

(d) The supply of security services, equipment and materials to enterprises operating in settlements;

(e)  The provision of services and utilities supporting the maintenance and existence of settlements, including transport;

(f)  Banking and financial operations helping to develop, expand or maintain settlements and their activities, including loans for housing and the development of businesses;

(g) The use of natural resources, in particular water and land, for business purposes;

(h) Pollution, and the dumping of waste in or its transfer to Palestinian villages;

(i)  Captivity of the Palestinian financial and economic markets, as well as practices that disadvantage Palestinian enterprises, including through restrictions on movement, administrative and legal constraints;

(j) The use of benefits and reinvestments of enterprises owned totally or partially by settlers for developing, expanding and maintaining the settlements.

OHCHR noted, “With respect to three listed activities (see para. 6 (c), (i) and (j) above), OHCHR did not find any business enterprise satisfying the standard of reasonable grounds to believe involvement consistent with the definitions set out above.” Please find the complete 112 out of the 188 companies who formally met the requirements for inclusion as follows:

See U.N. Human Rights Council (2020).

[12] By the statements from Shakir’s expert evaluation, and the personal analyses above, France, Israel, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America are actively engaged in aiding “in the commission of war crimes” based on “business with illegal settlements” to the tune of 3 companies, 94 companies, 1 company, 4 companies, 1 company, 3 companies, and 6 companies, respectively.

[13] Amnesty International states:

Israel’s policy of settling its civilians in occupied Palestinian territory and displacing the local population contravenes fundamental rules of international humanitarian law.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” It also prohibits the “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory”. 

The extensive appropriation of land and the appropriation and destruction of property required to build and expand settlements also breach other rules of international humanitarian law. Under the Hague Regulations of 1907, the public property of the occupied population (such as lands, forests and agricultural estates) is subject to the laws of usufruct. This means that an occupying state is only allowed a very limited use of this property. This limitation is derived from the notion that occupation is temporary, the core idea of the law of occupation. In the words of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the occupying power “has a duty to ensure the protection, security, and welfare of the people living under occupation and to guarantee that they can live as normal a life as possible, in accordance with their own laws, culture, and traditions.”

The Hague Regulations prohibit the confiscation of private property. The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the destruction of private or state property, “except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations”…

… The settlements have been condemned as illegal in many UN Security Council and other UN resolutions. As early as 1980, UN Security Council Resolution 465 called on Israel “to dismantle the existing settlements and, in particular, to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.” The International Committee of the Red Cross and the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention have reaffirmed that settlements violate international humanitarian law. The illegality of the settlements was recently reaffirmed by UN Security Council Resolution 2334, passed in December 2016, which reiterates the Security Council’s call on Israel to cease all settlement activities in the OPT. The serious human rights violations that stem from Israeli settlements have also been repeatedly raised and condemned by international bodies and experts.

See Amnesty International (2019).

[14] Human Rights Watch reported:

This report consists of a series of case studies that compare Israel’s different treatment of Jewish settlements to nearby Palestinian communities throughout the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. It describes the two-tier system of laws, rules, and services that Israel operates for the two populations in areas in the West Bank under its exclusive control, which provide preferential services, development, and benefits for Jewish settlers while imposing harsh conditions on Palestinians…

…It is widely acknowledged that Israel’s settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, violate international humanitarian law, which prohibits the occupying power from transferring its civilian population into the territories it occupies; Israel appears to be the only country to contest that its settlements are illegal…

…Since 1967, when it seized the West Bank from Jordan during hostilities—and under a variety of governments, since the right-wing Likud party first came to power in 1977—Israel has expropriated land from Palestinians for Jewish-Israeli settlements and their supporting infrastructure, denied Palestinians building permits and demolished “illegal” Palestinian construction (i.e., Palestinian construction that the Israeli government chose not to authorize), prevented Palestinian villages from upgrading or building homes, schools, health clinics, wells, and water cisterns, blocked Palestinians from accessing roads and agricultural lands, failed to provide electricity, sewage, water, and other utilities to Palestinian communities, and rejected their applications for such services. 

 See Human Rights Watch. (2010).

[15] Human Rights Watch stated:

Israeli and multinational corporations and their subsidiaries profit from settlements in a variety of ways, including by receiving, producing, exporting, or marketing settlement agricultural and industrial goods, and by financing or constructing settlement buildings and infrastructure. Companies have directly contributed to discriminatory rights violations against Palestinians, for example through business activities based on lands that were unlawfully confiscated from Palestinians without compensation for the benefit of settlers, or activities that consume natural resources like water or rock quarries to which Israeli policies provide settlement industries preferential access, while denying equitable access to Palestinians. These businesses also benefit from Israeli governmental subsidies, tax abatements, and discriminatory access to infrastructure, permits, and export channels; Palestinian businesses deprived of equitable access to these government-provided benefits are sometimes as a result unable to compete against settlement-based companies in Palestinian, Israeli, or foreign markets.

See Ibid.

Previous Sessions (Chronological Order)

Interview with Omar Shakir – Israel and Palestine Director, Human Rights Watch (Middle East and North Africa Division)

HRW Israel and Palestine (MENA) Director on Systematic Methodology and Universal Vision

Human Rights Watch (Israel and Palestine) on Common Rights and Law Violations

Ask HRW (Israel and Palestine) 1 – Recent Events

Ask HRW (Israel and Palestine) 2 – Demolitions

Ask HRW (Israel and Palestine) 3 – November-December: Deportation from Tel Aviv, Israel for Human Rights Watch Israel and Palestine Director

Ask HRW (Israel and Palestine) 4 – Uninhabitable: The Viability of Gaza Strip’s 2020 Unlivability

Addenda

Ask HRW (Israel and Palestine) Addendum: Some History and Contextualization of Rights

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/03/20

Omar Shakir, J.D., M.A. works as the Israel and Palestine Director for Human Rights Watch. He investigates a variety of human rights abuses within the occupied Palestinian territories or oPt (Gaza and the West Bank) and Israel. He earned a B.A. in International Relations from Stanford University, an M.A. in Arab Studies from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Affairs, and a J.D. from Stanford Law school. He is bilingual in Arabic and English. Previously, he was a Bertha Fellow at the Center for Constitutional Rights with a focus on U.S. counterterrorism policies, which included legal representation of Guantanamo detainees. He was the Arthur R. and Barbara D. Finberg Fellow (2013-2014) for Human Rights Watch with investigations, during this time, into the human rights violations in Egypt, e.g., the Rab’a massacre, which is one of the largest killings of protestors in a single day ever. Also, he was a Fulbright Scholar in Syria.

Here we continue with the fourth part in our series of conversations with coverage of some of the real responses to this and prior work with Shakir, and then some updates on the end of December of 2019 and the first half of January of 2020 for Israel and Palestine. As a note, with the deportation of Shakir based on the decision of the Israeli Supreme Court, Shakir, for this session, works from Amman, Jordan.

*Interview conducted on January 12, 2020.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Based on some of the interviews we’ve done (Jacobsen, 2019a; Jacobsen, 2019b; Jacobsen; 2019c; Jacobsen, 2019d; Jacobsen, 2019e; Jacobsen, 2019f), and some of the more extensive work you’ve done through Human Rights Watch (HRW) on Israel and Palestine regarding human rights violations on all sides (Human Rights Watch, 2019c), you can get peripheral critiques, or ad hominem, i.e., “Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments,” or red herrings, i.e., “Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them” (Purdue University, 2020). One can be standard. For instance, if you critique human rights violations by Israel or Israeli policy, you can be labelled anti-Semitic. What is generally the context for that charge? What is an appropriate response?

Omar Shakir: Anti-Semitism is a serious problem around the world, but to conflate criticism of Israeli policy or human rights documentation with anti-Semitism is to undermine what is a really serious societal ill (United Nations, 2019b). The reality is Human Rights Watch covers human rights abuses in over 100 countries around the world [Ed. HRW states, “Our researchers work in the field in 100 some countries, uncovering facts that create an undeniable record of human rights abuses” (Human Rights Watch, 2020b)]. We use the same methodologies in every country in which we work in. Often times, abuse of governments and their supporters instead of dealing with the substance of our work and our documentation will instead attack the messenger and assert claims of bias, as a way to attempt to shift attention from the underlying human rights abuse.  But this strategy has failed around the world. Folks understand that concerns about human rights abuse stems from a desire to improve the lives and the respect for the human dignity of all peoples.

Jacobsen: How does this cheapen real charges of anti-Semitism against those who are victimized by that kind of prejudice?

Shakir: It undermines the fight, the necessary fight, against all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism, to conflate Israeli policy with that societal ill. The reality is that human rights documentation in any context and advocacy for protection of human rights is an attempt to protect the rights of all people, including the right to be free from discrimination of all forms, including anti-Semitism.

Jacobsen: Another one that came my way. The idea that you have Arab ethnic heritage and, therefore, you are biased against Israel or likely to be biased. Is this along the same lines of a red herring-ad hominem?

Shakir: Absolutely, we have researchers of diverse backgrounds at Human Rights Watch. Often, we have a person from the country who is covering that country.  Of course, I’m neither Israeli or Palestinian. My predecessor was Jewish Israeli. Our methods are the same regardless of the identity of the particular researcher. To assert that someone because of their background is more or less able to do the research is a real reductionist argument. It is important to also note the research of Human Rights Watch is not the work of one person. We are an organization with a review process that goes through, at least, four other people. So, everything that goes out of the organization has been vetted to ensure that it meets the rigorous research standards, and that it applies through all the work of Human Rights Watch.

Jacobsen: For others, they mentioned not referencing Hamas attacks or other attacks against Israelis. I think that one is straightforward. They can look at other content that we have produced [Ed. Shakir stated, “Armed Palestinian groups also fired hundreds of rockets towards Israeli population centres that injured more than 75 Israelis. These are indiscriminate attacks that are war crimes. Those hostilities, of course, raised a number of other human rights issues” (Jacobsen, 2019f). Also, Shakir, in another session, stated, “It is a similar pattern everywhere. Israel-Palestine, we have seen the same dynamic. The Israeli government says that we are biased against them. When we released reports, as we have done for more than two decades, on arbitrary arrests by the Palestinian Authority or Hamas, or the unlawful use of force by them, we are accused… of being part of an agenda of Israel and the United States to undermine them. Even in the last year, we have seen accusations from both Israelis and Palestinians. I think the way to respond to that is to be methodologically consistent, to use the same tools, and to document the abuses of all parties” (Jacobsen, 2019c)]. They’re pointing to the idea that people reading this series will only come out with the idea that Israel is a colonialist, racist nation. I think we have covered this is in other sessions.

Shakir: Our documentation looks at abuses committed by all actors in Israel and Palestine. Take 2019, we issued a report that called the firing of indiscriminate rocket attacks by Palestinian groups war crimes (Human Rights Watch, 2019c). Also, we released a report documenting systematic, arbitrary arrest, mistreatment, and torture of people in detention by both the Palestinian authority and the Hamas authorities in the Gaza Strip. We regularly do this. Not because we are trying to create a “balance,” but because the reality of human rights abuse on the ground is that it is committed by a range of actors – not solely Israelis, not solely Palestinians. Our work covers the range of different actors involved in human rights abuse.

Jacobsen: The last one on the list was labelling some of the work you’ve been reporting on to me as irresponsible propaganda [Ed. “irresponsible propaganda” against Israel]. Maybe, we can focus on the ways in which many international respectable rights organizations are coming to the same conclusions as Human Rights Watch.  

Shakir: Human Rights Watch regularly does thorough, meticulous investigations speaking to a range of different witnesses of different backgrounds, consulting and seeking to corroborate all our findings with physical evidence and video evidence, a range of different sources, opinions of all stakeholders. Our research and conclusions, often, are reaching similar results as those reached by Israeli, Palestinian or other international human rights organizations.  I think, an easy way to dismiss an argument instead of dealing with the substance is to attach a label on it rather than delving into the substance in depth.

Jacobsen: Thank you, let’s delve more substantively into current events. As we are moving close to the second half of January in 2020, what are some of the important updates on the Israeli side and the Palestinian side?

Shakir: Let’s start with the Gaza Strip. The United Nations put out a report a few years ago saying that Gaza would be unlivable by 2020 (United Nations Relief and Works Agency, 2012; Macintyre, 2019; Belousha & Berger, 2019; Baroud, 2020). As we turn the page into a new decade, Gaza continues to be on the brink. Economically, 80% of the population relies on humanitarian aid (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2015), unemployment figures hover around 50% (Estrin, 2018), and are even higher for women and for youth. Gaza continues to be in a process of de-development with a GDP per capita lower than it was 25 years ago [Ed. “Since 1994, Gaza’s per capita GDP has shrunk by 23 per cent” (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2017). That reality continues. In the West Bank, of course, we are in the 53^rd year of the occupation [Ed. “It is the longest occupation in recent history” (Ibid.)]. We see, now, a new Defense Minister [Ed. The Minister of Defense for Israel is Naftali Bennett (Knesset, 2020).] who has reiterated the desire to not only continue the systematic abuses, but, in fact, accelerate the construction of illegal settlements in the West Bank, as well as to facilitate and increase demolition of Palestinian homes and other structures (Kubovich, 2020; Lazaroff, & Toameh, 2020; Japan Times, 201). In 2019, we saw alarming figures regarding demolitions of homes in East Jerusalem and elsewhere in the occupied West Bank (Jacobsen, 2019e). I think these are among the significant developments. Of course, while much of the focus is on Israeli elections (Jerusalem Post, 2020), we continue to see the government double down on abusive policies (Human Rights Watch, 2019a). None of the major political parties are articulating an alternative vision.

Jacobsen: On the issues of unlivability in 2020, what are the most significant issues regarding that? What are the most pressing ones, e.g. around clean water?

Shakir: I think the most significant are limited access to clean water, limited or restricted access to electricity, and the larger humanitarian considerations that come with caging 2 million people in a 25 x 7 mile or 40 x 11 kilometre strip of land for more than a decade (Human Rights Watch, 2019c; Human Rights Watch, 2020a). That creates environmental and other issues. It is not a sustainable model. Much less, one that safeguards the rights entitled to the Palestinian population living in Gaza.

Jacobsen: Are there any comments or updates on the blockade?

Shakir: The blockade continues into its 12^th year (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2019b). The Israeli government continued in 2019 a policy, where punitively in response to actions by armed groups or hostilities will, at times, further tighten the noose, e.g., restricting the access of fishermen off the coast of Gaza, access to the sea, or closing its crossing for the movement of people and/or goods, occasionally restricting export and import of goods. Otherwise, the ongoing policy, which is, in essence, a generalized travel ban of the people in Gaza outside of a narrow set of exemptions, continues to be in place (Human Rights Watch, 2019c; Human Rights Watch, 2020a). As well, there are restrictions on what goods can be exported out of Gaza, including to the occupied West Bank, which is part of the singular territorial entity, or to the outside world.

Jacobsen: What has been reported as the single most significant thing that could be done to improve the livelihood and the livability of Gaza?

Shakir: I think there’s no question. The single thing that must be done is to end the sweeping, unlawful restrictions on the movement of people and goods. The reality here is that movement of people and goods is key to developing the economy of Gaza and increasing the capacity of Gaza’s population, which is urban, highly educated. There are, of course, many other steps that can be taken by the Egyptian government, which controls one of the crossings out of Gaza, and the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, which have a degree of control. The single most important thing would be to end the closure. That does not mean to open the borders to all goods and traffic into Israel. Of course, Israel can enact some restrictions in the name of security, but a broad, sweeping, generalized ban that only lets people on an exceptional basis is unlawful. Rather, the baseline should be free movement with restrictions on individual movement on specific cases, where Israel has demonstrated a legitimate security concern.

Jacobsen: What about North American and Western European backing of Israel that permits the continuance of things like the blockade or the rights violations?

Shakir:  I think the international community has failed to use its power and leverage to restrain Israeli rights abuses. Of course, we have the U.S. Administration under President Trump that has gone even further from the historic U.S. position of failing to use its leverage to stop rights abuse, to greenlighting and, in some cases, even being directly complicit in rights abuse. With Europe, there have been, at times, strong statements of concern, but a failure to take or support actions that would, in fact, deter rights abuse. Not only by the Israeli government, mind you, but also with regards to its support to Palestinian security agencies. There is a need for concrete action, including supporting efforts around accountability through the International Criminal Court, actions such as at the U.N. with a database of businesses being compiled the U.N. High Commissioner of the businesses operating in settlements (Zeyad, 2019). These are the sort of actions that are needed for there to be real change in the systematic rights abuse that we see year and after.

Jacobsen: As I am speaking from Canadian response, what has been the Canadian response?

Shakir: I think the Canadian government’s response has shifted and changed through different governments (Government of Canada, 2019).  Canada has of late often voted alongside the United States, making it among the handful of nations that will fail to support resolutions that reiterate basic principles of international law or call for common sense statements or actions regarding unlawful policies. Canada is among that governments that sometimes fail to even endorse consensus international positions on a range of issues; much less, taking action on Israeli abuses.

Jacobsen: Where do you think things are going for the rest of January?

Shakir: With the focus on Israeli elections on the Israeli side, we will likely continue to see sharpened rhetoric, particularly around annexation, settlement expansion, home demolitions, as we have seen in the previous election cycles. The one-upmanship among different political forces at the expense of Palestinian lives. On the Palestinian side, there is clearly pressure around holding elections, but there appears to be lack of will by both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to move to elections. Stagnation, as has been the case for some time now, will likely continue.

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

Shakir: Thanks, Scott.

Previous Sessions (easier access than References, in chronological order)

Interview with Omar Shakir – Israel and Palestine Director, Human Rights Watch (Middle East and North Africa Division)

HRW Israel and Palestine (MENA) Director on Systematic Methodology and Universal Vision

Human Rights Watch (Israel and Palestine) on Common Rights and Law Violations

Ask HRW (Israel and Palestine) 1 – Recent Events

Ask HRW (Israel and Palestine) 2 – Demolitions

Ask HRW (Israel and Palestine) 3 – November-December: Deportation from Tel Aviv, Israel for Human Rights Watch Israel and Palestine Director

Addenda

Ask HRW (Israel and Palestine) Addendum: Some History and Contextualization of Rights

References

Baroud, R. (2020, January 7). Gaza is now officially uninhabitable. Retrieved from https://gulfnews.com/opinion/op-eds/gaza-is-now-officially-uninhabitable-1.68839655.

Belousha, H. & Berger, M. (2020, January 2). The U.N. once predicted Gaza would be ‘uninhabitable’ by 2020. Two million people still live there.. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/01/01/un-predicted-gaza-would-be-uninhabitable-by-heres-what-that-actually-means/.

Estrin, D (2018, December 29). Desperation In Gaza, Where Over Half Of Work Force Is Unemployed. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2018/12/29/680882575/desperation-in-gaza-where-over-half-of-work-force-is-unemployed.

Government of Canada. (2019, March 19). Canadian policy on key issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Retrieved from https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/international_relations-relations_internationales/mena-moan/israeli-palistinian_policy-politique_israelo-palestinien.aspx?lang=eng.

Human Rights Watch. (2020b). About Us: What We Do. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/about-us. 

Human Rights Watch. (2019b). Born Without Civil Rights: Israel’s Use of Draconian Military Orders to Repress Palestinians in the West Bank. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/palestine1219_web_0.pdf.

Human Rights Watch. (2019a). Israel and Palestine: Events of 2018. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/israel/palestine.

Human Rights Watch. (2020a). Israel and Palestine: Events of 2019. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/israel/palestine.

Jacobsen, S.D. (2019d, May 23). Ask HRW (Israel and Palestine) 1 – Recent Events. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/05/ask-hrw-israel-and-palestine-1-recent-events/.

Jacobsen, S.D. (2019e, October 29). Ask HRW (Israel and Palestine) 2 – Demolitions. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/10/ask-hrw-israel-and-palestine-2-jacobsen/.

Jacobsen, S.D. (2019f, December 25). Ask HRW (Israel and Palestine) 3 – November-December: Deportation from Tel Aviv, Israel for Human Rights Watch Israel and Palestine Director. Retrieved from https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/12/ask-hrw-3-jacobsen/.

Jacobsen, S.D. (2019b, May 23). HRW Israel and Palestine (MENA) Director on Systematic Methodology and Universal Vision. Retrieved from https://medium.com/humanist-voices/hrw-israel-and-palestine-mena-director-on-systematic-methodology-and-universal-vision-a223d598f703.

Jacobsen, S.D. (2019c, May 25). Human Rights Watch (Israel and Palestine) on Common Rights and Law Violations. Retrieved from https://www.newsintervention.com/human-rights-watch-israel-and-palestine-on-common-rights-and-law-violations/.

Jacobsen, S.D. (2019a, May 6). Interview with Omar Shakir – Israel and Palestine Director, Human Rights Watch (Middle East and North Africa Division). Retrieved from http://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/05/shakir-jacobsen/.

Japan Times. (2019, December 2). After U.S. drops opposition, Israel plans new Jewish-only settlement in Hebron flash-point. Retrieved from https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/12/02/world/social-issues-world/u-s-drops-opposition-israel-plans-new-jewish-settlement-hebron-flash-point/#.Xh-qCchKhPY.

Jerusalem Post. (2020). Israel Elections. Retrieved from https://www.jpost.com/Israel-Elections.

Knesset. (2020). Naftali Bennett: The New Right. Retrieved from https://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/mk_eng.asp?mk_individual_id_t=864.

Kubovich, Y. (2020, January 9). Defense Chief Bennett Announces Task Force to Strengthen Israeli Settlement Activity. Retrieved from https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-defense-minister-announces-plan-to-strengthen-settlement-presence-in-west-bank-1.8375453.  

Lazaroff, T.& Toameh, K.A. (2020, January 9). Bennett doubles down on Palestinian demolitions. Retrieved from https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Bennett-doubles-down-on-Palestinian-demolitions-613714.

Macintyre, D. (2019, December 28). By 2020, the UN said Gaza would be unliveable. Did it turn out that way? Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/28/gaza-strip-202-unliveable-un-report-did-it-turn-out-that-way.

Purdue University. (2020). Logical Fallacies. Retrieved from https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/logic_in_argumentative_writing/fallacies.html.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2019, March 27). Gaza Strip: Blockade. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/place/Gaza-Strip/Blockade.

United Nations. (2019, October 17). United Nations Organizations’ Joint Event Calling on Member States to Address Global Rise in Antisemitism, at Headquarters, 18 October. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/note6530.doc.htm.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2017, September 12). Fifty years of occupation have driven the Palestinian economy into de-development and poverty. Retrieved from https://unctad.org/en/Pages/PressRelease.aspx?OriginalVersionID=423.

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. (2015, July 2). The Gaza Strip: The Humanitarian Impact of the Blockade | July 2015. Retrieved from https://www.ochaopt.org/content/gaza-strip-humanitarian-impact-blockade-july-2015.

United Nation Relief and Works Agency. (2012, August). Gaza in 2020: A liveable place?. Retrieved from https://www.unrwa.org/userfiles/file/publications/gaza/Gaza%20in%202020.pdf.

UNODC. (2017, March 6). Amendment No. 28 to the Entry Into Israel Law. Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org/res/cld/document/law-no–5712-1952–entry-into-israel-law_html/Entry_Into_Israel_1952.pdf.

Zeyad, L.A. (2019, September 20). UN database of companies operating in Israeli settlements could help prevent human rights abuses. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2019/09/un-database-of-companies-operating-in-israeli-settlements-could-help-prevent-human-rights-abuses/.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/03/20

Adaptations and changes made based on feedback from some readers with the Addendum, here, as one supplementary piece to the educational series with Human Rights Watch. Other materials can be found through keyword search on the Canadian Atheist website for “Ask HRW (Israel and Palestine).”

Duly note, as some history and contextualization of rights, Palestine, “formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire” (League of Nations, 1922), existed as a former “Ottoman” territory within the United Kingdom’s administration in 1922 under the League of Nations (United Nations, n.d.). All former Ottoman territories became independent, eventually, except for the Palestinian territory. This was part of the British Mandate (League of Nations, 1922) incorporating the 1917 Balfour Declaration (Rothschild et al, 1917). In 1947, the United Kingdom relinquished complete control of the problem of Palestine over to the United Nations, which took the place of the League of Nations after its dissolution on April 19, 1947 (United Nations, n.d.; The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2020). That is to say, this remains one of the longest unresolved problems or questions – the Question of Palestine – in the history of the United Nations harkening back to its inception as an international human rights institution and bureaucratic juggernaut.

Upon which, the United Nations proposed a, and in November of 1947 voted for the, partitioning of the Palestinian (British) mandate territory/mandate Palestine into two independent states with one as an Arab state and another as a Jewish state (United Nations, n.d.; United Nations General Assembly, 1947). Jerusalem became internationalized in 1947 in Resolution 181 (II). From 1948 to 1949, this was the time of Israel’s War of Independence and The Palestinian Nakbah [Ed. “Nakbah” means “catastrophe” or “disaster.”], where combat began “almost immediately between Jews and Arabs in Palestine” (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2019). With the May 15, 1948 withdrawal of British troops, Israel declared independence. Nakba (“Nakbah”) Day is commemorated on the Gregorian calendar as the “Day of Catastrophe” on May 15; Yom Ha’atzmaut or the “Day of Independence” is celebrated on May 14. Each in reference or correspondence to the “Day of Catastrophe,” on the one side, and the “War of Independence,” on the other side, respectively. The 1948 Arab-Israeli war led to over half of the Arab Palestinian territory fleeing or forcefully being expelled (United Nations, n.d.). Israel, following the vote and the war, expanded to 77% of mandate Palestine (Ibid.). Resolution 181’s stipulated territory for the Arab state (Palestinian territory) alongside the Jewish state (Israel) went under the aegis of Jordan and Egypt (United Nations General Assembly, 1947; United Nations, n.d.).

Another pivotal war broke out in 1967, from June 5 to 10 in an event called the Six-Day War, in which Israel controlled the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. This war resulted in a second expulsion of Palestinians estimated at half of a million Palestinians (United Nations, n.d.). The United Nations Security Council resolution 242 (United Nations Security Council, 1967) “formulated the principles of a just and lasting peace, including an Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the conflict, a just settlement of the refugee problem, and the termination of all claims or states of belligerency” (United Nations, n.d.). Further conflict in 1973 led to the United Nations Security Council resolution 338 (United Nations Security Council, 1973), which made an open call for peace negotiations. On November 22 of 1974, in resolution 3236 (XXIX) of the United Nations General Assembly, the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people were “reaffirmed” with specifications on the “right to self-determination without external interference; the right to national independence and sovereignty; and the right of Palestinians to return to their homes and property, from which they had been displaced and uprooted” (United Nations, 2019; United Nations General Assembly, 1974a). On the same day – November 22, 1974, the United Nations General Assembly conferred Observer Status on the Palestinian Liberation Organization or the PLO (United Nations General Assembly, 1974b). With November 10 of 1975 resolution 3376 (XXX), in the United Nations General Assembly, there was the establishment of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian people with a request for a systematic set of recommendations on the implementation of the enabling of the rights of the Palestinian people (United Nations General Assembly, 1975).

Circa June, 1982, Israel aimed to eliminate the PLO through aggressing against Lebanon, where a ceasefire was arranged, eventually, as the PLO left Beirut and transferred to “neighbouring countries” with Israeli forces completely leaving Lebanon in June of 1985 (United Nations, n.d.; The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2019). The International Conference on the Question of Palestine (ICQP) adopted some principles including “the need to oppose Israeli settlements and Israeli actions to change the status of Jerusalem, the right of all States in the region to existence within secure and internationally recognized boundaries, and the attainment of the legitimate, inalienable rights of the Palestinian people” in September of 1983 (United Nations, n.d.; United Nations, 1983). In 1987, a mass uprising took place against the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories (occupied Palestinian territory or the oPt) in an event known as the Intifada/Intifadah, or the “shaking off,” with the “methods used by the Israeli forces” creating “mass injuries and heavy loss of life among the civilian Palestinian population” (United Nations, n.d.; Araj, B. & Brym, R.J., 2018). The Palestine National Council in Algiers, in 1988, “proclaimed the establishment of the State of Palestine” (United Nations, n.d.) with the proclamation of independence on November 15, 1988 relayed by ambassador Abdullah Salah and (in Annex I) Dr. Riyad Mansour, Deputy Permanent Observer (United Nations Security Council, 1988). In Madrid, Spain in 1991, there was a Peace Conference convened for the purpose of the direct negotiations for a peaceful settlement of disputes between Israel and Arab States and Israel and Palestinians (United Nations, n.d.) because of resolution 242 (United Nations Security Council, 1967) and resolution 338 (United Nations Security Council, 1973), which resulted in the “mutual recognition between the Government of Israel and the PLO, the representative of the Palestinian people” in the signing of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, the DOP, or the Oslo Accord from 1993 (United Nations, 1993). These lead to partial withdrawal of Israeli forces, and the elections of the Presidency of the Palestinian Authority and the elections to the Palestinian Council (United Nations, n.d.), with, importantly, the “establishment of a functioning administration in the areas under Palestinian self-rule.”

The Oslo Accords deferred some issues until permanent status negotiations held at Camp David in 2000 and at Taba in 2001 with inconclusive results at the time (Ibid.). In Jerusalem in 2000, Ariel Sharon of the Likud Party of Israel travelled to and visited Al-Haram Al-Sharif (Temple Mount), the second intifada or the Al-Aqsa Intifada followed this event and then Israel began construction of the separation wall of the West Bank with locations “mostly within the Occupied Palestinian Territory” (Beauchamp, 2018; United Nations, n.d.). An action ruled as illegal by the International Criminal Court. The United Nations Security Council affirmed an Israel-Palestine two-States solution to the issue (United Nations Security Council, 2002). The Arab League (2020) adopted the Arab Peace Initiative in 2002 (Agence France-Presse (AFP), 2002) followed by, on May 7 of 2003, the European Union, Russia, the United Nations, and the United States of America, also known as the Quartet (United Nations, 2020) – who follow the principles of “non-violence, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements” (Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2008; United Nations, 2020), publishing “A Performance-based Road Map to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian” (United Nations Security Council, 2003a). The United Nations Security Council resolution 1515, on November 19 of 2003, endorsed “A Performance-based Road Map to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian” proposed “a three-phased performance-based strategy to move the peace process towards a final resolution of the conflict.” The Israelis and the Palestinians widely promoted an unofficial Geneva peace accord in 2003, too (United Nations, n.d.). Israel, in 2005, withdrew both “settlers and troops” from Gaza while maintaining control over the airspace, borders, and seashore (Ibid.). With the Palestinian legislative elections in 2006, the Quartet ensured support on a conditional basis to the Palestinian Authority with requisite commitments to nonviolence, a recognition of Israel, and an acceptance of previous agreements, i.e., the affirmed guiding principles as endorsed in United Nations Security Council resolution 1515 (United Nations Security Council, 2003b; United Nations, 2020; United Nations, n.d.).

However, with an aggressive/armed takeover of Gaza by Hamas in June of 2007, Israel imposed a blockade, which followed a series of restrictions on Gaza by Israel in the 1990s onwards with the culmination of the blockade with approximately 1.8 million or more Palestinians in Gaza “locked-in” to the Gaza Strip (Oxfam International, 2019; United Nations, n.d.; United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, n.d.). November 27, 2007 to about the end of 2008 exemplified another attempt at a peace process with the Annapolis process (Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME), 2017). Operation “Cast Lead” in Gaza by Israeli forces followed escalations in rocket fire and air strikes in late 2008, where Human Rights Watch reported Israel violated the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding “wanton destruction” (Institute for Middle East Understanding, 2012).  Resolution 1860 was adopted by the United Nations Security Council with reiterations on Palestinian territory and eventual statehood, and the importance of a ceasefire (United Nations Security Council, 2009). In 2009, the Goldstone report resulted from the investigation into violations of international law during the recent Gaza conflict (United Nations General Assembly, 2009). The Palestinian Authority in 2009 developed a programme for the development of State institutions, which “received wide international support” (United Nations, n.d.). More peace negotiations happened in 2010, which broke down following the patterns of previous meetings following an “expiration of the Israeli settlement moratorium” (Ibid.). President Mahmoud Abbas submitted a 2011 application for the membership of Palestine in the United Nations (United Nations Security Council, 2011) with United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) admitting Palestine as a member and exploratory Israeli-Palestinian talks being held in early 2012 in Amman, Jordan (United Nations, n.d.). Following more combat breaking out in November of 2012 between Israel and Palestine, Egypt managed to get a ceasefire between all parties (United Nations Security Council, 2012). November 29, 2012, marks the granting to Palestine of non-member observer State status at the United Nations (United Nations General Assembly, 2013) with the United Nations General Assembly stating 2014 as the International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinians/“Palestinian People” (United Nations, 2014). New negotiations started in 2013 with a suspension of the talks by Israel in April of 2014 with the announcement of a “Palestinian national consensus Government” with further fighting occurring between Israel and Gaza between July and August of 2014 (United Nations, n.d.) with the adoption of resolution 2334 on settlements by the United Nations Security Council (2016).

Human Rights Watch, for some more recent coverage, provided reportage on the 2017 and 2018 contextualizations of events (Human Rights Watch, 2018; Human Rights Watch, 2019a). More recent coverage for 2019 from Human Rights Watch covers the closure or blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip by the Israeli government, the injuring of 11,453 and killing of 71 Palestinians in Gaza circa November 11, 2019 (with another 114 injured and 33 killed between November 12 and 14) by Israeli forces, the injuring of 123 and killing of 4 Israelis and firing of 1,378 rockets towards Israel by Palestinian armed groups, unlawful Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East  Jerusalem, discriminatory policies and demolition of Palestinian homes by Israelis, “onerous” restrictions of movement imposed by Israel on Palestinians, arbitrary detention and the detention of children by Israel of Palestinians, Palestinian Authority’s “in effect” criminalization of dissent through detention of Palestinians based on insulting “higher authorities” and the creation of “sectarian strife” including 752 detainments for “social media posts,” the upcoming Israeli elections (March, 2020) and the National State Law or the Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People (State of Israel, 2018) impacts on inequality in the prioritization to construct homes and revocation of Arab as a state language in Israel, the Israeli government attempts to and Supreme Court decision for the expelling of a Human Rights Watch official, i.e., Omar Shakir, (Human Rights Watch, 2019b; Ayyub, 2019; Democracy Now!, 2019; Conley, 2019) or the prevention of a Palestinian staff member of Amnesty International, Laith Abu Zeyad, from traveling outside of the Occupied West Bank (Amnesty International, 2019; Middle East Monitor, 2019) or entry into Israel of United States Congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib (BBC News, 2019; The Associated Press/CBC News, 2019), the non-legal status of same-sex marriage in Israel, acknowledgement of the ongoing issues related to the annexation of the Golan Heights and other bounded geographic areas, issues around global tourism centered on Airbnb, the conclusion of the prosecutor (International Criminal Court, n.d.), Fatou Bensouda, for the International Criminal Court (ICC) for meeting the criteria to move forward with a formal investigation into these issues, and some more (Human Rights Watch, 2020a). For a more comprehensive look, please examine the publication “Born Without Civil Rights: Israel’s Use of Draconian Military Orders to Repress Palestinians in the West Bank” by Human Rights Watch (2019c). Now, since Session 3 of this educational series, Shakir worked outside of Israel based on expulsion from Israel because of the decision of the Israeli Supreme Court about Shakir.

References

Agence France-Presse (AFP). (2002, March 28). Text of Arab peace initiative adopted at Beirut summit. Retrieved from www.webarchive.loc.gov/all/20081017165433/http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/AllDocsByUNID/5a7229b652beb9c5c1256b8a0054b62e.

Amnesty International. (2019, October 31). Israel/ OPT: Amnesty staff member faces punitive travel ban for human rights work. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/10/israel-opt-amnesty-staff-member-faces-punitive-travel-ban-for-human-rights-work/.

Arab League. (2020). Arab League. Retrieved from www.arableague-us.org/wp/.

Araj, B. & Brym, R.J. (2018, May 2). Intifadah. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/intifadah.

Ayyub, R. (2019, November 25). Israel Expels Human Rights Watch Official Over Boycott Accusations. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2019-11-25/israel-expels-human-rights-watch-official-over-boycott-accusations.

BBC News. (2019, August 15). Israel bars Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib from visiting. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49363041.

Beauchamp, Z. (2018, May 14). What were the intifadas?. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/18080066/israel-palestine-intifadas-first-second.

Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME). (2017). The Annapolis Negotiations Process. Retrieved from https://www.cjpme.org/fs_030.

Conley, J. (2019, November 25). ‘Who’s next?’ Israel expels Human Rights Watch director for opposition to illegal Israeli settlements. Retrieved from https://www.alternet.org/2019/11/whos-next-israel-expels-human-rights-watch-director-for-opposition-to-illegal-israeli-settlements/.

Democracy Now!. (2019, November 26). “An Attack on the Human Rights Movement”: Israel Deports Human Rights Watch Monitor. Retrieved from https://www.democracynow.org/2019/11/26/human_rights_watch_monitor_deported_from.

Human Rights Watch. (2019c). Born Without Civil Rights: Israel’s Use of Draconian Military Orders to Repress Palestinians in the West Bank. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/palestine1219_web_0.pdf.

Human Rights Watch. (2018). Israel and Palestine: Events of 2017. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/israel/palestine.

Human Rights Watch. (2019a). Israel and Palestine: Events of 2018. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/israel/palestine.

Human Rights Watch. (2020a). Israel and Palestine: Events of 2019. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/israel/palestine.

Human Rights Watch. (2019b, November 25). Israel Expels Human Rights Watch Director Today. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/11/25/israel-expels-human-rights-watch-director-today.

Institute for Middle East Understanding. (2012, January 4). Operation Cast Lead. Retrieved from https://imeu.org/article/operation-cast-lead.

International Criminal Court. (n.d.). Office of the Prosecutor. Retrieved from https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/otp.

Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2008, December 16). Statement following adoption of UN Security Council resolution 1850. Retrieved from www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/MFA+Spokesman/2008/Statement_UN_Security_Council_resolution_1850_16-Dec-2008.htm.

League of Nations. (1922, August 12). Mandate for Palestine. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/C-529-M-314-1922-VI_BI.pdf.

Middle East Monitor. (2019, December 17). Israel bans Amnesty staffer from accompanying mother for chemotherapy. Retrieved from https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20191217-israel-bans-amnesty-staffer-from-accompanying-mother-for-chemotherapy/.

Oxfam International. (2019). Timeline: the humanitarian impact of the Gaza blockade. Retrieved from https://www.oxfam.org/en/timeline-humanitarian-impact-gaza-blockade.  

Rothschild, W., Balfour, A., Amery, L. & Milner, L. (1917, November 2). Balfour Declaration. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Balfour_declaration_unmarked.jpg.

State of Israel. (2018, July 19). Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People. Retrieved from https://avidichter.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/leom_law_en_press_18.7.18.pdf.

The Associated Press/CBC News. (2019, August 19). Omar, Tlaib speak out on travel restrictions after being denied entry into Israel. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/omar-tlaib-travel-restrictions-israel-palestine-1.5252351.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2019, January 17). Arab-Israeli wars. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/event/Arab-Israeli-wars.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2020, January 3). League of Nations. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/League-of-Nations.

United Nations. (2014). 2014 International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/unispal/events/international-day-of-solidarity-with-the-palestinian-people/2014-day/.

United Nations. (1993, September 13). Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (Oslo Accords). Retrieved from https://peacemaker.un.org/israelopt-osloaccord93.

United Nations. (n.d.). History of the Question of Palestine. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/unispal/history/.

United Nations. (1983). International Conference on the Question of Palestine (ICQP) – Geneva (1983) – Report. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-200696/.

United Nations. (2020). The Quartet. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/unispal/un-system/un-system-partners/the-quartet/.

United Nations. (2019). The Question of Palestine: Mandate and Objectives. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/unispal/committee/mandate-and-objectives/.

United Nations General Assembly. (1974a, November 22). 3236 (XXIX). Question of Palestine. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ARES3236XXIX.pdf.

United Nations General Assembly. (1974b, November 22). 3237 (XXIX). Observer status for the Palestine Liberation Organization. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/3237(XXIX).

United Nations General Assembly. (1975, November 10). 3376 (XXX). Question of Palestine. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/RES3376.pdf.

United Nations General Assembly. (2009 September 25). A/HRC/12/48. Retrieved from https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G09/158/66/pdf/G0915866.pdf?OpenElement.

United Nations General Assembly. (1947, November 29). A/RES/181(II): XVII. Resolution Adopted on the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/181(II).  

United Nations General Assembly. (2013, March 27). A/RES/67/190. Retrieved from https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N12/490/00/pdf/N1249000.pdf?OpenElement.

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. (n.d.). Gaza Blockade. Retrieved from https://www.ochaopt.org/theme/gaza-blockade.

United Nations Security Council. (2003a, May 7). A Performance-based Road Map to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian. Retrieved from https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IL%20PS_030430_PerformanceBasedRoadmapTwo-StateSolution.pdf.

United Nations Security Council. (1988, November 18). A/43/827. Retrieved from https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N88/302/56/img/N8830256.pdf?OpenElement.

United Nations Security Council. (2011, September 23). A/66/371–S/2011/592. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/66/371.

United Nations Security Council. (2012, November 21). S/PV.6869. Retrieved from https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N12/600/50/pdf/N1260050.pdf?OpenElement.

United Nations Security Council. (2002, March 12). S/RES/1397. Retrieved from https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/283/59/pdf/N0228359.pdf?OpenElement.

United Nations Security Council. (2003b, November 19). S/RES/1515 (2003). Retrieved from https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/71B2C135FCA9D78A85256DE400530107.

United Nations Security Council. (January, 2009). S/RES/1860. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/S_RES_1860.pdf.

United Nations Security Council. (2016, December 23). S/RES/2334. Retrieved from https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/6E628F30062A868385258096005D36BE.

United Nations Security Council. (1967, November 22). S/RES/242. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/242%281967%29.

United Nations Security Council. (1973, August 15). S/RES/338. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/338(1973).

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/03/20

Kwabena “Michael” Osei-Assibey is the President of the Humanist Association of Ghana. We will be conducting this educational series to learn more about humanism and secularism within Ghana. Here we talk about newsletters, podcasts, outreach, and media.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Has there been work for the development of print materials like newsletters, blog posts, and so on, for the Humanist Association of Ghana?

Kwabena “Michael” Osei-Assibey: Yes. However, we do not have any in print. As part of reducing our carbon footprint as an organization, all our resources are online. Our monthly newsletter, the Hagtivist Report is subscription-based and it features stories, news, articles and links to other interesting multimedia. The newsletter also introduces subscribers to entries on our blog. Our blog is on our website and features a range of stories and articles written by members. 

Jacobsen: Why form a podcast? How has this been helpful in providing another angle of outreach for humanism in Ghana?

Osei-Assibey: The podcast was initially just another outlet for members to express themselves. The initial format was that of a newsroom, discussions around topics in the news and of interest to the podcast team. It evolved to a space to discuss ideas and now as a vehicle to tell humanist stories, and share humanist values. Although the listener-ship of the podcast is small, it is growing. The way I look at it, all these resources are more for future generations of freethinkers and humanists, a way of ensuring that they have access to our ideas and thoughts as African freethinkers from this space and time. Our stories, values, ideas, hopes, plans; all become valuable resources to anyone trying to find their way to humanism.  

Jacobsen: What other medium be covered for the Humanist Association of Ghana? I am aware of some feminist audiovisual materials.

Osei-Assibey: Yes! The feminist videos were great. It was part of a series trying to humanize feminism. It was called Feminist Voices. We took part in Atheist Voices with a subgroup from the Humanist Association of Ghana called Atheists in Ghana. We have plans of releasing Queer Voices as well. Some materials will also be released from our Honest Discussion Series where we discuss issues pertaining to beliefs with some believers and atheists. In all this, the goal is to create as much content as possible, showing our ideas as Freethinkers and humanists from an African perspective. 

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

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/03/20

Minister Amanda Poppei is a Senior Leader & Unitarian Universalist Minister at the Washington Ethical Society (Ethical Culture and Unitarian Universalist). Here we talk about some of the Opening Word and Opening Song

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How is the Opening Word important for setting a tone of the service? What have been some recent contents of opening words for the Washington Ethical Society?

Minister Amanda Poppei: I try to choose words that will not only introduce the theme or core message of the platform service, but will also set the tone. If we are having a platform that is about grief, the opening words will be more comforting or thoughtful. If a platform about justice, then I’ll choose words that exhort or inspire. Most of my opening words are poems, some are quotes or readings. I write them myself sometimes, but mostly share words from someone else. 

Jacobsen: Why have those topics been focused on, in the recent opening words? How do these provide a context to transition into an Opening Song, which, as you noted, is a sing-along format?

Poppei: Sometimes I get lucky and find a poem or reading that really leads into the opening song perfectly, but most of the time it’s about having a similar tone. 

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

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/03/17

Mark A. Yuskis is the Co-Founder/Coordinator of the UUSIC Secular Humanists from Iowa City, Iowa. Jeannette Carter and Caryl Lyons are part of the same community.

Here we talk about some of their lives, and much of their work and community.

*Please see Appendix I for the Mission Statements, Appendix II for the Vision Statements, Appendix III for the “A Secular Humanist Considers Our Fourth Principle” transcript, Appendix IV for the reason behind the comments by Yuskis, “Scott, you were so very generous and supportive in your comments to me…” and Appendix V for an image of a flyer for the Andrew L. Seidel Event. I tend not to share private correspondence in such a direct manner. Same with interactions, as I continue to see these as such, as per the title, as private. However, given the gentleness and respectfulness of the request, I am obliging here.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is family background? What are some pivotal moments in personal history important for the development of humanistic sensibilities and a humanist outlook for you?

Caryl Lyons: I was raised as a Presbyterian, regular attender every Sunday throughout elementary and high school. Then became a Methodist with my husband-to-be in college. We co-taught Sunday school to elementary students. I sang in choirs at both churches and attended Presbyterian youth groups through high school.

Mostly the fact that my father was a political science professor and sponsor of the International Relations Club. We often had people from many countries and of various religions in our home. Very early on, I knew that there was more than one way to envision the world, and that good people came from everywhere. I first questioned Presbyterianism as a 5th or 6th grader, realizing that I didn’t think I believed in God. I kind of buried that for a long time since my family, especially my father, was so religious, though very accepting of people from many backgrounds. But as we taught Sunday school, the other teachers began pressuring us to try to get money from our “students” to send Bibles to places that were not Christian, and we decided we couldn’t do that. So we stepped away from that sort of evangelical Christianity. After we married, we went to church exactly once and then took a 25-year hiatus from religion until we, almost by accident, discovered Unitarian Universalism.

Mark A. Yuskis: I grew up in NW Illinois, the son of a Catholic father and Church of Christ mother; so, I was raised Methodist. President of our Intermediate Youth Fellowship in Jr. High and then President of our Methodist Youth Fellowship in High School, I took this religion stuff very seriously. Why would adults proffer untruths? If this was true, it was nothing to “mess around” with; I kicked kids out of our popular yard for swearing! Those years of happy, religious “fake news” lasted until University studies in Biology, when Biochemistry, Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy, Embryology, and Evolutionary Biology made clear an evolutionary path from beginning to present that needed no supernatural help. Ideas like Virgin Birth, Resurrection, Heaven, Hell, Soul, and all that supernatural stuff made no sense and Eternal Life…how boring that would be after a hundred, a thousand, a million, and especially 5 billion years when the expanding sun engulfed our burnt crisp of a cinder Earth. I was an Atheist! An atheist who eventually became the whole Biology Department at Mount St. Claire College along the Mississippi River in Clinton, Iowa with a host of dear, delightful, liberal Franciscan Sisters who thought I was St. Francis reincarnate. They’d sit in on some of my classes and had no problem with evolution or the long history of Earth; they were bright and very progressive. They rarely showed their contempt for the Patriarchy of their religion, but it was there. My discovery of organized Humanism came when I moved to Iowa City and found the Unitarian Universalist Society there. A UU Society member, Betty McCollister, was also on the Board of the American Humanist Association. She took me under her wing, mentored me, and showed me that Humanism was much more than atheism; it affirmed Social Justice for all humanity across the planet, Democracy and Equality in human affairs, Moral Education of children, Rights of reproductive choice and sexual preference, Skepticism of untested claims, and an Optimistic viewpoint, and so on. I was on a path now of Humanistic Unitarian Universalism. The two philosophies wove together quite well for me. Though as UUism started to further embrace Spiritualism and the Language of Reverence around the turn of this century, we atheistic humanists started to feel somewhat marginalized in our formerly staunchly Humanist UU Society. Thus, we established our Secular Humanist group at UUSIC. We chose “secular” to distinguish ourselves from the UU Religious Humanists. We didn’t feel religious. We didn’t come to/join UUSIC for “religious growth,” rather we joined for the Humanistic Principles and Community. For us, it wasn’t a perfect fit, but it was the “best game in town.”

Jacobsen: How did you find the UUS Secular Humanist Community in Iowa City?

Lyons: We went to the funeral of a young man, adopted son of friends and a classmate of our daughter, who had committed suicide at age 14. He left a letter blaming a girl. We heard the then-minister of UUSIC give a humanist funeral, where there was no talk of God or heaven or angels or any of the trappings of a Christian funeral (“I go to prepare a place for you.”). Instead, the sermon was addressed to the teenage friends of the young man, telling them that they were not responsible for his death, that parents and teachers and counselors and everyone had tried to help him without success, and that this was a decision that the young man had made for himself. We mourned him but could not blame ourselves.

Hearing the UUS minister say these things was a life changing moment for me to realize that there were people who thought as we did. Then we read the 7 principles and knew we had found something special. We didn’t yet even know the concept of humanism, but when we read the principles, we knew they represented us. We attended the society within the next several weeks and joined by the fall after the summer funeral. That was 33 years ago.

When we first joined in 1986, UUS was quite a humanist group, I now know. Nearly 15 or so years later, it was becoming somewhat less so, enough that my husband and I wondered if it still was fitting in with out beliefs or lack of them. That was when Mark and a few others started the Secular Humanist group. We joined it almost immediately and its existence has kept us happily in the UUS community for another nearly 20 years. Being more accepting of those with views that fit more into the religious than the secular mode has been possible for me because I have had the UU Secular Humanists to relate to and work with for all these years. There is a rather large group of secular humanists but there is also an even larger group of people whose beliefs seem to be only a little more like those of members of mainstream religions, and then there is a group who are focused on spirituality, unlike most of us Secular Humanists.

Yuskis: New to Iowa City and seeking “community but not church,” noting that the Unitarian Universalists (who I’d never heard of before) called themselves a Society and not a Church, I was curious. I visited, read their Principles, met several members and stayed. And, as I shared above, we eventually felt the need to organize a Secular Humanist Group at UUSIC. I’ve been the Coordinator/Facilitator for most of the group’s 16 years.

Jacobsen: As the Co-Founder and Coordinator of the UUS SecHum Group Iowa City, what tasks and responsibilities come with the position, how have these change over a decade and a half of service to the community?

Yuskis: My role as Coordinator over the years has been basically two-fold: plan programs and facilitate meetings. Our Secular Humanist group meets on the 3^rd Tuesday, monthly between September through May, following the Academic Calendar of the University of Iowa and the Liturgical Season of UUSIC. Facilitating meetings is the easier responsibility; it involves setting an Agenda, including a Welcome/Introduction, Announcements, Old Business, Upcoming Events/Meetings, and Introduction of our Speaker or Topic for Discussion or Program/Video. A very important responsibility is ending the formal meeting on time – some of the looks or tapping on watches are subtle reminders that “it is time!” We then adjourn to informal conversation, chatting with the speaker, and sharing of treats and beverages. Planning programs, lining up speakers, and coordinating special events are the real challenge to sustaining an active, well-attended SecHum group. It is also the most satisfying, especially when all goes well and as planned. (Later responses go into examples of special speakers, presenters, and special moments that perpetuate interest in our group.) One very significant change over the years is that for the last 5, or so, years SecSI (the Secular Students at Iowa (University of)) have continually attended our monthly meetings. Around 15 students generally join us, adding a fresh, youthful perspective to discussions. SecSI often prepares and presents one meeting during the year. One memorable meeting they prepared was a Video Compilation of Irreverent, Off-Color videos and cartoon clips. Not shocked or appalled, but rather thoroughly entertained were we by their creativity and unabashed sharing. They are very bright and add to our SecHum experience. Another change over the years is that we no longer set out a contribution basket for Wine Money. With some of the students being underage and with UUSIC formulating all sorts of new rules about this and that, we don’t have the autonomy to do these things “under the radar.” We no longer have our own independent checking account; it’s amazing we ever did! But we did, and it was very convenient and expeditious.

Jacobsen: What are the demographics of the community of 20-40 members who attend at regular events and 150 members who attend at special events?

Yuskis: As stated earlier, UUSIC has historically been a very Humanist UU Society. When I first discovered UUSIC about 1995, I felt a kinship and real philosophical “home” among like-minded folks. That has changed somewhat over time (emphasis on Spirituality and the Language of Reverence mentioned before) and our group has steadily aged. The UU makeup of our group is typically older, most in their 60s through 90s. I just turned 70 and am probably younger than the average age of the UU folks in the group. Now the advent of SecSI, ages 18 -24, into our group has greatly reduced our average age. The problem, not actually a problem, is that unlike us, they never get older; they are just replaced by newer students, the same age. The special event that attracted around 150, mostly UU, people was An Evening with Walt Whitman (see poster advertisement attached). Sponsored and planned by our Secular Humanist group, it celebrated the first anniversary of UUSIC being in our newly constructed, beautiful, “greenest” church in Iowa. With the University of Iowa so close, we were able to enlist two internationally respected/celebrated Whitman scholars, Ed Folsom, the Editor of the Whitman Quarterly Review, and Christopher Merrill, the Director of the International Writing Program at Iowa. One UU member called the “Evening” the best program he had seen at UUSIC. We’d like to think it WAS one of the best. We’ve also sponsored Dinner/Theatre and other events at UUSIC, on Campus, and soon at the celebrated Prairie Lights Bookstore, downtown Iowa City, where we’ll host Andrew Seidel of the Freedom From Religion Foundation in Madison, WI as he presents/reads from his new book Founding MYTH: Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American. Andrew is currently on a coast-to-coast tour promoting this book.

Jacobsen: How do these demographics change the characteristics and possibilities of the events?

Yuskis: Because we are now joined by SecSI for our meetings and so cherish their presence and contributions, we no longer meet at UUSIC, where we met when we had our 100+-year-old building downtown next to campus (easy for students to walk to). Now, we meet at Old Brick, another old church building saved from demolition years ago and now serving many agencies and as a meeting place, wedding site, etc. Our new UU building is over in Coralville now, too far for students to travel, thus Old Brick. The students rarely attend Sunday Services at the UU, most find it too “churchy” for their tastes (as Secular Humanists frequently do). Our programming also benefits from opportunities to join in some SecSI events for an occasional monthly meeting of ours. Recently, we joined them on campus for a presentation by Dan Barker, Co-President of Freedom From Religion Foundation. Dan spoke about his new book Life Driven Purpose: How an Atheist Finds Meaning. Our group is familiar with Dan and Staff Attorneys from FFRF, as they have presented for us over the years. Our members share FFRF memberships and a few are Life Members of FFRF.

Jacobsen: What have been the more special moments in community for you? Why?

Jeannette Carter: Some of the special moments have been when we heard from our UI group of students about their struggles growing up as atheists; having programs presented at our UU Society by Mark and others to the general UU congregation on Sundays, and “spreading the word” about secularism; working on being a secular, atheist member of a general society which doesn’t look favourably on such beliefs; seeing the commercial by Ron Reagan on national T.V. promoting the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

Yuskis: A very special moment of this Secular Humanist community had to be the inaugural meeting of August 21, 2003. I opened the meeting with a reading from that “Good Gray Poet” and my gay, atheist comrade Walt Whitman:       

I think I could turn and live with animals,

they’re so placid and self-contain’d,

I stand and look at them long and long.        

They do not sweat and whine about their condition,

They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins,   

They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God,       

Not one is dissatisfied, nor one is demented with the mania of owning things,

Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago,

Not one is respectable or unhappy over the whole earth,     

So they show their relations to me and I accept them.

Interestingly, after this start with Walt Whitman, we had our “biggest” event 15 years later with our Evening with Walt Whitman, featuring Whitman scholars Ed Folsom and Christopher Merrill (see above). I gave a Summer Service talk June 16, 2006: “Secular Humanists Add to the UUSIC Experience.” The talk was part of the summer theme This I Believe. I joked that they asked a confirmed atheist to speak thinking “maybe it would be a SHORT talk?” Well, I used my full time. Starting with some personal background and various past and future programs as our “contributions.” I ended with a “match that quote with its author” game. With names of historical figures posted on the wall in front, folks had a handout with 12 quotes to match. After they finished their “quizzes,” I read the quotes and gave the authors. There were many “oos” and “ahs” as they got them right or not. Since claiming that our group added to the UU experience, we have sponsored several special events:            

In November, 2007 we invited Dan Barker, Co-President of the Freedom From Religion Foundation to share his story of From Boy Evangelist to Adult Atheist. We held a Chili Dinner prior. After dinner we retired upstairs to the Sanctuary where Dan played our baby grand and sang familiar melodies, but with altered, irreverent lyrics from his CD. Over 60 attended. We’ve maintained a close relationship with FFRF ever since.

While in Hawaii, I met Gary Anderson at the Honolulu UU. He toured the country doing a One-Man Theatrical Performance of CLARENCE DARROW: THE SEARCH FOR JUSTICE. We booked him for April 11, 2008. Fortunately, our UU’s Susan Boyd, wife of Univ. of Iowa’s President Emeritus, Sandy Boyd, for whom our Law School Building is named, made it possible for this event to be held in the Law School’s Supreme Court Chambers (Levitt Auditorium). Gary was marvellous; it was the most memorable performance in the perfect setting.     

In September, 2014 SecSI (Secularists at Iowa at that time) invited Sean Faircloth of Secularity USA to speak at the Iowa Memorial Union on his new book Attack of the Theocrats: How the Religious Right Harms Us All – and What We Can Do About It. The night before, our Secular Humanist group sponsored a Reception for Sean in Channing Hall at our old UUSIC building on 10 S. Gilbert. More than 50 attended, including UUs, Students, and others interested. This event marked a turning point in the development of a close relationship between our UU Secular Humanist group and the Secular Students at Iowa. We had over 50 attend our reception and the students’ IMU event with Sean was very successful.

In March of 2015 the UU Secular Humanists hosted Floyd Sandford, retired Biology Professor at Coe College in Cedar Rapids, for a Dinner/Theater event. Floyd travels the country performing his One Man Show: Darwin Remembers – Recollections of a Life’s Journey, in two acts. I set the stage in Channing Hall at the UU as Darwin’s Study, complete with plants, and ancient zoological specimens in glass containers (from the Coe College Biology Department where I was hired after Floyd retired). We began the evening with a Chili Supper. Floyd was convincing as his Darwin character and shared much of Darwin’s personal life and struggles. Around 75 people filled Channing Hall. It was another night to remember at UUSIC. We raised $725 of which $225 went to support SecSI, $100 went to the UU Young Adults group, and we sent $400 to the Southern Poverty Law Center.    

On Saturday, October 27, 2018 we presented An Evening with Walt Whitman in the Sanctuary of the beautiful, new UU Society building, our most ambitious venture to date. After commitments from Ed Folsom, world renown Whitman scholar and Editor of the Whitman Quarterly Review, and Christopher Merrill, Director of the Univ. of Iowa’s prestigious International Writing Program and driving force in Iowa City gaining UNESCO City of Literature status, we partnered with the UU Board to make this a First Anniversary Celebration of being in our new building. Ed and Chris shared reflections on Whitman’s democratic epic “Song of Myself” and on Whitman’s recently discovered “Lost Book” The Life and Adventures of Jack Engle. We had nearly 150 in attendance. Cake, coffee, book sales and signing followed in the Fellowship Hall. A great evening for all who attended.

Maybe more to the question asked, Jeanette Carter, UU Secular Humanist since its establishment, shared: “One of the special moments in community with SecSI was when they shared their struggles growing up as atheists.” I’ll add to that by saying there is a mutuality in our relationship with SecSI; I believe it is comforting to those students who could not “come out” to their, especially religious, families to find a community of like-minded folks their parents’ (make that often their grandparents’) age. And, of course, we have benefitted from these young students’ enthusiasm and curiosity and deep questioning of so much. We have also found great comradery in meeting, interacting, sharing, and supporting other area Atheist and Humanist groups; such as, Humanists of Linn County (Cedar Rapids) with whom we’ve joined in some of their events and they in ours. We met and conferred with a delegation from the Des Moines UU who wanted advice on the Freethinker Friendly Congregation designation (granted through the UUA’s UU Humanist Association), which we had just completed working on with our congregation and that they were just considering. More on our process and results and feelings of the FFC next) (Also, please see comments from Jeanette Carter and Caryl Lyons on special moments) Another important recent event was a Sunday Service I presented August, 2018: A Secular Humanist Considers Our 4^th Principle: a Free and Responsible Search for Truth and Meaning. It was the highest attended service of the summer, a full house. I’ll attach the text of my Talk [Ed. Please see Appendix III.]

Jacobsen: What are the challenges of community for you? What are the benefits of community for you? What makes sense of a UU and a Secular Humanist view on the nature of the world and the ethics of human relations to you?

Carter: The greatest challenge is to find like-minded people who can come together for discussion and reflection (besides our Secular Humanist group); trying to fit in to Sunday services at our UU Society, which carries the trappings of traditional Christian churches in their services; feeling comfortable in a “Christian” nation.

Lyons: UUS gives a place from which to operate within the broader community, supporting many forms of social justice and social activism. The larger UUS community is very involved in terms of social activism, both as a congregation and as individual members. Some of our ministers have been extremely active within the Iowa City community in terms of giving a face to UUism, which makes me happy. The UU community also provides enrichment benefits individually, such as a book discussion group I have been part of for 30 years. Also, we, as almost all “faith” organizations do, provide support for each other at times of crisis in our lives—providing food, rides to appointments, conversations, or whatever is needed. It seems to me that the 7 principles are what ties secular humanists to the rest of the society. They are what we all basically agree on. Other differences sometimes seem like basic differences and sometimes seem to be mostly semantic. But words do make a difference.

Our secular humanist focus on books such as “Good without God” speaks to our beliefs that ethics are centered in how we treat other human beings and how we live our lives based on our UU 7 principles rather than on any “divinely inspired texts” or any kind of creeds. Something I like best about UUS services are these words we say each Sunday: “Love is the doctrine of this church, the search for truth is our sacrament, and service is our prayer.” This, to me, is secular humanism, and no one seems to be objecting to saying these words regularly.

Yuskis: Probably our greatest challenge in being in “community” within our UU congregation came after our year-long effort working with our congregation to become a designated Freethinker Friendly Congregation. We held forums, had informational tables during coffee hours, handed out brochures we made describing all facets, criteria, and benefits of becoming an FFC. All went “swimmingly” for 11 months and we thought we’d done so well and it would easily pass a congregational vote. In the last month, we started to hear concerns and doubts from members of our UU Society. Prior to the vote at the Congregational Meeting there were many surprisingly negative comments and one member passionately exclaimed, “this is so divisive, this is so divisive.” The vote tally was 78 yes, 42 no, and 18 abstain, not sufficient support to proceed with our application to the UU Humanist Association. This was the most disappointing time of our 16 years as part of our UU community. Our minister is now conducting 8 monthly forums designed to “bridge the gap in our Theological Diversity.” [Please see also comments by Jeanette and Caryl on “challenges and benefits” I’ve emailed] To me the benefits of being humanists/atheists in a UU community include being mostly accepted within the broad reach of UUism, having a community whose Principles are very humanistic, and affording an opportunity to be in community with other thoughtful, liberal people eager to serve and work toward a better world. Early in my UU years, I had the pleasure of serving on the Welcoming Congregation committee, which was successful in getting the UUA designation that specifically welcomes GLBT+ people. I also headed up our Free Lunch committee for nearly a decade. So yes, the two sets, UUism and Secular Humanism, I feel greatly overlap and atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and other freethinkers fit somewhat easily in that intersection, can find meaningful community, and feel very much at home (maybe with ignoring some of the supernaturalism, mysticism, and “bad science” embraced by some at the other end of the Theological Spectrum of UUism).

Jacobsen: Any recommended authors, organizations, or speakers?

Yuskis:

Authors we’ve read/discussed:                        

• Four Horsemen of Atheism (Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins)                          
• Steven Pinker.
• Susan Jacoby.
• Michelle Goldberg – Kingdom Coming.
• Greg Epstein – Good without God.
• Hector Avalos – Bad Jesus.

Organizations:

• FFRF of Madison.
• WI.
• AHA.
• UU Humanist Association.
• Americans United for Church and State Separation.
• Council for Secular Humanism.
• Secular Student Alliance.

Speakers:

• Dan Barker and Staff Attorneys from FFRF.
• Andrew Seidel – Founding MYTH (FFRF).
• Robert Cargill (He is a wonderful presenter) – University of Iowa Department of Classics and Religious Studies, a CNN contributor for Finding Jesus, and author of Journey through the Archeology and Cities that Built the Bible.

Jacobsen: Any final feelings or thoughts in conclusion?

Yuskis: Scott, you were so very generous and supportive in your comments to me about my concerns of being such “small potatoes” in comparison to the Big Guys and Large Organizations who you cover/interview and who support atheist, secular, and humanist thought, values, and concerns here in North America and internationally. Those words meant a lot to me and to our group. Thank you. I think if you shared that comment some way in your postings that it would mean a lot and resonate and give an uplift to other small groups like ours in Canada, the US, and beyond. If all this rambling doesn’t merit any type of posting, that’s cool. It’s been an important exercise for me (and others) to reflect upon all our years as a UU Secular Humanist Group here in Iowa City, to think of all the good people who found kindred mentalities with a science-, reason-, and evidence-based take on the nature of the world around us and our part there within, and to be in deep, appreciative community together in a world ripe in superstition and supernatural beliefs.

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

Appendix I: Mission Statements

As Secular Humanists we welcome atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, and other non-theists who desire a community that embraces reason, science-based inquiry, humanist values, and the separation of church and state.

As Secular Humanists we take a life stance that embraces healthy relationships, reason, rational ethics, and scientific naturalism as bases for morality, decision making, emotional well-being, social justice, and graceful living.

As part of a strong and altruistic Secular Humanist movement, we take responsibility for finding personal purpose and fulfillment in life, and work to benefit humanity through using free inquiry, reason, science, critical thinking, and compassion.

Guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience, we affirm our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

To provide to the greater Iowa City area a secular community, free from religious dogma and supernatural beliefs, that promotes the greater good of society based on science, reason, and moral and ethical thinking.

Appendix II: Vision Statements

We offer social interaction, education, and programs that explore and promote secularism, social justice, non-theistic advocacy, and compassion, free from supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition.

We provide a socially active and involved community of atheist, agnostics, and other non-theists for UUS members, Secular Students at Iowa, and the Johnson County area.  We strive to promote secular values and enrich the lives of members and visitors through meaningful programs, expert speakers, and special events of interest to secularists.

We provide a community for non-theists, eschew supernaturalism, educate members and visitors via programming, discussions, and interaction to promote secular values and reduce the stigma of non-belief. We strive to move secular humanism from intellectual exercise to true social movement.

Through our activities and discussions, we hope to educate the public about secular ethics, speak out as advocates for the separation of church and state, and promote a philosophy that reliable knowledge is best obtained when we use the scientific method, seek to develop and improve ethical principles by examining the results they yield in the lives of real men and women, stand for human rights and social justice, and assert that humanity must be responsible for its own destiny.

In our individual and collective relationships with religious humanists at UUS and with the congregation as a whole, members of UUSSH practice radical acceptance of one another’s beliefs, and we greatly value the opportunity to join with UU religious humanists for social action based on our shared humanistic values.

Within our UUS Secular Humanists group, members of UUSSH practice scientific skepticism as our means of seeking truth and meaning regarding or own and others’ beliefs, and we focus on promoting separation of church and state and the use of scientific rationalism as the basis of ethics and a just world.

A secular community that provides to members and to the public the opportunity to understand, enhance, enrich, and promote secular values through meaningful programs, expert speakers, and special events to bring about social justice for all.

Appendix III: A Secular Humanist Considers Our Fourth Principle

*Presentation of the text given on August 26, 2018.*

Good morning, I’m here today representing our UUS Secular Humanist Group, and we are dangerous! The late (thank…goodness) Sen. Jesse Helms of N.C. wrote that, “When the U.S. Supreme Court denied children from participating in voluntary public school prayers…it also established a national religion in the United States – the religion of Secular Humanism.” Jesse had a few details wrong about the ruling, but details or the “truth” weren’t things to deter his, or others’, zeal and rhetorical flourishes!

 In “A Christian Manifesto,” the evangelical theologian Francis Schaeffer claimed that: the humanist worldview includes many thousands of adherents and today controls the consensus in society, much of the media, much of what is taught in our schools, and much of the Law being produced… (he continues)… The Law, especially the courts, is the vehicle to (force) this total humanistic way of thinking upon the entire population. I think he underestimates our numbers and overestimates our powers, but he, and his ilk, would likely be pleased to see the direction that the Courts may now be heading.

I’d like to share with you the UUS Secular Humanist’s recently adopted Mission Statement, and let you be the judge of just how “dangerous” we are. After a year’s work with much member input, our Mission states:

We are a secular community promoting the use of reason, scientific inquiry, humanist values, and church/state separation as the bases for a just world.

You may wonder why we use Secular Humanists, rather than just Humanists, or Religious Humanists? Well, that’s been commonly asked of us. When we organized 15 years ago, our then minister at our initial meeting argued that we needn’t form a new group, because there was a UUA sanctioned Huumanist organization (with 2 Us in Humanist, of course), and it had a publication called Religious Humanism. Frankly, we didn’t and don’t feel “religious” and we concurred that “secular” described better our take on Humanism. One interim minister even called us an “oxymoron.” Our choice of Secular was a conscious decision, much like the decision in -1961- when the Unitarians and Universalists merged, to call ourselves the Unitarian Universalist SOCIETY of Iowa City, instead of a church.

Even in 1841 when first established in Iowa City, they chose to be called…First Universalist Society. Now, we’ve pretty much let that church/society issue go…it’s just awkward saying “I’m going to Society meeting today at our new Society building.” Now for complete disclosure, for a while in our earlier history, we did call ourselves: “All Souls” and I couldn’t find if we finished that with Church or Society of Iowa City. Jeanette or others on our Historical Records Committee could likely settle that question for us.

I’m here in Title today to consider our 4^th Principle as a Secular Humanist. I could make this real brief by acknowledging Mary Loesch’s talk and just say “ditto.” Or similar for Kim and Lula’s talk earlier this month. Lula shared with me after their talk: “I think I’m a secular humanist,” I responded “I think so.”

I’ll start briefly with the notion of a Free search, and finish with a personal comment on Meaning, but focus mainly on, from my perspective, what a Responsible search is, and what makes a reasoned Truth. I often say I’ve been the most and least religious person in my family…you can guess which of these I am now! As a kid I took all my Methodist instruction VERY seriously…hell or heaven, eternal salvation or damnation… this was nothing to mess with or take lightly…I even kicked kids out of our yard for swearing… if they could only hear me now, especially when the Orange Man appears on TV (and he’s always on TV)!

I guess I was Free to question or doubt (love that word doubt, wish there were more of it), but I wasn’t as precocious as others I know, and I was thoroughly soaked in my familial, cultural, and religious milieu. I didn’t have enough doubt or skepticism in those early years to question that which adults around me seemed to believe.

Finally, as a Biology Major at ISU (the one in Illinois), I started to see the light, and it cast broad shadows on my former thinking and beliefs. Oh my g..gosh, I’m an atheist! But I didn’t just toss out God, I cleaned house…no ghosts, no spirits, no soul, no miracles (I really don’t like the abuse of that word), and… no one watching all those pointing skyward after touchdowns, pins, or homeruns.

In actuality, I’m an asupernaturalist…it indeed covers way more ground. Like virgin birth (if they’d only known any reproductive biology) and resurrection (Occam’s Razor suggests the body was grave robbed, physics tells us it didn’t pass up through the cave ceiling…no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time. And, “asupernaturalist” doesn’t immediately precipitate all those negative connotations that seem to run through people’s thoughts when they hear the word “atheist.”

In the description of my talk, I suggested “the bases of our beliefs are more important and more significant than our actual beliefs. Beliefs are only as good as the ‘data’, the reasoned and open inquiry, and the facts that they’re based on. This describes a Responsible search for truth .. for me. Myth, superstition, comfort and wishful thinking, and unverifiable religious claims, including escaping death and seeing those who have “passed” before us (sometimes even our pets) … do not. You’ve heard in politics that “you can have your own opinions, but you can’t have your own facts.” I believe it’s similar that you can have your own personal subjective beliefs, but they may not be grounded in facts or a more objective universal truth.

Historically, Truth came from scriptures, whether Christian, Jewish, or Islamic. In John 14:6 of the Christian Bible, Jesus says: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” Jesus also, supposedly, said: “The Truth Shall set you Free.” Well, I agree with that one.

Fortunately, this basis for Truth began to crack in the well-named 17^th/18^th century’s Enlightenment, when the introduction of the scientific method transformed society by using science and reason rather than political or religious dogma to explain natural phenomena. Frank O’Gorman in his book, The Long Eighteenth Century, identifies and describes this period as from 1685 to 1815. This process of enlightenment (little e) is still ongoing, while theistic religions around the world still hold sway and radical religious extremists make life intolerable and dangerous for far too many.

Though not named until Friedrich Niethammer in the early 1800s, Humanism or human centered thought has been germinating since recorded history with the Catholic Church suppressing it all along (think Galileo). Then after the Reformation this suppression was joined by the Protestants, and the evilness of Humanism is voiced viciously now by conservative and evangelical Christians. Again, I reiterate we’re really not dangerous or evil.

The Enlightenment, Humanism, and Unitarianism and Universalism have been part of a long continuum and have much historical connection.

As early as the 1830s both Unitarianism and Universalism were studying religious texts other than the Bible; and, by the early 1900s, humanists in both groups were advocating that people could be religious without believing in God… saying: no one person, no one religion, can embrace all truths.

So, from the Enlightenment, through the rise of Humanism, and its advance thru Unitarianism and Universalism, with the concomitant decline of Christian influence, we’re at a point now where UU congregations around the country (and world) have differing flavors of belief… from liberal Christian to a large congregation in London with an openly atheist, non-supernaturalist minister who puts up a sign saying “We believe in Good.” UUS falls in between these, historically leaning Humanist.

And, then comes along Postmodernism; I never appreciated Postmodernism. Just as we were developing many reasoned, objective truths about the world around us, Postmodernism casts doubts upon them, calling them relative and subjective.

Some have even called Unitarian Universalism the Postmodern religion. You’ve heard the response some have given to the question of what do UUs believe, they, unfortunately, too often respond: “Whatever you want.” But, that isn’t true; you just have to look at our 7 principles for what we Do believe in.

Daniel Dennett, famous American philosopher, is no fan of Postmodernists either; he believes (quote) “They are responsible for the intellectual fad that made it respectable to be cynical about truth and facts.”

MEANING, on the other hand, is more subjective to the individual. Some get meaning in life from the comfort of a loving, beneficent, god and the promises accorded. I totally get it, just don’t buy it.

Others, embrace a Higher Power, which may be Nature, the cosmos, a kindred community, an inter-connected humanity, or that which gives enrichment and meaning to their lives.

As for many of us, my Meaning comes from here and now, especially here at UUS. This Society has given me so much: like opportunities to contribute in ways such as:

• Serving, and at times, leading our Welcoming Congregation effort in my earlier years and the Interweave Group that followed for GLBT folks and our amazing allies.
• Leading the Free Lunch program for many years at the Wesley Center, when we still called to arrange for food and volunteers. I very much enjoyed those friendly chats. The funny part of that time was that the attendees thought I was the Minister. 😊 Yep, Rev. Mark…an interesting word pairing!
• Then, 15 years ago sipping wine with Harry Kane, we decided we needed a Humanist group. UUSIC had a long, noted Humanist history. Things were changing: we were embracing the “language of reverence,” we were becoming more “churchy,” and many of us were feeling marginalized.

Thus began the Secular Humanist Group. I’ve had the privilege to lead this group for at least 10 of its 15 years. Most proudly, in the past several years we’ve been joined in our meetings with 10-20 Secular Students at Iowa, or SecSI for short.

• In this last year, out of the Secular Humanist group has come the Freethinker Friendly Congregation Committee, working toward an official designation from the UUA’s UUHumanist Association for UUS. Just like we were welcoming to GLBT folks prior to becoming a designated Welcoming Congregation, we have been welcoming to atheists, agnostics, and other non-theists throughout our history. If approved, we will openly welcome Freethinkers of all stripes through our website, literature, and advertising.

But most importantly, the UUS has given me a wonderful community to be part of, and my dearest, closest friends.

So, you see this Society is a very special home for me and has given great Meaning to my life. And, I hope you support the Freethinker Friendly Congregation effort, so some other person like me can more easily find a life-enriching, Meaningful home and community like our UUS.

Thank you.

Appendix IV: Opening Correspondence and Response by Scott

Yuskis opened with some comments recognizing the group and the requests for emails in addition to the celebration of the 16^th year as an acknowledged focus group within the Unitarian Universalist Society of Iowa City/Coralville. He noted being a co-founder and the current coordinator of the group. He described interacting, as a focus group, with most of the atheist, humanist, and secular groups in Iowa, especially from Des Moines eastward. In addition, he described being one of the oldest such groups in Iowa, by their examination of the histories and assessments of the group. They have had guest speakers including Dan Barker and Staff Attorneys from the FFRF, Madison, ISU’s Hector Avalos, David Breeden at FUS, Minneapolis, and some experts from the University of Iowa. The Andrew Seidel reading event flyer can be seen in Appendix V. He noted this is what he could share and wanted to wait to see if I wanted to proceed more. My response was probably what Yuskis intended with the final response in the interview:

Scott, you were so very generous and supportive in your comments to me about my concerns of being such “small potatoes” in comparison to the Big Guys and Large Organizations who you cover/interview and who support atheist, secular, and humanist thought, values, and concerns here in North America and internationally. Those words meant a lot to me and to our group. Thank you. I think if you shared that comment some way in your postings that it would mean a lot and resonate and give an uplift to other small groups like ours in Canada, the US, and beyond. If all this rambling doesn’t merit any type of posting, that’s cool. It’s been an important exercise for me (and others) to reflect upon all our years as a UU Secular Humanist Group here in Iowa City, to think of all the good people who found kindred mentalities with a science-, reason-, and evidence-based take on the nature of the world around us and our part there within, and to be in deep, appreciative community together in a world ripe in superstition and supernatural beliefs.

Here’s the response to the early correspondence from me:

This is great. Keep sharing, I want as many voices as possible. I noticed a dearth of ordinary voices, who, I think (and feel), should be the ones on the forefront of the entire media landscape and, often, are not there.

Next, I stated:

To use an American cliché, though Canadian while feeling like Vonnegut as a “man without a country,” size does matter to some; to others, size does not matter. In this context, size does not matter. Those larger voices would not exist except in the light of the smaller voices. I disagree with individuals who attempt to characterize the smaller groups as not as substantial as the larger groups in size, import, and influence, as this characterization seems dishonest. The larger groups are comprised of the smaller groups and the prominent voices rely on the acceptance and propping-up of the smaller groups. So, I agree, however, with the idea of the focus needing to be on the smaller groups because this puts the attention where it’s more needed for democratic decision-making and providing a voice to the oft-ignored. It comes down to the small groups at the end of the day. Furthermore, and to a deeper dream for me, the smaller groups should have some democratic command over their movements and their communities, including, even especially, in freethought movements and communities. A-women.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/03/17

Edd Doerr was the CEO of Americans for Religious Liberty. He was in this position since 1982. He was the author of a number of books including My Life as a Humanist. He was a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Rockville, Maryland.

Here we talk about his life and work in brief.

*I have been informed Mr. Doerr died on February 6, 2020.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What was early life like for you, e.g., geography, culture, language, religion or lack thereof, education, and family structure and dynamics?

Edd Doerr: Grew up in Catholic schools. Made the easy change to humanist by age 18. Married. Two children. Served as president or vice-president of the American Humanist Association 14 years between 1985 and 2003. A columnist in humanist journals for over 50 years. Writer for nearly 70 years.

Jacobsen: What levels of formal education have been part of life for you? How have you informally self-educated?

Doerr: B.S. in Education, Indiana University, 200+ credit hours. Taught school in Indiana and South America for about 9 years.

Jacobsen: What were the main takeaways from those 9 years of teaching? What were the core differences that you noticed between teaching in Indiana and South America, e.g., the students and the expected educational methodology?

Doerr: In South America I taught in a private school, in the US in public schools. I came away with an appreciation for the importance of good secular education for all children and have spent the last 50-plus years defending public education and church-state separation.

Jacobsen: How did you get up to 200+ credit hours? That seems quite high. Why pursue so many credits?

Doerr: Working and going to evening classes to work on a master’s degree, which I did not quite finish.

Jacobsen: As a writer for more than 70 years and, especially, for humanist audiences, what have you seen as the main objections against humanism? What has been your standard response? Also, you debated the late Christopher Hitchens. Several years after his death, what do you consider his legacy in writing and in impact on secular culture?

Doerr: The objections to humanism by traditional religionists are too numerous to list and of course are easily refuted. A great many people in the US, Canada, Europe, and other developed countries have lost interest in religion but simply have either not heard of humanism or have given the matter little thought. Hitchens and I agreed on many things; our disagreement seemed to be over my view that humanists need to work with religious folks on issues of common interest, such as climate change, religious liberty, public education, reproductive choice. I might add that I was long a friend and admirer of Dr. Henry Morgentaler, and that I was the person who proposed Margaret (“Handmaid’s Tale”) Atwood for the Humanist of the Year award.

Jacobsen: As the President of the Americans for Religious Liberty, what tasks and responsibilities come with the position?

Doerr: Writing and editing Voice of Reason quarterly journal for 36 years. Published over 20 books. Testified at congressional hearings. Guest on hundreds of radio and TV talk shows. Lectured in over 30 states.  Plus, Canada, Mexico, Norway, Colombia.  Involved in over 70 church-state legal cases. Sadly, after 36 years ARL finally ran out of resources and had to cease operations.

Jacobsen: Founded in 1981, what have been the real victories and honest failures in the efforts of Americans for Religious Liberty for secularism, the separation of church and state?

Doerr: Hard to judge total impact, but believe that our efforts had some effect in defending secularism, public education, women’s rights, and church-state separation.

Jacobsen: Who have been integral individuals and organizations that you have collaborated with on secularism in America? What were those battles?

Doerr: Far too many to list. American Civil Liberties Union, teacher organizations, assorted coalitions, Paul Kurtz, Francis Crick, Leo Pfeffer, and many many others.

Jacobsen: What continue to be the perennial issues of the separation of church and state for the United States?

Doerr: Defending public schools, abortion rights, church-state separation, working on climate change are the major ones.

Jacobsen: What are the newer and ongoing issues? Why are these crucial issues under the current administration?

Doerr: Same as above. The Trump administration has of course been the worst in memory.

Jacobsen: Who are important voices in the combatting of these regressive forces on each of the issues listed above?

Doerr: Civil libertarians, liberal Democrats, teacher unions. pro-choice organizations, concerned citizens across the religious spectrum.

Jacobsen: What relevant books, and activists, artists, authors, philosophers, public intellectuals, scientists would you recommend for readers here?

Doerr: Among many others – Paul Kurtz, Bertrand Russell, Leo Pfeffer, ACLU, Council for Secular Humanism and Free Inquiry magazine, Isaac Asimov, Richard Dawkins.

Jacobsen: Who would you consider the greatest humanist in history?

Doerr: Many of them – Epicurus, Lucretius, Tom Paine, Darwin, Jefferson, and many more too numerous to list.

Jacobsen: How can people become involved with the donation of time, the addition of membership, links to professional and personal networks, giving monetarily, exposure in interviews or writing articles, and so on?

Doerr: Support humanist, abortion rights, environmental, public education, women’s rights, church-state separation groups. Be active on the internet where it can be useful. Write letters to editors.

Jacobsen: What are organizations dealing most effectively with those issues, specifically?

Doerr: Too many to list in the US and I am not familiar with those in Canada other than the Ontario group that defends public education.

Jacobsen: Any final feelings or thoughts based on the conversation today?

Doerr: With Trump in the White House and political and religious extremist conservatives in positions of power in many countries, we all need to work harder than ever to keep our world safe.

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

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/03/17

Musa Abu Hashash is a Field Researcher (Hebron District) for B’Tselem/ The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. The organizational name, “B’Tselem,” comes from the Member of Knesset, Yossi Sarid, as an allusion to “And God created humankind in His image. In the image of God did He create them” from Genesis 1:27. B’Tselem aims to achieve democracy, equality, human rights, and liberty as a future for all people. Founded in 1989 devoted to documenting Israeli violations of Palestinians’ human rights in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip. They have published eyewitness accounts, reports, statistics, testimonies, and video footage. After more than a half of a century of occupation, B’Tselem as a human rights organization unequivocally demands an end to the occupation.

Here we talk about his story and his work.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s start with some brief background to provide a context of development for you. What are some family and personal backstory for you? Only have to provide that which you feel comfortable divulging at this time.

Musa Abu Hashash: First things first: I am Musa. My parents were refugees from a Palestinian village called Iraq Almansheyyah north of Gaza and close to the Israeli town Kiryat Gat. The village was wiped out and no marks have been left to tell about the history of the people who lived there for hundreds of years. My parents fled to Hebron district and lived in a refugee camp called Fawwar camp south of the city of Hebron where I was born and brought up in a tent for five years before UNRWA built small rooms for the families where I continued my life together with my brothers and sisters. I am the eldest. I have 26 brothers and sisters. Life in a small overcrowded house in an overcrowded refugee camp was not easy for me. I had to leave the camp when I got married. I am a father of 5 children who live in Ramallah with their mother.

Jacobsen: As we are here today, you work in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt). In particular, you are a Field Researcher in the Hebron District of oPt. It is the work for B’Tselem. What is B’Tselem? How did you find B’Tselem? What was the development of becoming the Field Researcher for the Hebron District?

Hashash: I joined B’Tselem in the year 2,000, the very day of the start of the second Intifada, B’Tselem thought that they might hire me for a short time, hoping the Intifada would stop in a week or so, but it has been 20 years now. I still work for them. My work in B’Tselem changed my life as it gave me the chance to meet and listen to thousands of victims who were from the poor Palestinians. Despite the sadness and anger, I have experienced; I would say that working for Human Rights was interesting and rewarding, unlike other jobs.

Jacobsen: What is the real history of the Palestinians in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem?

Hashash: The history of the Palestinian territories, West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip refer to the early fifties of the last century, when the West Bank including East Jerusalem was annexed to the kingdom of Jordan and when Gaza was annexed to Egypt. In 1967, these territories were occupied by Israel in the 1967 war. Israel immediately annexed Jerusalem and declared the united Jerusalem (East and West) as its capital.

Jacobsen: What is the emotional and physical toll on refugees? What is the same toll on their children during critical moments of development?

Hashash: The Palestinian refugees’ issues for me are the core of the struggle. Without solving it, the struggle will continue. In 1948, 60,000 Palestinians were forced to leave their homes in Palestine and took refuge in West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. They settled in refugee camps and most of them still, including my family. Life in camps has never been stable and comfortable and refugees felt it was temporary till 1967 when many of them lost hope and when hundreds of thousands of them fled to Jordan and became refugees for the second time in new refugee camps. The number of refugees increased by birth and statistics tell about more than six million Palestinians living abroad around the world. Most refugees still stick to their right of return and Israel and the other hosting countries did nothing to change their lives and kept them in miserable refugee camps much worse than the camp where my family still live (Fawwar refugee camp), where 12,000 people live in an area of one square kilometre in overcrowded houses and with a high rate of unemployment. In general, refugees were excluded from development in the hosting countries, especially in Lebanon.

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

Some Background Resources on Musa

B’Tselem [btselem]. (2016, July 31). Inhuman conditions for Palestinian workers entering Israel: Checkpoint 300, June 2016. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi-XXYmIm_c.

Benton, S. (2014, February 22). Palestinians unite to demand ‘Open Shuhada Street’. Retrieved from www.jfjfp.com/palestinians-unite-to-demand-open-shuhada-street/.

Dudai, R. (2001, June). NO WAY OUT: Medical Implications of Israel’s Siege Policy. Retrieved from www.derechos.org/human-rights/mena/doc/nowayout.html.

Dudai, R. (2001, March). TACIT CONSENT: Israeli Policy on Law Enforcement toward Settlers in the Occupied Territories. Retrieved from https://www.btselem.org/sites/default/files/publications/200103_tacit_consent_eng.pdf.

Hashash, M.A. (2014, August 15). An Open Letter to His Colleagues at B’Tselem from the Most Decent, Honorable, Good, Humble Person I Have Had the Honor to Know: Musa AbuHashash of Fawwar Camp, Hebron. Retrieved from www.normanfinkelstein.com/2014/08/15/an-open-letter-to-his-colleagues-at-btselem-from-the-most-decent-honorable-good-humble-person-i-have-had-the-honor-to-know-musa-abuhashash-of-fawwar-camp-hebron/.

Hass, A. (2016, August 21). One Killed and Dozens Wounded at a Palestinian Refugee Camp, All for Two Pistols. Retrieved from https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-palestinian-killed-dozens-wounded-all-for-two-pistols-1.5427113.

Kate. (2016, August 22). Amid mass hunger strike, UN deplores number of Palestinian detainees, now at an eight-year high. Retrieved from https://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/deplores-palestinian-detainees/.

Levy, G. & Levac, A. (2013, March 2). What Killed Arafat Jaradat?. Retrieved from https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-what-killed-arafat-jaradat-1.5232055.

Mutar, H. (2014, February 21). Palestinians demand Shuhada St. reopened after 20 years. Retrieved from https://www.972mag.com/palestinians-demand-shuhada-st-reopened-after-20-years/.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/03/12

Terry Waslow, M.B.A. Executive Director is the Executive Director (former Board Chair) of the Congress of Secular Jewish Organizations and a Board Member of the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism. Terry’s Master’s degree in Business Administration is focused on Nonprofits, while her undergraduate degree is in Human Services/Counseling.  She has worked for over 25 years with individuals and families impacted by physical, intellectual and/or economic challenges to build fully inclusive communities.

Here we talk about the heart and mind of secular Judaism, and the Congress of Secular Jewish Organizations.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: As the Executive Director of the Congress of Secular Jewish Organizations, and even before, you work with individuals and families of the secular Jewish community. So, you know it. You know the people, intimately. What is the heart of secular Judaism?

Terry Waslow: I like to think of it as the heart of Jewishness, distinguishing it from the religious rituals and theistic doctrine of Judaism. At the heart is our identity as a people with a culture and history that binds us as a family. Jews have lived in just about every country in the world and have adapted to and adopted elements of the local culture. Yet Jews have always identified as a unique people separate from the main culture that surrounds them wherever they reside. It is incorporating a global and particular view simultaneously: identifying as a separate community within a country and yet assimilating aspects of the locale. You find this in every aspect that defines a culture, from food, language, music and other aspects of everyday life. As an example, all Jews celebrate the holiday known as Passover. We may say the name differently based on the Jewish language that is the tradition of our particular family; pesach (Hebrew), peysekh (Yiddish), pesah (Ladino), and we may have different foods on our seder table. However, we will all eat matzo and we will all celebrate freedom. This is our Jewish family as both universal and unique.

The other major part of the heart of Jewishness is our strong commitment to Tikkun Olam, repairing the world. Secular Jews have historically and continue to be extremely active in progressive social movements. Some identify Jewishly, such as the many groups working on issues regarding hunger, environmental issues, refugee resettlement and any number of other social justice issues. You also find a large proportion of Jews belonging to secular progressive organizations. In the recent past Jews were at the forefront of the labour movement, helping to create safe working conditions, weekends and child labour standards. Tikkun Olam is what keeps us involved and working to constantly improve conditions not just for Jews but for the world. Here we have the particular working for global betterment.

We have a concept, l’dor v’dor, literally from generation to generation. It is our responsibility to pass on our Jewish traditions to each succeeding generation. As secular Jews, we take this responsibility very seriously as we have created schools and community groups and family traditions that teach the essence of secular Jewishness.

Jacobsen: What is the mind of secular Judaism?

Waslow: Judaism focuses on books and laws and the constant questioning and studying to increase our knowledge. This comes from a religious tradition. As secular Jews, we also see our Jewishness tied to lifelong learning. We have secular supplementary Jewish schools for our children and adult study groups. We prize education and delving into the laws and traditions to better understand the relevance for our lives today.

Clearly, as secular Jews, we do not understand our traditions and history as the word and works of god. However, we do see the value in understanding what these words are and what the teachings can tell us about our history and how to live our lives. I’ll use the holiday of pesach again as an example. Secular Jews definitely do not believe that Moses parted the sea or god smote the first born Egyptians. However, we celebrate freedom and we understand the idea that no one is free unless everyone is free. We honour the traditions of understanding the suffering of slavery and acknowledge the cost to the slave holder during the righteous fight for freedom. The Seder, the traditional holiday meal honours the idea of questioning and spells out the various types of learners. Even as this holiday reaches to the depths of our hearts we are challenged to expand our knowledge and enhance our mind as we repeat these traditions year after year, generation to generation.

Most important is that we realize that the heart and mind work together. Our love of our culture and heritage goes hand in hand with our learning about our history and traditions. I mentioned Tikkun Olam earlier and it is just one example of how concepts and learning (the mind) can be meaningless without the care and actions (the heart) that contribute to the well-being of all people. The concept of repairing the world is empty if we do not struggle to ensure the rights of all living beings. Our survival depends on it.

Jacobsen: How do these, the heart and the mind of secular Judaism, define the ordinary lives of followers of secular Jews within the remit of the Congress of Secular Jewish Organizations?

Waslow: There is no question that for those of us engaged in the activities of the Congress of Secular Jewish Organizations our identity is infused with our connection to our Jewish heritage. Our members function outside the traditional religious framework and develop schools and study groups and traditions that lead us towards understanding our people’s past and enriching our present Jewish lives. Our philosophy as an organization is to stress the cultural, historical and ethical aspects of our Jewishness in an effort to create an identity that is relevant to contemporary life that is committed to justice, peace and community responsibility. Through educational, cultural, and social activities we strive to instill in our members an ever-deepening sense of Jewish identity and pride in being Jewish.

Gerry Revzin, the first Executive Director of CSJO said it very well; “The pluralistic nature of our movement gives us a unique opportunity for creativity. We come together from all walks of life with a single purpose, to spread our message of secular humanistic Jewish life to those unaffiliated Jews who cannot accept the philosophy of the established Jewish community, but who don’t know what we offer. Herein lies our greatest challenge: the creation and development of new groups, schools, clubs in all parts of the United States and Canada and the world, where children and adults can explore the meaning and joys of their Jewish peoplehood, their ethnic identity; where Jewish interests and human concerns do not conflict; where thoughtful, even critical approaches to Jewish issues are welcomed; where holidays and traditions are observed with understanding, with creativity – out of choice, not obligation.”

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

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Canadian Atheist

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/03/04

With long-awaited and great pleasure, I am introducing or bringing one of the most well-known and controversial ethicists (and atheists) in the (current) modern world, Professor Peter Singer, to Canadian Atheist. Singer is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University & Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne, in the School of Historical and Philosophical Studies. He has been termed the “world’s most influential living philosopher” by some journalists. His work dealing with the ethics of the human treatment of animals has been credited with the foundations of the modern animal rights movement. His writing assisted in the development of Effective Altruism. He has made a controversial critique of the sanctity of life ethics in bioethics. He co-founded Animals Australia, formerly the Australian Federation of Animal Societies. Australia’s “largest and most effective animal organization.” He founded The Life You Can Save (see interview for ebook and audiobook options for a book by the same name as the organization). Other important writings include his 1972 essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” and books entitled The Life You Can Save (2009) and The Most Good You Can Do (2015). He has done a TED talk entitled “The why and how of effective altruism” garnering nearly 2,000,000 views.

Here we talk about Effective Altruism and The Life You Can Save.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the development of the formal ethical system by you? How has this evolved over time into Effective Altruism?

Singer: My ethical system is utilitarianism: the right act is the one that will lead to the best consequences, for all affected. Utilitarianism leads to Effective Altruism, because EA is about doing the most good we can, and using reason and evidence to find out what choices will do the most good — choices like donating to the most effective charities and also your choice of career. But you don’t have to be a utilitarian to be an EA.

Jacobsen: Who do you consider the most significant intellectual precursors to the development of Effective Altruism? Who are some lesser-known names who deserve due credit for their contributions to this ethical system?

Singer: As I have said, utilitarian thinking is a kind of precursor to EA, so the founders of utilitarianism can be seen as precursors of EA — Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Henry Sidgwick, in particular. But with regard to the birth of EA itself, around 2008 and in the following years, young philosophy students like Toby Ord and Will MacAskill played a crucial role.

Jacobsen: What do you consider the most significant and powerful argument in favour of Effective Altruism?

Singer: It’s the simple idea of getting value for your money, or your time. We all want to do that when buying something for ourselves. Imagine impulsively buying a new laptop, and paying twice as much as your friend — who did some online research before deciding what to buy — paid for hers, and ending up with a laptop that isn’t even as good as hers! Wouldn’t you feel stupid? But that’s exactly what people do when they impulsively give to a charity that has an appealing picture of a child on its website. A little research could often show you that some charities do not just twice as much good per dollar spent as others, but 10 or 100 times as much good.

Jacobsen: What do you consider the most significant and powerful argument against Effective Altruism?

Singer: EA research points to the interventions that do measurable good, and this tends to mean that it encourages people to donate to charities that save lives cheaply, say by distributing bednets against malaria, or that restore sight in people with cataracts, or eliminate internal parasites. It’s much harder to measure bigger, long-term interventions, like attempts to eliminate agricultural subsidies in rich nations that hurt smallholder farmers in poor countries, because the subsidised crops undercut their ability to earn income on the global market. 

Jacobsen: What have been the most controversial positions following from the ethics of Effective Altruism for you? How has the general public reacted to them? How have the community of ethicists reacted to them? What do you consider the appropriate responses to said reactions from both the general public and the community of ethicists, professional moral theorists?

Singer: In some circles, it’s controversial to say that we should not donate to art museums or opera houses, because we can do so much more good by donating to charities helping people in extreme poverty in low-income countries. Most ethicists agree with that, but not people involved in the arts.

The most appropriate response is, in my view, just to state the obvious: for the cost of, say, a $500 million renovation of the main concert hall at the Lincoln Center in New York, it would have been possible to restore sight, or prevent blindness, in 5 million people. What’s more important? Giving wealthy concert-lovers a nicer venue, or enabling 5 million people, in countries where there is no support for people with disabilities, to see?

Jacobsen: What do you consider the most significant derivative from Effective Altruism?

Singer: Substantial amounts of money — billions of dollars — flowing to organizations that do a lot of good with it. 

Jacobsen: You are an atheist. How does this build into the system of Effective Altruism?

Singer: EA fits well with atheism because it’s not about obeying moral rules handed down by a divine being, nor about following sacred texts, or religious leaders. It encourages us to focus on what we all value for ourselves and those we care about — reducing pain and suffering, increasing happiness, giving people more fulfilling lives — and to recognize that just as these things are important for us, they are important for everyone else capable of experiencing them — and not only humans, but all sentient beings.

On the other hand, you don’t have to be an atheist to be an EA. In fact, Christians who believe that the gospels are true accounts of what Jesus said should all be EAs, because he told them, in many different passages, to help the poor. It’s surprising, really, how many rich Christians there are who just ignore all of that.

Jacobsen: Is traditional religion and fundamentalist religion a net negative or a net positive in this ethical system?

Singer: That’s a very big question, and not easy to answer. The major religions do emphasize obligations to give to the poor, and that’s good. But they do lots of other things that are bad — the terrorism perpetrated by some Islamic fundamentalists is the most obvious example, but opposing contraception, abortion, same-sex relationships, and medical aid in dying are other examples. 

Jacobsen: You debated on the purported resurrection of a supposed divine figure called Yeshua ben Josef or Jesus Christ. What place do supernatural, metaphysical, and naturalistic claims have in Ethical Altruism? Most atheists would probably dismiss the first, might consider the second, and would place much emphasis on the third category.

Singer: I think EAs would agree with the atheists you describe, except perhaps that as many of them are interested in philosophy, they would spend more time discussing metaphysics than non-philosophers might do.

Jacobsen: Any upcoming exciting projects, recommended authors/organizations/speakers?

Singer: I’ve recently completed a fully revised and updated 10th-anniversary edition of my book The Life You Can Save, and I’m delighted to tell all your followers that they can download a completely FREE eBook or audiobook from www.thelifeyoucansave.org. Print copies can be bought from online booksellers or your local bookstore.