In-Sight Publishing

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Conatus News/Uncommon Ground Media Inc.

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2016/11/02

Satire tends to be used for humour, sometimes ridicule, to expose and criticise relevant issues. Sometimes, however, individuals get in trouble. When this happens, the privileges in society, global or national all comes to light and, moreover, reveals a grand irony…Louis Antoine Smith was born April 22, 1989, and is an artistic gymnast from Great Britain. He is a four-time Olympic medallist. He did this by only the age of 27. He has earned a bronze and silver metal on the pommel horse. He won the bronze medal at the Beijing Olympics as well as a silver medal at the 2016 Rio Olympics.
Recently, there was a film shown about the gymnast in which, during a night-out with his friends, he drunkenly shouted: “Allahu Akbar,” (which translates into ‘God is Great’ in English – from the Arabic). He was in the video with a gymnastic trainer named Luke Carson. The consequence of this would prove unsettling. Indeed, it resulted in Louis Smith being banned for two months in light of interpretations by some that Louis “mocked” the religion of Islam. Note, it is a religion, not the individuals or the membership at large of the religion.

Before the ban, however, under minimal pressure Louis Smith apologised, “I am deeply sorry…I am not defending myself, what I did was wrong. I want to say sorry for the deep offence I have caused and to my family who have also been affected by my thoughtless actions…I have learnt a valuable life lesson and I wholeheartedly apologise.” However, this wasn’t enough – he was banned for two months regardless.

To me, and perhaps I am crazy to spout ideas from the Enlightenment, freedom of speech extends to ridicule and satire of any religious symbolisms, ideas, and words, even its patrons, prophets, and patriarchs. The same is the case regarding irreligious heroes too, who are alive and experience ridicule and satire all of the time. However, there have been failings here in the west to extend such freedoms of speech to both religious and irreligious ‘heroes’. Indeed, it’s a one-sided affair. Religious ‘heroes’, and all the baggage that go with religion, are safe-spaced – protected under religious-sensitivity, whilst irreligious heroes are deemed inconsequential and legitimate topics of mockery.

You can see the double-standard. This cooked up controversy highlights the privilege in society that religion still has. The outrageous implication of his ban is that the coverage is over the mockery of a religion, not the members at large with individuals within the religion that adhere to the principles, doctrines, and practices thereof.

He did nothing wrong other than ruffle some feathers and mess up a new hairdo. My sense of the outrage is, rather, that superficial sensibilities have been raised to heights and praised as ‘virtue’, when, in fact, they are virulent vices blocking the secret sauce of the ongoing integration of a pluralistic, global society – freedom… of speech, to and from religion, to ridicule, of conscience, and so on.

As Lenny Bruce noted decades ago in America, a bastion of free speech in many ways, if you “Take away the right to say “fuck” and then you take away the right to say “fuck the government.” Some words and actions can be unpleasant, indeed, but you can’t force another individual to not say or do something.

It is someone’s right to pray and say their God is just super in the Olympic domain, and mean it, as it is another person’s right to pray and say their God is just super-duper in the Olympic domain, and not mean it.

Lenny Bruce’s statement, by analogical reasoning, works the same with ideas and behaviours. If you take away the capability to think or do something, you take away the possibility of ridicule, of satire, often needed, about sacred cows.

It would be the same as doing the motions of the Catholic religion, wine and bread (the whole ritual, by a priest), or prayers of Evangelical Christians, and then being banned from an organisation for having been seen as mocking the religion in general rather than religious individuals. Religions don’t have rights. People do.

What does this incident, among countless more severe examples, then show? It shows religion, by default and historical inertia, has privileges, globally. There is a distinct error in conflation between mockery of religious motions, such as behaviours, and terminology, such as ‘sacred words’, and the doctrines and ideas as abstract concepts that influence behaviour.

People that don’t think it works and then do it in satire, or in ridicule, are not harming individuals. Consider the opposite case, the fact that many pray and say ‘holy’ words in front of individuals that do not believe. It could be offensive to them.

Are football and NFL players being banned for 2 months when they score and then thank God and pray because it is offensive to the irreligious? I don’t think so. In many places, by law, the irreligious can be killed or whipped simply by self-identification as non-religious.

Consider this: should we ban those from the Olympics that are showing religious behaviours in the Olympic context where the irreligious are present because they are offending irreligion – and so, as is sometimes asserted, the irreligious as well, by analogy?

It would be proportional, but it would be absurd – because this ban is so absurd. You can’t insult abstract objects or ideas. You can insult individuals that hold certain ideas and behave in certain ways. But it’s not up to Louis or others to justify their every single move. It’s up to the offended to make the distinction between ridicule of ideas and mockery of individuals.

I can imagine a hypothetical Smith Antoine Louis in an alternate universe saying, ‘I am so, so sorry…I can’t defend what I said because it was wrong, like…super wrong. I apologise to the irreligious. I am sorry for the deep offence I have caused and especially to my dear family who have been also deeply affected by these brainless actions of mine….I learned an important lesson and with all my heart say sorry to those offended.”

This is simply a case of imposition of religion into the public and professional sphere to limit the behaviour of others. Nothing more, nothing less, it is outrageous and insulting to those of good conscience with sufficient rational capacities to make a distinction between people and ideas.

The mockery and satire of ideas and concepts and behaviours is freedom of speech, but it is not a mockery of particular individuals. This is a case of a privileging of religion within society and then being imposed on a high-tier Olympian, Louis Smith. And it is being implemented because everyone has been raised with the tacit (wrongheaded) principles of ridicule of ideas and behaviours as ridicule of particular individuals.

It is not. There is no necessary logical connection between the two. This distinction is an important part of consciousness-raising. This is a damn good time to reflect too. If that is the case, and it is, then Louis Smith should not have been banned and the ban should be repealed because he is mocking ideas and not individuals. In addition, 2-months is rather stringent if you think about it, he spent some time laughing at the repetition of a two word statement in Arabic, which took less than a minute.

Yet, he’s been banned for over 80,000, close to 90,000, minutes. Does that not seem excessive? …The grand irony is, as with numerous examples of banning or attempted suppression of behaviour and ideas in history – barring the fire at Alexandria (where the burning of books succeeded and warped knowledge of aspects of human history), the 2-month ban brought even more attention to the ridicule of religious symbols.

*No irreligious or religious individuals were harmed in the writing of this article

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): Conatus News/Uncommon Ground Media Inc.

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2016/11/02

Professor Rebecca Newberger Goldstein is a novelist, philosopher, public intellectual, and visiting Professor of Philosophy and English at New York University and Visiting Professor of Philosophy at the New College of the Humanities.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your family story?

I was brought up in an Orthodox Jewish household. My father was a refugee from Poland, and all the kids in my extended family were named after relatives who had died in the Holocaust.I’m named after my great-grandmother who died on a cattle car on her way to Auschwitz. I would say that my father never quite adjusted to the New World and carried ​tremendous sadness within him. He was a gentle and compassionate man, of great intellectual potential, who had no ambition beyond never again seeing the worst that humanity can do to each other. He was exquisitely sensitive to others’ pain, a great believer in performing secret acts of charity. He became a cantor in order to support his large family. We were poor. My mother, who was born in the U.S., had more worldly ambitions, but they were all directed toward her one son, my older brother, who is a rabbi. As a girl I was raised to have no ambitions beyond getting married to an Orthodox Jewish man. I was engaged to my first husband at age eighteen.

What about your personal story?

Though we couldn’t afford many books, it was a bookish family, which meant that we used the public library religiously. The Sabbath day was spent reading, and my parents’ attitude was that if a book came from the library then it couldn’t be a bad book. So, for example, when my mother saw me reading, at age thirteen, a book by the philosopher Bertrand Russell called Why I Am Not A Christian, she had no objections — especially since we were Jewish! She had no idea that the title essay went through each of the major arguments for the existence of God and systematically destroyed them. I was particularly interested in the elegant destruction Russell brought to bear on the so-called moral argument for God’s existence, which tries to argue that God is necessary to provide an objective grounding for ethics. (Only years later did I discover that Russell had cribbed his elegant counter-argument from Plato. It’s the famous Euthyphro argument.) In any case, after much intense thinking, spurred by Russell’s essay, I became an atheist — a quiet atheist, since I didn’t want to do anything to upset my parents, most especially my father, of whom I was, for obvious reasons, always protective.

What are your religious/irreligious, ethical, and political beliefs?

I’m a secular humanist and a political progressive. Although I began my career as a philosopher of science, most interested in the foundations of quantum mechanics, I’ve become increasingly interested in moral philosophy, which has — since the time of Plato and Aristotle — been going about the business of grounding morality on purely secular grounds. One of my books was on the philosopher Spinoza, with whom I feel a strong affinity. Spinoza was the first philosopher of the modern age to try to rigorously ground morality in naturalism. His concept of conatus is essential in his project of naturalising ethics, so I was pleased to see the name of your news organisation! I also sympathised with Spinoza’s personal story. He, too, had been born into a Jewish family that had been traumatised by murderous bigotry — only in his case it was the Spanish-Portuguese Inquisition. This personal involvement with his story went into my book, Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew Who Gave Us Modernity. I’ve always been interested in showing how the whole person, including personal history, is involved in philosophical positions, which is one of the reasons I also write novels. Our individually variable intuitions that are expressed in our philosophical positions are embedded in our philosophical characters and temperaments, shaped both by genetic and environmental factors.

Your recent publication is Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won’t Go Away. It won the Forkosch Award (2014). An earned award from the Council for Secular Humanism. What was the content and intended message behind the text — or set of themes covered?

I had four interrelated goals. The first was to put forward an original theory as to why the ancient Greeks were responsible for inventing the field of philosophy. Their society was saturated with religious rituals, but when it came to the question of how to live our lives, they didn’t look to their gods but rather to a secular grounding. This doesn’t mean that they were a culture of philosophers. There never has been a society of philosophers! And, of course, Athens sentenced Socrates to die. But the pre-conditions for philosophy were created in their secular approach to the big questions, and I was interested in exploring this aspect. The second goal was to explain Plato in the context of the wider Greek culture. The third goal was to demonstrate that progress has been made in philosophy, and to demonstrate this by going back to the inception of Western philosophy and uncovering presuppositions that had been instrumental in getting the whole process of critical reasoning going but which critical reasoning had, in its progress, invalidated. I was concerned to demonstrate in the book that progress in philosophy tends to be invisible because it penetrates so deeply down into our conceptual frameworks — both epistemological and ethical. We don’t see it, because we see with it. And the fourth goal was to demonstrate that the kinds of questions Plato introduced, philosophical questions, are still vitally important to us, and to demonstrate this, I interspersed the expository chapters with new Platonic dialogues, injecting Plato into contemporary settings. The first place I bring him to is the Googleplex in Mountainview CA, the headquarters of Google International, where he gets into a discussion with a software engineer on whether philosophy makes progress. I also have him on a panel of child-rearing experts, including a tiger mum. Then I bring him to a cable news set, where he’s interviewed by a rabble-rousing blowhard; they discuss the role of reason in the public square. The last dialogue has him getting a brain scan and engaging the neuroscientists on the question of whether neuroscience dissolves the notions of personal identity and moral responsibility. I’d produced these dialogues as a bit of fun to enliven my points, but it was this aspect of the book that got all of the attention from reviewers.

You earned other prizes in previous years: MacArthur fellowship (2011), Humanist of the Year, Free-thought Heroine, Richard Dawkins Award (2014), and the National Humanities Medal (2015). What do these public recognitions of professional excellence mean to you?

Since I’ve been very experimental in my writings, using forms of writing that my fellow philosophers don’t recognise as legitimate — for example, novels — these prizes have been encouraging. I got the MacArthur prize, for example, at rather a low point in my philosophical career, when many of my colleagues had written me off because I’d written some bestsellers. The MacArthur carries a great deal of weight in American academic circles, since it’s popularly known as the genius prize, so this prize did a little bit of work in rehabilitating my reputation.

What one is most dear to your heart? Why?

Without a doubt, my proudest moment was having President Obama put the National Medal of the Humanities around my neck. And when he had greeted me in private before the ceremony, he had said, “Ah, the philosopher who knows how to write great novels.” Being in the White House, in the presence of the president who knew something of my work, I couldn’t help being flooded with memories of my father and how displaced he’d always felt in his new country — how displaced he’d felt in the world at large. And here was a president, putting a medal around my neck, who hadn’t been raised to feel entitled to stride the corridors of power — quite the contrary. I felt proud for all of us who believe that reason can destroy the groundless prejudices that break the human spirit and keep our shared human potential from being realised for the greater good. I only wished that my father might have been alive to witness the moment, though it might have been too overwhelming for him — as it nearly was for me.

What responsibilities come with these recognitions?

I wasn’t raised to be a public person, to say the least. The virtue that had been most impressed on me growing up as an Orthodox girl was female modesty, meaning never to attract undue attention to oneself, especially male attention — not to one’s body, not to one’s mind. So I have to overcome a great deal of inner resistance, even shame, in speaking out in the name of things I believe in. It remains a torment to me to do anything that gets me attention, though over the years I’ve toughened up a bit. Sometimes, when the criticisms against what I’ve said or written become very personal (and they do), my upbringing kicks in, and I have to fight the sense that this is what I deserve for being so immodest as to make myself heard. But I do feel that addressing a public audience is my responsibility, as someone who has had the privilege of being able to get myself a first-class education and to use it to think about big issues. It’s a great privilege to think for one’s living — especially when that is what one most loves to do! But, as with all privilege, this one, too, begets obligations, which is why I’ve ventured beyond the confines of academia.

You are the visiting professor of philosophy and English at New York University (NYU) in addition to the visiting professor of philosophy at the New College of the Humanities (NCH) in London, England. What tasks and responsibilities come with these positions?

I try to impress on my students what a hard thing knowledge is to achieve and that they ought to take their responsibilities for being accountable for their beliefs — as well as their actions — seriously. No matter what they go on to do in their lives, they can’t leave accountability behind. That’s what I most want to impress upon them.

What are your favourite courses to teach to students?

Coming to philosophy from a background in physics, my first interest was philosophy of science, and this is still my favourite course to teach. I love it because it requires that one understand both the science and the philosophical issues to which the science gives rise, and it forces me to keep up with what’s going on in science. In general, I like to teach courses that attract an interdisciplinary mix of students, so that they can learn from the strengths of one another. I also teach philosophy courses that use novels, and these courses also attract an interdisciplinary mix of students.

Who is the smartest person you have ever met?

There are too many kinds of smartness for me to be able to answer this question. I’ve known mathematical geniuses who are dunces when it comes to the kind of imaginative intelligence that goes into interpreting works of art — or, for that matter, interpreting people. I’ve met brilliant novelists whose deductive talents aren’t sufficient to get them through an elementary course in symbolic logic. I have an appreciation for sundry forms of smartness, though there are characteristics other than smartness that I value far more in people. Too many people who are celebrated for their intellectual or artistic talents think that their gifts license them to be jerks. What I call “talentism,” the conviction that those with extraordinary abilities matter more than other people, is as faulty a normative proposition as any other that regards some people as mattering more than others — such as sexism, racism, classism, ableism, lookism, ageism, nationalism, imperialism, and hetero-normativity. Challenging all of these presumptions is part of the mandate of progressive thinking and progressive activism, at least as I conceive it. The truth to which progressive movements have always been pointing is this: to the extent that any of us is committed to our own lives mattering — which is, of course, a commitment that forms the infrastructure of our entire emotional life, something that Spinoza had tried to capture with his notion of conatus — then we must be equally committed to all lives mattering and to the exact same extent. To me, that’s the essence of what drives moral progress forward, and the greatest privilege of my privileged life is to play any role at all, no matter how small, in that progress.

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): Conatus News/Uncommon Ground Media Inc.

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2016/11/02

Stephanie Guttormson is the current Operations Director for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science – a foundation she joined in March of 2013. Stephanie was the leader of an award winning student group at the Metropolitan State University of Denver which impressively brought in notable names such as Michael Shermer and James Randi to speak on campus.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Where does your personal and family background reside?

Denver, Colorado, my last name, apparently, is Icelandic. Based on the name, my heritage is Icelandic, Vikings, and those kinds of people – Scandinavian.

If we look at the landscape now, especially in North America, atheism is a rapidly growing movement. From your expert position, what seem like the reasons behind this phenomenon?

In one word for you, the internet. The internet is where religion goes to die. I don’t remember who said that. It wasn’t me, but the internet is where religion goes to die. There’s too many ways to get appropriate facts now. Yes, of course, there’s tons of crap on the internet too, but being able to debate rationally with people and get them to listen to arguments that they wouldn’t otherwise.

Also, they get more exposure to more news about the same facts. They consistently don’t see atheists in the news doing violent things. I would also like to say that it has to do with the Richard Dawkins Foundation having a movement to get people to come out of the closet starting with the Out campaign. Now, there’s Openly Secular.

I also credit people like David Silverman from American Atheists being super open about it as well as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Christopher Hitchens, and James Randi. These are people that I know opened my eyes and open the eyes of a lot of other people.

Listening to these people and working for one of the organisations of probably the most prominent at present, you’ve probably heard most of the arguments. What do you consider the best argument for atheism?

Atheism is more of a conclusion rather than something to be argued for.

(Laugh)

Atheism is what happens when you follow the evidence where it leads, where it leads right now is to the conclusion that there is likely no supernatural force watching over us or any magical force.

Everything we’ve been able to figure out. Everything we’ve been able to verify so far has not been magic. We are still waiting for magic to happen. It hasn’t, yet. All of our progress has been the result of the method known as the scientific method, for the most part.

Even social change, you look at the situation and people think, “That’s not fair. That seems to hurt people. Let’s fix that.” The thing changes and things get better. The more we learn, the more things get better because we’re responding to evidence and the changing situations.

Humans were pretty good at doing that when they the left savannah. Now, we need to get our brains to do it and change our minds with new evidence as the new landscape changes.

You hold two bachelor degrees. One in linguistics. One in theoretical mathematics. Both from Metropolitan State University in Denver. I want to focus on theoretical mathematics because it could be technically defined as a science.

So, when it comes to having a mathematical understanding and know the scientific method more than most, does this seem to provide a bulwark for you to consider these topics of critical thinking, faith healing, and other topics along the range of pseudoscience, non-science, bad science, and real science and making that demarcation?

Religion is not the only thing that benefits from wish thinking and that kind of thing. I really hate grief vampires like Adam Miller. He’s more of a straight-up conman. “Grief vampires” are psychics, mediums, and those kinds of people. I hate them so much.

Anyone promoting any non-scientific idea boils down to a couple of quotes. One is from my friend Matt Dillahunty. He said, “I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.” Also, the other probably is “scientia potentia est” or “knowledge is power.”

If you look at the general public and the method of teaching critical thinking, if you could comment of the state of critical and ways to improve education of critical thinking, what is it?

It is garbage.

(Laugh)

The current state of teaching critical thinking in this country is garbage. I chose to take logic courses and things that challenge or made my ability to think better. I can’t say I wish it were mandatory, but I wish we would encourage it more, certainly. I wish it was a core class to teach critical thinking and its importance.

The fact of the matter is any false belief has potential to do harm because it is incongruent with reality. Those things that are incongruent with reality have great potential to cause harm.

Do you think the work through the Richard Dawkins Foundations assists in the development of critical thinking to a degree?

We would always want to do more, but I think the programs we have help with it. There’s one teaching evolutionary science, where we teach middle school teachers how to teach evolution. Some think, “You’re indoctrinating them with evolution.” No, evolution requires asking a lot of questions.

Kids are interested in it because you get to ask, “Why do cells do that? Why does this happen that way?” Teaching any science, especially evolution, will lead to more critical thinkers.

When you were Metropolitan State University in Denver, you managed to bring Dr. Michael Shermer and James Randi to campus. What was that like getting people that prominent in the atheist, agnostic, and critical thinking movement to come to your university?

That was pretty surreal, not going to lie. That’s the only way I could put it. I was shell-shocked at that age. James Randi put forward a ton of effort to get to Denver. One of my heroes did something for me. That was incredible. I can’t tell you how good that felt. It is hard to put into words.

For those that don’t know, that aren’t as involved in that community. Who are individuals that you would recommend to them, and what particular texts would you recommend to them?

I would recommend Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I would recommend Richard Dawkins, Obviously.

(Laugh)

I would encourage them to find a book, How to Think About Weird Things. That’s a good book. Lying by Sam Harris, that is pretty decent. God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. I would probably have them take any logic book, really, for those that are academically inclined.

They have them in different levels like “Logic for Dummies” all the way to a serious textbook. They all touch on the same things. Also, they should learn on how to be persuasive and how arguments work has been helpful.

What are some of the other ongoing activities and educational initiatives through the Richard Dawkins Foundation?

We have a ton of videos on our YouTube channel. Tons of videos of Richard and other people with loads of information about science and evolution, but everything is in English. There weren’t subtitles in other languages until we had the project to translate as many videos into other languages as we could.

We have many videos now in Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Russian, and so on. We have lots of languages. This is all done by volunteers around the world. Some of them as far away as Pakistan helping us translate videos. We get a translation and have someone double-check it. It is translated and checked by at least two people.

Even the English videos, we have to do the language in English first for something to be translated back for the translators. Those are some of the most important to get right.

Is there an unexpected large following in the Middle East and North Africa region?

We get quite a bit of people from that region contacting us more to get more involved with us.

What initiatives are you hoping to host and expand into the future for the Richard Dawkins Foundation?

Currently, we are merging with the Center for Inquiry. We’re not planning on launching anything new at the moment because we’re in process of this merger.

You have appeared monthly on the Dogma Debate radio show and the Road to Reason TV show:

I stepped away from both for a bit because I had some mental health stuff to deal with first. I will be back for the Dogma Debate show soon. Same for The Road to Reason TV show. I am booking Richard’s touring now. It takes most of my time at the moment.

Apart from professional capacities, what personal things do you hope to continue for your own intellectual enjoyment?

Next, I am going to start a video. I have a new target. As you probably know, I went after a man named Adam Miller. He sued me because I said he didn’t have magic powers. I won, hilariously. There’s this other little dumb fuck who I found on the internet that I want to go after. He claims to be a medium.

I want him to stop taking advantage of people. He’s a grief vampire. He’s one of these assholes that goes around saying, “Oh, I hear the letter F… coming out of my ass.” You are a smug prick and are taking people who are vulnerable, fucking with them, and taking their money when you do it…You need to stop.

Those people are despicable and immoral. You want to talk about how pseudoscience harms people. You don’t tell vulnerable people things that they want to hear. That can fuck with their emotions, especially pretending to speak with loved ones that they have never met. It is disgusting. It is despicable.

Historically, pseudo-scientific, non-scientific, and bad scientific views had negative consequences. Sometimes very big ones. It’s around now. It has been around in the past. Those around now, by implication, have been around in the past. What are the worst ones that come to mind for you?

Psychics are really bad, but they don’t seem as bad because you see the holes in the wall. The really bad ones are those that take advantage of people, such as John Edwards. They are the worst from an immoral perspective. I think the most harmful are medical ones.

The anti-vaccine movement by far is the most harmful pseudoscience movement that we’ve ever seen. It is followed very closely by chiropractors or any kind of “healing acupuncture.” That kind of stuff. Medical pseudoscience by definition is the most harmful, no question – if you’re talking about harm.

The medical stuff scares me to death. Mostly because we have people here that are extremely desperate to get better. They are putting their money in places they shouldn’t, many times.

Thank you for your time, Stephanie.​

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): Conatus News/Uncommon Ground Media Inc.

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2016/11/01

The United Nations has been critical of Morocco recently with the respect to women’s rights, and in particular violence against women. ‘The 118th session of the United Nations Human Rights Committee looked into the 6th periodic report of the Moroccan government’ with the delegation from Morocco undergoing tremendous criticism over the status of the implementation of women’s rights within the country, according to Moroccan World News. The central examination of the Moroccan status of women’s rights took place in the context of law, sexual assault or rape, housing, polygamy and child marriage, and the level of discrimination of women. The research prior to the meeting was done by the Mobilizing for Rights Associates and numerous other Moroccan nonprofits. In general, the research was on women’s rights with a particular focus on “women’s rights in the family and violence against women.” Let’s run through the list of inequalities, which can mean disempowerment for women, equality and empowerment come as a package.

In law, the absence of rights for one group of people implies a separate set of rules given everything else as equal. That is, women and men are adult Moroccan citizens and should, and deserve, equal rights. A trivial statement, even a truism. When it comes to violence against Moroccan women, women victims of violence, in law, do not have civil protection orders.

In sexual assault or rape, which means sexual violence, the World Health Organization defines it as follows:

any sexual act, attempt to obtain a sexual act, unwanted sexual comments or advances, or acts to traffic, or otherwise directed, against a person’s sexuality using coercion, by any person regardless of their relationship to the victim, in any setting, including but not limited to home and work.

Victims of sexual violence within Morocco can be, if married and raped by someone other than their partner, “prosecuted for taking part in sex outside of marriage.” That is, the Moroccan legal system, in an inverted ethic, turns the punishment for the crime onto the victim. To make this clear, the law is functionally equivalent to the conditional statement: if a married Moroccan woman is raped by somebody other than her husband, she will be prosecuted for sex outside of marriage.

In housing, and once more on the topic of violence against women, but in the domestic arena, female victims of domestic violence need safe havens to escape the abuse – physical, emotional, social, and spiritual – of some abusive intimate partners. This means the need to have housing centers, which remain one common solution to the problem. According the Centers for Disease Control, intimate partner violence comes with tremendous problems for the victim: society via the economy, physical, reproductive, psychological, social, and inadvertent negative effects on health behaviour for women. It is straightforward. The consequences are short- and long-term. Safe housing can help. Morocco was chastised for not having appropriate provision of them.

In polygamy and child marriage, which implies simple marital and intimate relations, the persistence of these activities indicates systemic socio-cultural problems for the country, which cannot be ignored, and were not, by the international community. In the examination of the nation, the exploitation of women through polygamy and girls through child marriage demarcates an unequal power relation and disempowerment of women and girls, across the age spectrum in other words (intergenerational sex discrimination).
​
In divorce cases, and so if the cases are considered of discrimination in marital and intimate relations because of polygamy and child marriage, in disproportionate violence against women and provisions for victims because of a lack of safe housing, in sexual assault or rape cases involving married Moroccan women because of full blame on them for ‘sex’ outside of marriage, and in law because of no civil protection orders for women, then the ‘icing’ to the discrimination pie (of which Moroccan women get a greater share) is general discrimination in divorce.

Historical context informs this, too. It is not only a current, ongoing phenomena with the discrimination against Moroccan women. Indeed, this continues right into the present because of the historical context, in part, with the past states transitioning into the present. Morocco was run by the French. Its citizens did not garner independence from the French until the late 1950s.

In 1958, soon after Morocco got its independence from the French, notable male scholars of the country wrote a Family Code Law (the Mudawana) which would be legally implemented by the state, and is still part of Morocco’s legal system. The Mudawana was based on Islamic principles regarding marriage, abortion, divorce and child custody. Despite improvements in the Mudawana in recent years, Morocco still has a lot to cover on its way to bring its legal system to standards where human rights and gender rights are respected and protected, especially when it is still based on Islamic law and principles.

The Mudawana has indeed been updated to allow abortion in case of rape, making the legal age of marriage for both men and women equal and allowing a woman to divorce her husband. However, it is very questionable how, if ever, the reformed version of Mudawana, that was so praised by Moroccan authorities, is followed. The country does not still have a law protecting women from domestic violence, something that puts the country much behind on what can be described as a modern state. In fact, a national survey by the Moroccan High Commission for Planning showed that 62.8% of women had, at least once, been victims of physical or sexual domestic violence. What should concern one the most is that only 3% of those cases were reported to the authorities. What is more, the authorities don’t seem to protect victims of domestic violence, as researchers of the Human Rights Watch mention. There is no doubt that in the absence of a strong domestic violence law, the authorities will keep ignoring those cases.

More than 10 years after the Mudawana’s greatest reform, its implementation into the Moroccan society still lacks behind. A great number of people, and most importantly women, are unaware of what the law allows them to do and as a result do not seek for taking advantage of the increasing equality that the legal system allows them to. In fact, because of conservatism especially in Morocco’s rural areas, women are not interested in implementing the new laws into their society but keep living on the same traditionalist grounds that they are used to. What is more, the Mudawana is limited mainly to urban areas and as a result women in rural and underdeveloped areas do not have access to justice. Thus, citizens of rural areas do not have the chance to be educated on the new law. As a result, a new kind of inequality has been created, that of the difference in implementing the Mudawana in urban and rural areas. Also, one would expect that the judges and legal personnel would be educated at a great, if not absolute, degree about the new rules and their application to the Moroccan society but sadly this is not the case as there are financial barriers in educating them.

In addition, where a legal system gains its credibility is on its application. The reformed Mudawana, unfortunately, makes unfair exceptions in a way that it still fails to protect human rights and achieve gender equality. It may had been the case that the reformation was praised for modernizing Morocco but statistics and facts show otherwise. A concerning fact is that underage marriage still exists in Morocco. Despite that being illegal, a loophole in the system allows the judges to allow men to marry underage girls if that is ‘proven’ to be for the girls’ benefit. According to statistics provided by UNICEF, 16% of girls in Morocco are unlawfully married by the age of 18. Proving that despite the law’s changes it’s difficult to change society’s moral values, the ‘family honour’ system is still in practice in Morocco’s rural areas where if a girl remains unmarried then this means that she breaks the family’s honour in the community. The judicial system does not seem convinced to change that as it has approved 90% of the cases presented before it which asked for allowing a man to marry an underage girl.

Even in everyday life, the law seems unable to be put into practice. Reports of personal experiences show how sexual harassment against women is part of Moroccan culture and it’s considered a norm. A form of sexual harassment of which no woman can escape from, and includes stalking, grobing and catcalling. It seems that Morocco is still a male-dominated society in which men try to be dominant even in their everyday lives, showing that misogyny runs deep in them.

The women’s rights examination of Morocco with respect to child marriage and polygamy as persistent practices in the culture to the present day, sexual assault and rape of married Moroccan women with the blame on the victim, the absence of civil protection orders in law, safe housing for domestic violence victims, and the level of discrimination of women in divorce in general. The Mudawana, or the Family Code Law, is an example of this in historical context as well. It is founded in Islamic Law. Gender rights and human rights are not exactly enshrined in it, in spite of piecemeal improvements – the Mudawana becoming more in line with gender rights and human rights. In addition, the pervasive traditionalism and conservatism in the country create additional barriers for the equality of women and the proper implementation of women’s rights. The research by the Mobilizing for Rights Associates and other non-profits indicates the level of discrimination against women in Morocco, and the UN did not hold back. They gave direct, firm criticism of the Moroccan delegation of the status of women’s rights in the country.

As presented here, we do, too.

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): Conatus News/Uncommon Ground Media Inc.

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2016/10/30

Alejandro Borgo is a journalist and paranormal researcher based in Argentina. In 1990 he co-founded CAIRP (Centro Argentino para la Investigación y Refutación de la Pseudociencia), the first Argentinian sceptical group.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In brief, what is your family story?

Well, my grandparents came to Argentina from Italy. My parents were born in Argentina. My father was a great man. He liked arts. He inspired my love for music and science. He used to give me books about astronomy, biology, etc. He died at 71 and I miss him
a lot. He was the man who influenced me, more than anyone.

What about your personal story?

I was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on August, 1958. I had a very happy childhood. When I was a teenager I began to read books on the paranormal, and I was fascinated about parapsychology, UFOs, and so on. Then, I began to study at the Argentinian Institute of Parapsychology where, paradoxically, I learned the scientific method. During 7 years of intensive research there, I could not find even one case in which parapsychological phenomena appeared. I didn’t found anything at all and I became a skeptic. At that moment, I was 25 years old.

What are your religious/irreligious, ethical, and political beliefs?

I’m an agnostic regarding religion. My ethical and political beliefs: I respect what we call “negative liberty”, I’m against coercion, I think that the State, at least in my country, regulates almost everything. It is abusive. So many laws, so many taxes. I believe in free exchange with the minimun intervention of the State. I think that we have to put individuals in the first place, not society. And of course, I think that Church and State should be separate, which does not happen in my country. I believe that populism is dangerous, and in Argentina, there were a lot of populist Presidents.

How did you become an investigator and activist-skeptic?

I carried on so many experiments and scientific research and didn’t find anything true about paranormal phenomena. I thought: “there are a lot of astrologers, seers, and clairvoyants publishing ads in the newspapers, and I can’t find just one of them able to prove their powers… there’s something wrong here”.

Then, together with Enrique Márquez (magician and researcher of paranormal phenomena) and Alejandro Agostinelli (journalist, specialized in UFOs) we founded the first skeptical organisation in Argentina: Argentinian Center for the Refutation and Investigation of Pseudoscience, in 1990. We kept in contact with CSI (at that time called CSICOP) and Carl Sagan and Mario Bunge became Honorary Members of our organisation. We published a magazine, El Ojo Escéptico (The Skeptical Eye), and I was the Editor until 1997.

In 2004, the Center for Inquiry decided to publish a magazine for Spanish-speaking people called Pensar and I was the Editor until 2009. In 2006, we started with the CFI/Argentina branch, and I was elected to be its Director. Being a journalist specialised in the paranormal, I was invited to hundreds of TV shows, radio and I was interviewed by the press, in several newspapers and magazines from Argentina and other countries. I published three books about the paranormal and critical thinking.

Were parents or siblings an influence on this for you?

Well, I’ve said that my father used to give me science books that stimulated my curiosity. My parents were not religious. They never talked to me about religion. They lived without the necessity of believe in god.

Did you have early partnerships in this activist pursuit? If so, whom?

Yes, I had. They were professionals, students or magicians that became friends of mine and share my interest in paranormal phenomena.

Do you consider yourself a progressive?

Yes. I like progress. But I think we have to differentiate people who like progress from those persons who declaim that they like social progress and do nothing to achieve it. I support scientific progress. Social progress is very difficult to define. I think our ideologies could lead us to commit mistakes. That’s why I try to divulge critical thinking. We take so many things for granted and we are not educated to ask “dangerous” questions.

How did you come to adopt a socially progressive worldview?

Well, during my whole life I’ve changed my worldview. I liked socialism ideas which I don’t like anymore. Socialism was a failure, and in some countries a disaster. It’s against freedom and is a system where the State regulates everything. I prefer a democracy with free market without regulations from the State. And of course an education system allowing and promoting free-thinking.

Why do you think that adopting a social progressive outlook is important?

Because progress is necessary to build a better and healthy individuals. And to achieve this goal scientific progress is essential.

As a progressive, what do you think is the best socio-political position to adopt in South America?

A democracy promoting freedom of speech, and encouraging critical thinking, where the individual is the main component. We should not sacrifice individuals in the name of society, because populist systems precisely promote the following point of view: the majority is more important than citizens.

What big obstacles (if at all) do you see social-progressive movements facing at the moment?

Dogmatic ideologies (including religion), secular religions and everything that is opposed to critical and free-thinking.

How important do you think social movements are?

It depends on which movement we are talking about. I would support a movement that promoted freedom, free-thinking, and fought against dogmatic ideologies of any kind.

What is the national state of irreligiosity in Argentina?

Near 90% of the population is composed of believers of different religions.

Do the irreligious experience bigotry and prejudice at all levels of Argentinian society?

Yes, it does.

Why?

First of all, Church and State are not separated. So, citizens, paying taxes are supporting the Catholic Church, even when they believe in another religion or they are agnostics/atheists. That’s unfair.

You are the representative of the Center for Inquiry-Argentina. What tasks and responsibilities come with this station?

My responsibility is to represent a world organisation which is promoting science and reason, and secular humanism. I organize lectures, debates, meetings whose main topics are critical thinking, pseudoscience and skepticism.

What are some of your more memorable investigations into the paranormal and parapsychological?

I have investigated hundreds of people who claimed to have paranormal powers, also “haunted” houses, UFOs’ episodes and so on. I also organised, with the support of CFI, the first Iberoamerican Conference on Critical Thinking, on September 2005, with speakers from different countries: Brazil, United States, Chile, Spain, Argentina, Paraguay (sorry if I have left out any other countries!).

You wrote for Skeptical Inquirer. What is the importance of this magazine, and others, to skepticism?

The importance of this magazine is that it is promoting science and reason, in a way that ordinary people could understand what they are.

What demarcates real science from pseudo-science, non-science, and bad science?

Science requires evidence. Pseudo-science does not.

Science is both knowledge and process.  Knowledge about the natural world through empirical methodologies. Process to attain empirical knowledge. What is the best way to teach both of these at the same time – because science can be seen as the Periodic Table of Elements, the names of species, the names of minerals, the traits of different astronomical bodies, and so on, alone?

We need science-disseminators, with the ability to explain what is science using clear and simple language. The best example of what I mean is Carl Sagan. I have seen scientists which are invited to TV shows to talk about some subjects and most of them are boring, using complicated words, and scientific terms. They are not prepared to be disseminators. If we cannot approach to the audience in a direct and simple way, we are failing. We have to do what Bertrand Russell did. He was a great philosopher, but he also wrote to ordinary people.

What is your favorite scientific discovery ever?

Evolution.

What is your favorite debunked pseudo-science?

I think that we have to apply skepticism and critical thinking in economics and politics. There is a lot of pseudoscience on both subjects.

What is your current work?

I’m a journalist, writer and musician. Right now I am on tour with a tango orquestra called Camerata Porteña.

Where do you hope it goes into the future?

I am optimistic. But I see that magical thinking and pseudoscience are ignored by the major part of the scientific community. And, as I wrote above, it is absolutely necessary to form science-disseminators. We need to spread the word of reason. But sincerely, I don’t know if that is going to happen in the short run. For what I see, pseudoscience is invading academic institutions, and religion is still strong.

Thank you for your time, Alejandro.

You’re welcome!

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): Conatus News/Uncommon Ground Media Inc.

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2016/10/25

Kate Smurthwaite is a British stand-up comedian, a human-rights activist, political activist.and a feminist. She regularly appears on British television and radio as a pundit, offering opinion and comment on subjects ranging from politics to religion.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How did you become an activist, comedian, and feminist?

Well I became a comedian by doing a number of courses on writing and performing and on stand-up and then by getting up and doing it and working on it. Being a feminist and an activist is just how I’ve reacted to the things that I’ve experienced and witnessed and learnt in my life.

Who are comedic heroes for you?

John Oliver and Tina Fey are the performers working right now that make me want to do the sort of things they do. So talented. I also love Mark Steel’s columns and his wonderful “Mark Steel’s in town” radio shows. But in other ways I feel like I carve quite a new and different path. Which is probably why it’s so bloody hard all the time!

Why them?

Well Last Week Tonight is a masterpiece of political comedy and 30 Rock is the greatest sitcom ever written. And what I love about Mark Steel’s work is how he can make it so political but so personal and connected too.

What is the importance of freedom of speech for more avant garde comedians?

There are comedians in various places around the world doing political material, especially material about organised religion, that puts their life and well being and liberty at risk. Powerful leaders are rightly afraid of comedy because it connects with people and influences them in ways that no amount of angry lecturing can. That’s something we should always bear in mind and work to end. Sadly it feels like in the UK comedians banging on about freedom of speech are mostly unimaginative acts who make racist sexist and homophobic jokes and then call it “censorship” when their third series doesn’t get broadcast. I really think we should arrange some sort of cultural exchange to try to help them understand that their rights extend to not being shot at rather than not being given their own chat show. LOL.

Were parents or siblings an influence on this for you?

No. They all have sensible jobs.

Was university education an asset or a hindrance to this?

I learnt a great deal at university. I’m not sure my maths degree gets used much any more. But the experience of being around a lot of interesting people and exposed to a lot of ideas and activities was important.

Did you have early partnerships in these activist and comedic pursuits?

No. In fact rather the opposite; I’m always trying to find partners and teams to work with but I’ve more or less always found the problem is that I end up being the one doing all the work and it falls apart.

How did you come to adopt a socially progressive worldview?

That’s not a term I particularly use but I guess I could say I have a tendency to empathise with whoever is being mistreated. I never understand when people say “well we should bomb this country because they’ve done XYZ”, I just think: But the people of that country now have corrupt leadership AND western bombs to contend with. It’s like saying “stop hurting me or I’ll kill your wife”. It only works if you’re such a psychopath you don’t understand that the wife is also human.

Why do you think that adopting a socially progressive outlook is important?

I think human rights matter. I think that’s important. You can call it whatever you like, I don’t care about labels like that. In fact I actively don’t like them, ‘cos they don’t mean anything. As soon as you ascribe to one someone will just say “well John is a social progressive and he wants to eat frogs” and suddenly it’s my job to justify battery frog farms. Then we end up in a six year debate about what the term should mean and who is and who isn’t and all that time there are kids starving.

Do you consider yourself a progressive?

I’m a feminist and an atheist, I’m in favour of human rights and equality and more protection for the environment. Labels labels labels whatevs yeah?

What is feminism’s importance in the UK in the early 21st century to you?

52% of the U.K. population is women and we tend to take the radical view that we should have the same rights and face the same opportunities as the rest of the population. Right now we’re miles away from that. There’s a yawning pay gap, there’s an average of two women a week being killed by their partner or ex-partner, there’s a rape conviction rate of about 6%. Unless that seems like a fair and equal society, it seems pretty relevant to all of us.

And as for me? Well I live here and I’m a woman so I’m aware of sexism every day. Watching my less experienced male colleagues offered top well paid roles I’m not even considered for. Officials that don’t listen to me. Harassment in and out of work. And then there’s the Internet abuse. The rape and death threats, the words “bitch” and “cunt” appearing within minutes under any new piece of work I produce online. Sexism is what I live in. Of course I want it to stop.

What are your religious/irreligious beliefs?

I’m an atheist. The non-existence of God is not a belief, it’s a fact.

What were pivotal moments in becoming an atheist for you?

I stopped going to church at about 14. Prior to that I went to a very happy-clappy baptist church where Sunday School was cringe-worthily trendy. God on a skateboard, graffiti Jesus. I liked it though, they were really nice to me, it was a shame in some ways that I no longer believed it and I couldn’t keep spending time with those people. But somehow it had reached a point where the illogicality of it was too much for me.

Are there inspiring and well-known atheists that you could mention here?

Not long after becoming an atheist I went to college where I heard RIchard Dawkins speak several times. Fast forward twenty years to now and I know Richard and have had the privilege of asking him in more detail about some of the things he talks about, especially evolution, in more detail.

At the moment I’m particularly inspired by women connecting feminism and atheism. Something I think should be obvious and intuitive given the history of misogyny in every major religious tradition. Something I consider myself a part of alongside women who have become my friend like Lisa-Marie Taylor, Maryam Namazie, Rayhana Sultan, Gita Saghal, Joan Smith and probably someone else who will be offended I didn’t mention them!

Atheism is a growing movement. It seems to be a mixture of ‘coming out’ and being convinced by arguments, even disillusionment with traditional religious structures. What is the importance of atheism now?

Atheism isn’t, in a way, important, it’s just true. What is important is ending the lies of religion that are used to imprison millions of people physically, emotionally and socially. From stoning “adultresses” to forced child marriage and FGM all the way to those insidious guilty attitudes and feelings that so many people have around sex, masturbation and even eating pork!

As a progressive, what do you think is the best socio-political position to adopt in the United Kingdom?

I think we need to defend and extend the welfare state, I think the elderly, the unemployed, the sick and the disabled deserve proper support. And young people too. I think we should scrap Trident and scrap university tuition fees. I have a lot of other views on policies I think we should introduce that will make life fairer and easier for people in the UK. I also think we should let refugees and migrants into the UK and support them too.

How important do you think social movements are?

I think everyone should get up and work and campaign for a fairer society. If you want to call that a social movement, sure. I call it being a human being with a sense of compassion. I think the way the press is able to lie and distort the truth is a problem for everyone, not just those who consider themselves part of a particular movement.

What is your current work?

I’m currently doing two things. Firstly I’m touring my new solo show Smurthwaite On Masculinity. I’m really proud of it. Tour dates will be up on my website as they’re announced.

Secondly I’m building up a crowdfunded base for my video work to allow me much greater creative freedom. The details for that are here.

What are some of the main themes in the new solo show, Smurthwaite on Masculinity?

Well as the title suggests it’s about masculinity and specifically about the rise of 21st century toxic masculinity. Stag parties, pick-up artists, mob-mentality football crowds, all those things that get justified as “man behaviour” but are often very intimidating and destructive to those around them. It’s a very different show to anything I’ve ever performed in the past but you’ll have to come along and see why!

We talked about freedom of speech and the roles of comedians in society. You mentioned crowdfunding for greater creative freedom. For up-and-coming comedians, what are some important resources for them to be able to develop professionally, test cultural boundaries, and build their own skill sets to express their own creativity?

I’m not sure there are any resources. Comedy is a freelance business so if you want to pay your bills doing it some sort of compromise is going I sneak in eventually. But it’s such a diverse field I could probably give advice to someone looking for a specific sort of club or platform for their work, but the whole industry? It’s tough. Don’t do it unless you’re sure you really want to.

Where do you hope your professional work will go into the future?

I’d just like more people to see my work. I don’t really care whether that’s on TV or radio or at live shows or on the Internet I just want to continue to build my audience to share my ideas and give people a good laugh in the process.

Thank you for your time, Kate.

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): Conatus News/Uncommon Ground Media Inc.

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2016/10/24

Maryam Namazie is an Iranian-born secularist and human rights activist, commentator and broadcaster. She is spokesperson for Iran Solidarity, One Law for All and the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain.

How did you get involved in activism?

I became an activist as a result of my own life experiences after an Islamic regime took power in Iran. We fled the country. One of the first ways in which I got politically involved was in doing refugee rights work. My family and so many we knew had become refugees and it was a way of dealing with the trauma of losing everything and starting all over again – somewhere completely new – and at times unwelcoming.

It followed too, that I would be active against theocracy and religious rules, and for people’s rights. The best way you can fight repression is to refuse and resist. I didn’t set out to be an activist; in many ways I was forced into it. I had no choice but to fight back in the best way I knew how. Also when you are faced with such inhumanity – like the Islamic regime of Iran – the best fight back has to be fundamentally human.

Was there support from parents, siblings, or others for you?

My family has always been supportive of me. That’s why it has been easy for me to be an activist. Also, my partner is an activist. I’ve really always had a lot of support.

I can’t imagine people who not only don’t have the support of their families, but are being beaten and abused because of their beliefs. I think it makes it so much more difficult. Doesn’t it? It still astonishes me people like that can still be active and speak out.

I have met a lot of very vocal women. Many of them say they’ve had supportive parents and fathers. I think that’s key when you’re an activist. Obviously, you can be vocal without family support, but it helps a great deal.

Speaking of human rights as well as women rights, which are somewhat separated but definitely overlap, do you note that more of the rights violations are women’s in general?

Obviously, I think rights are violated across the board, but because women are seen to be more vulnerable, they are seen to be the property of the community, the society, the family’s honor, the society’s national honour, it makes it easier to target them. And often the abuse is legitimised in ways that other abuses aren’t.

As a result, violence against women is more acceptable in many ways. In that sense, one of the greatest violations of human rights is in the area of women’s rights.

Some of the more tragic and dramatic examples are violations of women’s bodies through things such as tens of millions of women having female genital mutilation, infibulation, clitoridectomy, and so on, against their will, even as girls. Does that seem, along with others, more religiously motivated or not?

I think there are obviously non-religious motivations for those violations, but very often religion also justifies and legitimises it, and gives it divine sanction in ways that other justifications don’t – which makes it all the more dangerous.

You are working on a new film. What is the content and purpose of that film?

The film is on Islam’s non-believers. It’s been made by Deeyah Khan, who is an award-winning film maker. Her previous films have been about honor killing as well as Jihadis.

And this one is about Islam’s non-believers. It looks at the situation of young people, particularly in Britain, who are facing discrimination and abuse because they’ve decided to be atheists. Often, including from their families and the larger communities that they live in. The film also links to the international situation.

You see the links between Bangladeshi Islamists hacking atheists to death in Bangladesh and also threatening atheists right here in Britain. People who are respected, people who are so-called ‘community leaders’. It shows that Islamism is an international movement that targets apostates.

It also shows the ex-Muslim resistance as an international movement and how it too is an important way of pushing back the Islamists by opening up the space to question and debate, and criticise religion, even to renounce religion. The ability to do it despite the risks involved.

The American Massachusetts Institute of Technology trained and Tufts University based philosopher and cognitive scientist professor, Daniel Dennett, did something similar to that. He looked into pastors, ministers, and preachers who had lost their faith and continued to preach.There’s a decent amount who’ve lost their faith and continued to preach. I haven’t seen the precise results, but this seems like a similar case. A possibly relatively common phenomena of people putting on the ‘face’ such as the engaging in practices and wearing the clothing in public, but not holding the beliefs sincerely or simply not believing. Do you know of the numbers of non-believers in Islam, but are putting on that face – so to speak?

Yea, also, there are 13 countries that execute apostates and atheists. There’s also a huge amount of threats and intimidation. The numbers are much larger than we can imagine because of the many risks involved. Social media and the internet are doing to Islam what the printing press did to Christianity.

So, it is opening the way to challenge it in a way that hasn’t been possible because of the risks that are involved. My opinion is its a tsunami of millions. It really is the case that there are atheists in every family, in every home, in every neighbourhood, in every country.

There are many of them. We can see it now via social media. What we see, though, is still the tip of the iceberg. We have many members living in Britain, which is a relatively safe place to live. There are no apostasy rules, but people continue to wear the veil, go to mosque, and continue to say they’re Muslims when they are atheists.

I think if the pressure of the Islamist movement is removed, if that movement is pushed back in the way political Christianity was pushed back by an Enlightenment, the world will be surprised by the sheer number of non-believers. I think even we will be surprised by it.

On the fringe of that sector of people, that sub-population within the community will be those that simply had over time their fundamentalist beliefs softened and liberalised quite a bit. Do you think that would be a much larger population – that sector would then move into non-believing as well?

Definitely, I think that is the case. I mean, of course, no community or society is homogenous. There are so many differences of opinion. The problem is we live in an era where communities are homogenised.

Very often, those in power are seen to be the representatives of those communities. In the so-called Muslim community, Islamists are seen as the authentic Muslims and representatives. I think many people are forced to keep up appearances, even if they don’t believe.

Time will reveal all, but already we’re seeing the extent of it. If anyone is interested in seeing it, is interested in accepting that there’s diversity and dissent in what is considered a homogenous group, it is very easy to see.

And it is on the increase. A convert was telling me that the Islamists always talk about how many people are converting into Islam, but we never hear about many of those converts who then decide to leave Islam and to become atheists.

We hear it is the fastest growing religion. We never hear about all of those people running for their lives in the opposite direction.

(Laugh)

Things are skewed in the favour of religion because religion is privileged anyway. No matter what society you live in. But when it is imposed, very often by brute force, by the Islamist movement, the numbers can never really be revealed.

But you can get a really good sense of it. When we started #ExMuslimBecause, we were expecting to have a couple of hundred people respond. We even thought, “Let’s do it a few weeks in advance of December 10th, International Human Rights Day, so, we can build up on it and gather a few hundred statements.”

It went viral in 24 hours. There were over 120,000 tweets from 65 different countries. Again, that is still the tip of the iceberg, really.

At this point in time, how do you self-identify in terms of irreligious/religious beliefs as well as socio-political beliefs?

I have a big problem with identity politics. I think it’s regressive as it tries to pigeonhole people into groups of constructed identities. It refuses to acknowledge that people are multifaceted. They have so many different characteristics that define them or they define themselves with.

For me, even the whole ex-Muslim movement is not about identity politics, I know it is for some people, but it is about a political challenge to the Islamist movement, to discrimination and violence against apostates, and it is one way of highlighting that.

It also challenges the view that the “Muslim community” is a homogenous community. If you have ex-Muslims, millions of people who don’t want to be considered Muslim anymore, it challenges multiculturalism as a social policy. I personally have political positions and ideals, which, for me, mark who I stand with irrespective of background or belief.

I am a secularist, for example. I will stand with Muslims and ex-Muslims, and non-Muslims, in support of secularism. I might be an atheist, but I don’t necessarily agree with all atheists on all issues. I am pro-refugee rights and against profiling of Muslims, for example.

I am old-fashioned in the sense that I think we need to build solidarity around political ideals, rather than around ridiculous limiting identities, which narrow the allies we can have and put us amongst those who aren’t necessarily our allies because they fit within a narrow identity.

Unfortunately, this is old-fashioned, but that’s how political organising has always been done. It has been done irrespective of one’s background, beliefs, and identity around specific political ideals.

I think that’s why we’re in the mess we are in today because we are not able to see our allies and our enemies given the bogus identity politics.

I want to shift the conversation to some of the things you mentioned at the beginning about refugees. In the early 21st century, we have a singular tragedy with the Syrian refugee crisis. How do you think countries in Europe are managing and handling refugees as well as the crisis at large?

For me, the refugee issue is a human rights issue – in the same way that I don’t think you should stop people using a hospital because they are undocumented and an EU citizen rather than a British born citizen or exclude people based on age, sex, race, or belief, I don’t think you should stop people from gaining protection.

It doesn’t matter where you fled from and where you seek refuge, you must be granted protection. It’s a basic human right.

People who have never had to worry about getting visas or fleeing for their lives might find it hard to understand the desperation – to have to leave everything you know – the language, the society, your work, your family, your loved ones, sometimes even sending your children on their own (unaccompanied minors) because you have no other hope of saving them. You send them off on this perilous journey and don’t even know if they will make it alive.

From my perspective, we should do everything and anything we can to help people. In the same way, I think everyone who needs healthcare should have it. Everyone who needs housing should have it. I don’t understand why we should have homeless people. I don’t understand why there are children who go to bed hungry in this country. I also don’t understand why refugees shouldn’t be given protection and safety.

I know of course it is because profit is more important than human need, and differences amongst us are more deemed more important than our common humanity but I don’t see why it should be that way.

Also, rights are not contingent on whether you like or agree with those demanding it. Sometimes the refugee issue is muddled up because people want to run an inquisition before deciding whether someone is eligible for this right. My perspective is that even if a person’s views are disgusting and vile, they still have human rights. You can’t stop people from accessing a GP because you don’t like their beliefs, so why do you think you can do it when it comes to those trying to save their lives and fleeing wars and persecution? Also beliefs are not set in stone. They change all the time.

People have a right to an education. They have a right to food. They have a right to healthcare. I would also say they have a right to asylum. I know we’re living in a time when this is unfashionable to say. With Brexit, so many hate anyone who doesn’t look like them. They want everybody out. Even if they’re doctors who are saving your life, they are still not good enough, not white enough, or what have you.

I think this boils down to a very fundamental issue. Rights are for everyone not just your pals. And there is more that hold us together than separate us if only we could see beyond the propaganda.

We are seeing some concerns from many people being raised both in North America, Europe, and elsewhere with, the phrase being used is, “right wing nationalism,” which can sometimes be seen as ethnic nationalism in a way. What do you think is the state of that at this point in time? What are the possible major concerns associated with that?

I think this is what happens when identity politics rules.

Identity politics divides and separates people so that they can no longer see their commonalities across these false borders. It’s not just that minorities love to live in ghettos and be humiliated day-in and day-out. This gettoisation is part and parcel of government policies of multiculturalism and cultural relativism. It means that governments can manage their minorities on the cheap by outsourcing citizens to self-appointed community “leaders” and Sharia courts, Islamic schools and so on.

When identity politics is supreme, it makes it possible for white identity politics to be portrayed as a legitimate option.

It surprises me how many people justify and legitimise what is fundamentally white identity politics, white supremacist politics, because the fascists and bigots happen to be critical of Islam. Look, the Islamists are also critical of US militarism but that doesn’t mean I should be siding with them. You can oppose both. This is a trap, though, the so-called “Regressive Left” fall into. But so do those who use the term “Regressive Left” in every other sentence but consider it a “smear” to call out those feeding into the far-Right narrative. Like the atheists and secularists who fall into the trap of defending Tommy Robinson and Robert Spencer because they have “some legitimate views.”  Well, I’m sure if you sit down and have a chat with al-Baghdadi, he will have “some legitimate views.” Assad or Khamenei might too; they might think that roads should be paved.

But that’s not a reason to ally with them or to justify their politics. I think this is a huge problem. You have people saying, “Well, the Far Right is dealing with the Islamists, therefore, let’s deal with them with kid gloves.” I think that’s a mistake. If you look at them (I always get shit for saying this but people don’t understand what I’m saying) fundamentally they are similar to the Islamists. Islamism is a far-Right movement.

Of course, I’m not saying Tommy Robinson decapitates people, but movements can be fundamentally similar yet based on the amount of power or access to power they have, they might not necessarily be able to wreck the same havoc as one that has state power and backing.

Fundamentally, though, their politics is one of hate, placing collective blame, regression. It’s unfortunate that so many people who consider themselves freethinkers would side with them.

You mentioned Sharia courts as well as Islamic schools. I know this is a bit of an issue in the United Kingdom. For instance, private religious schools for youngsters, for kids. Kids are told things that at times are outright wrong, especially even facts and fundamental theories, principles, and laws about the natural world. For instance, creationism over evolutionary theory and so on. What are your own personal concerns with some of these institutions and the way they being implemented within the United Kingdom?

I think “faith schools” is an oxymoron. Schools and faith don’t go together. Unless, you’re talking about indoctrination. I know there are some Church of England schools that are not indoctrinating the way Islamic schools are. They used to do it and still they promote ideas that are antithetical to free thinking and education. I think, in a sense, the educational system is one of the only ways in which we can protect children from their families.

It is meant to be a way in which the playing field is levelled for all kids irrespective of background. You’re rich. You’re poor. Your family beats you. Your family tries to veil you. Schools should be a place where you’re safeguarded.

You get to hear different ideas. You get the protection you might not get at home. You get to be equal to other kids. Faith schools are antithetical to this. If you question, you are punished. If you raise dissent or you don’t agree, or you ask how certain religious edicts could possibly be true, you’re penalised for it.

Education should promote and encourage questioning, inquiry, and free thought. It makes no sense to have religious schools. It’s a prescription for disaster. We’re faced with that disaster today. I can’t understand how it’s ever seen to be good idea.

Historically religion was in charge of education; faith schools are a remnant of the time when religion played a central role in the state and society. And of course even today, religion holds a privileged place in society. The British government, for example, is not a secular state by any means. This is a state in which the Church of England has real power. They’ve got bishops in the House of Lords. The Queen is the head of the church. You’ve got prayers in Parliament.

When speaking about faith schools (even the term seems innocuous, though it’s so sinister), it is not enough to address non-discrimination in admission policies or hiring practices but about why it is bad for our children. Fundamentally, there shouldn’t be any faith schools whatsoever, whether it’s stated funded or private.

What about Sharia courts existing alongside mainstream court systems?

I can’t understand that either. If you look at Sharia courts in Britain, they are dealing only in family matters, e.g. divorce, child custody, domestic violence, and so on and so forth. Family matters are not trivial matters as it’s often portrayed.

They are not matters of the community. They are human rights issues. In many countries, where Sharia rules apply, this is one of the main areas of fight back by women’s rights campaigners because of the huge amounts of discrimination against women.

For it to be sold to us here as a choice and a right is like selling FGM as a choice and right. The courts hold women’s testimony to be half that of a man’s. Women don’t have unilateral right to divorce. Men do.

The rules are discriminatory and legitimise violence against women. For example, you’ve got one Sharia judge saying that there’s no such thing as marital rape because women should expect to have sex within marriage. And that calling it rape is the act of aggression and not the actual rape. Or they have said if only we’ve had one amputation or stoning in Britain, there would be fewer thieves and less adultery, look how great Saudi Arabia is. These are the judges making rulings in these courts and making decisions on women’s lives. They’ve been recorded saying, “You’ve been beaten by your husband. Have you asked why he’s beating you? Is it because of your cooking? Is it because of you going out with your friends?”

It is outrageous. It is a scandal that they should be allowed. I think one of the things we’re seeing is not only are the rules discriminatory, but the process itself is tantamount to abuse. That is the argument women’s rights groups are making. No matter what a woman’s background, a man’s background, or a child’s background, they are citizens first and foremost. They have rights. To relegate minority women to kangaroo courts, that are violating their rights should be considered a human rights scandal.

In international studies done by UN organs, or bodies, one of the major, probably the best, ways of improving the wellbeing and livelihood of an entire society, from economics to child and maternal mortality rates (reduction) in addition to increasing access and achievements in education, is under the guise of the empowerment of women.

When individuals such as others and yourself are campaigning and fighting for women’s rights, and looking for ways, politically and otherwise, to empower women, it is actually improving the lives, on average, of everyone in the region or the society. 

What do you think should be or is the best means through which to implement women’s rights in cases that are very difficult? Where women have less of a vote or no vote, they have a lot of pressure not to speak up for their own rights.

I think one of the key ways, of course, is defending secularism. One of the problems is that secularism has become a dirty word. We hear how secular extremists are compared with religious extremists. I’m sorry. No. There’s absolutely no comparison.

The French government saying there should be no conspicuous religious symbols in schools is actually a protection of school children. Why should a child be veiled because their parents are Muslims?

Don’t we agree that children have the right to decide their political leaning and positions when they reach of age, why not also their beliefs? Why is it okay for religion to be imposed?

In that sense, compare that with acid being thrown in your face for going to school, compare that with compulsory veiling from the age of puberty, compare that with gender segregation, there’s absolutely no comparison between what a secular state wants and what a theocracy wants.

We should unashamedly, unconditionally promote secularism. It is one the main preconditions for women’s empowerment and rights. I think particularly when religion has any say in the state or law it is detrimental to women’s rights.

That is one precondition. Equality before the law is key, but equality on a social and economic level are also key. That comes down to a system that puts profit before human need and human welfare. Religion is useful for that system as well.

It helps to keep women down.

Who are some personal heroes for you?

My parents are my personal heroes because the more I actually see how many young people have been abused and destroyed by their parents, it does make me realise how lucky I am to have the father that I have and my mum as well.

Also, the person who most has affected the way I think is the Iranian Marxist Mansoor Hekmat. Unfortunately, he died at 51, but his politics which centred on the human being has influenced my politics and the politics of many from Iran, the region, and Diaspora.

Do you have any recommended novels or more academic writings for people with an interest in or leaning in getting involved in these issues?

There is Mansoor Hekmat’s Collected Works of which there is one translated into English. I would recommend that to anyone who wants to know more about Iranian politics but also about how to address everything from Islam, Islamism, veiling, secularism from a fundamentally human and Left perspective. Anything written by Algerian sociologist Marieme Helie Lucas is a great read. There are two interviews with her on the veil and gender segregation, which are brilliant. I’d recommend reading Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis for a view of the Iranian revolution (which was not Islamic) and its expropriation by the Islamist movement; Mona Eltahawy’s Headscarves and Hymens on the veil as well as Karima Bennoune’s You Fatwa Does Not Apply Here on people’s resistance against Islamism. Elham Manea’s Women and Sharia Law is also a really good book on legal pluralism in the UK.

For getting in contact with you, people can go to your Twitter and website.

I have a really good website now thanks to a really wonderful volunteer. My website was hideous before. It was embarrassing to refer people to it. It is www.maryamnamazie.com. Via the website, people can read things I’ve written, see videos, and media coverage.

Also, there’s a TV program that is broadcast in Iran, which I do weekly with a co-host of mine. It is called Bread and Roses. It is Persian and English. It uses illegal satellite dishes to get into Iran. Many people have satellite dishes in Iran.

It just deals with free thinking, taboo breaking issues. There’s always an interview. We’ve interviewed some of the greats as well as people who should be considered great by all free thinkers, but aren’t as well known, unfortunately.

One of the things the program shows is that there’s so many atheists, secularists, and free thinkers in the so-called Muslim world. I mean, it is important to see them, recognise them, because once we do it breaks this whole idea that dissent and free thought are Western concepts, which is nonsense.

That, in fact, there are lots of people fighting for the very same issues that people fight for here it home in Britain.

Also good organisations to support are the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and One Law for All.

Any feelings or thoughts in conclusion about the things we’ve discussed?

Sometimes, when we’re having these discussions, people only see homogenous groups; they make decisions based on group identity. But group identity is very often imposed. It fails to recognise that there are so many individuals within those groups who are individuals, courageous and are resisting in many different ways – often at great risk to themselves.

If we can start seeing each other as people and recognising that there is a lot more which brings us together than separates us, I think we would have a real chance of pushing the Islamist and far-Right back.

One of the reasons that the Islamists are so violent is because they see this immense dissent. Unfortunately, it is not recognised in the West because it is either Islamophobic to criticise or you’ve got the Far-Right trying to hijack the criticism in order to scapegoat and vilify Muslims and migrants and push forward their own white identity politics.

It is important for us to go back to basics of universal rights, citizenship, secularism, and join hands together around political ideals and not identities. It is this united solidarity as human beings that has helped us overcome inhumanity in the past and can also help us today.

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): Conatus News/Uncommon Ground Media Inc.

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2016/10/22

Argentinian women are tired of living in silence, or being silenced when they dare to speak. This is a reality not just in Argentina, but one found across Latin America. As a result, 70,000 women reunited in a march against Femicide earlier this month in Santa Fe, Argentina. It was not the first time a march centred on the ‘Ni Una Menos’ (‘Not One Less’) message has happened. In the previous year’s Buenos Aires march, the mostly women’s march gained attention and notoriety because of police repression and attacks from far-Right groups. This year, the protest ended more peacefully, albeit with reports on social media of some police violence at the end of the march. So, why are women murdered more in Latin America than in other regions of the world?

Femicide has a broad range of definitions, but it largely boils down specifically homicides against women that have something to do with their gender. Surprisingly, despite the above paragraph, Argentina’s rate of femicide does not look so bad when compared to its neighbours’ incidence of gender-based violence. Latin America is the home of 7 of the 10 most dangerous countries in the world for women in terms of femicide. For example, “El Salvador heads the list with a rate of 8.9 homicides per 100,000 women in 2012,” Insight Crime reports, “followed by Colombia with 6.3, Guatemala with 6.2, Russia with 5.3 and Brazil with 4.8.”

The sexist nature of Latin American culture is also reflected in their regulations. ‘Soft’ laws make violence against women pass by unacknowledged, unreported, and without justice. In neither Latin America, nor the Middle East, does the law sufficiently protect women against sexual violence, the BBC reports. The U.S. Department of Staterecognises that 53% of Latin American women have suffered some type of domestic violence. The rate is believed to be in fact higher because many women fear retaliation or are not even aware of places to go to report their cases and obtain the right support.

A great deal of the Latin American economy is sustained by illegal markets such as drug and human trafficking – bringing profits of up to $320 million a year in the region, according to the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC). These activities are controlled by powerful gangs and, unfortunately, those who are most affected by it are the young, poor, and uneducated women. In other words, some of those with the least power, influence, and privilege; the most marginalized in society. As noted by Ms. Angela Me, Chief of the Surveys and Statistics Section of the UNODC, there are more men killed than women in the global homicide statistics. “Looking at the global data…80% of victims are men and most perpetrators are also men…Why then discuss femicide?” Me asked, “The great majority of women are killed in the domestic context and this is not an issue of a specific country/region”. In short, more men are killed in pure numbers, but more women are victims of domestic murders. Femicide is global but Latin American women face a particularly terrifying reality. “The femicide rate in cases of human trafficking (in Latin America) for victims is very, very high,”  said Amado Philip de Andrés from the UNODC, “Especially for the purposes of sexual exploitation, which might account for 91 or 92 percent of the cases.” That’s the why, but what about what we can do.

The first motion in the creation and implementation of a solution to a problem is acknowledgement of its existence. Second, the need to quantify, compare, catalogue, and analyze the context and the severity – and for this to happen women cannot be afraid of speaking when feeling intimidated and must feel supported. Third, the solution needs to be proposed and appropriate to the circumstances, the culture, and the region. Fourth, there needs to be an increase in awareness. Fifth, and this is where all of us – anyone – comes in ‘stage right’, we inform ourselves, become involved, and contribute in the best ways that we can with the resources and restrictions that we might at the current moment. Argentina and, indeed, Latin America are no different.

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): Conatus News/Uncommon Ground Media Inc.

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2016/10/21

James Underdown has been the executive director of The Center for Inquiry (CFI) Los Angeles since 1999. The Center for Inquiry is a non-profit educational organisation with headquarters in Amherst, NY, whose primary mission is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. CFI Los Angeles is the largest branch in the organisation outside Amherst.

Underdown founded the Independent Investigations Group IIG, a volunteer-based organisation, in January 2000 at the Center for Inquiry-West (now Center for Inquiry-Los Angeles) in Hollywood, California. The IIG investigates fringe science, paranormal and extraordinary claims from a rational, scientific viewpoint, and disseminates factual information about such inquiries to the public. ​

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In brief, what is your family story?

I was born in Chicago. I have a sister a year younger than I. We grew up in Wheaton, IL, with both our parents. My mother’s side of the family are 2nd generation Italian and Catholic, generally. My father (now deceased) was an atheist, but agreed to raise my sister and me Catholic.

What about your personal story?

I’ve been very lucky and have had a good life so far. Was able to attend pretty good schools all the way through college and have always been able to find employment. I’ve had over 40 jobs in my life, though I’ve never been fired. (e.g. truck driver, teacher, stand-up comic, hotel clerk, football coach, warehouse manager, roadie, limo driver, traffic school teacher, carpenter, singer, executive director at the Center for Inquiry – just to name a few.)

Married (2nd time) for 9+ years with no kids.

What are your religious/irreligious, ethical, and political beliefs?

I am a secular humanist, which is an atheist with certain ethical principles. (Atheism doesn’t address ethics, merely belief – or lack thereof.)

I consider myself Liberal and left for most issues, but don’t feel locked into what any group thinks.

How did you become an investigator and activist-sceptic?

I left Catholicism at an early age (10?) because they told stories (think miracles) that didn’t sound true and couldn’t answer simple questions about those stories.

Even though I liked science, I still held some mild beliefs about paranormal abilities, alien visitation, and weird phenomena when I was in my teens. When I discovered Skeptical Inquirer magazine and started reading the solid, science-based explanations for what people were experiencing, my paranormal beliefs dried up. The SI explanations were more interesting than the stories, I thought. Still do!

L.A. is a hotbed of wacky beliefs, so when I took the Executive Director job at CFI in 1999, I decided to create (what we eventually called) the Independent Investigations Group so more of us could get some first-hand, up-close looks at paranormal claims and claimants. Soon after, we started offering cash prizes (a ’la James “The Amazing” Randi) to anyone who could prove such ability.

There were very few people doing testing and investigations then.

Were parents or siblings an influence on this for you?

Probably not directly, but my father was never afraid to argue a minority point of view about any idea, and both parents seemed to give my sister and me a fair amount of rope when it came to doing what interested us. So the door was open to explore interests in our family.

My mother still has difficulty explained to people what I do. ☺

Did you have early partnerships in this activist pursuit? If so, whom?

There were and are like-minded people who are integral to all the work we do, but no individuals that affected my path.

Do you consider yourself a progressive?

Yes, if I understand the definition correctly as being one who favours social reform.

Does progressivism logically imply other beliefs, or tend to or even not at all?

There may be some correlation between progressivism and certain beliefs, but I think it’s more about being open to change, and that means one must be willing to look hard at both the current world and what led to that world. It also means being willing to challenge the status quo and one’s own positions. These are all signs of an active intellect.

How did you come to adopt a socially progressive worldview?

Here’s where my parents had an influence on me. My father was a social worker who understood how people’s environments and genetics steered them. My mother was not afraid to disagree with her church, friends or family. They both got along with people well, but thought for themselves.

My own life has been full of people, places, and experiences that have rounded out my worldview. I’ve been to 5 of the 7 continents and circulated among people who range from homeless to CEOs of large businesses. Being exposed to such variety helps me see the world in gray tones instead of black and white.

Why do you think that adopting a social progressive outlook is important?

Clinging to past ways is not how humans have improved their lot. Seeing other people’s perspectives, and constantly reassessing what we do to and for each other is how we make life better – for everyone.

As a progressive, what do you think is the best socio-political position to adopt in the America?

I kind of like Churchill’s quote, “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

I don’t think I could put a label on my position. People should work if they can, and we should help those who can’t. Societies should have safety nets so no one suffers too badly as long as there are billionaires. People should be treated fairly and accorded as much respect, freedom, and opportunity as possible. These are generalities, I know, but maybe some sort of starting point.

What big obstacles (if at all) do you see social-progressive movements facing at the moment?

Polarisation and misinformation.

Certain news outlets (like FOX) seem hell-bent on keeping their audience angry, and afraid. They portray opposing ideas as attacks trying to destroy decent God-fearing Americans. We seem to have lost the ability to find common ground between well-meaning citizens and to work through disagreements.

There seems to be few gating mechanisms to spreading false information. Does anyone care about being accurate?

Average people seem to think they have mastered enough science, economics, and climate to jaw-flap at length about such complex fields. It’s disturbing.

How important do you think social movements are?

Very. It takes large numbers in a society to wake people up and change wrongs. Some change won’t happen quietly. Some injustice must be exposed and squeezed out in a public way.

You represent the Council for Secular Humanism. What is the national state of secular humanism as a philosophy and a movement in the United States?

The poll numbers suggest we’re making progress. More and more people every year are openly living their lives without religion, and young people are identifying as secular in extraordinary numbers.

But the country is still not ready to elect an atheist president, tax the churches, or take God off the money. We are making headway, though! I wish I could see what things look like in a century or two.

Do secular humanists experience bigotry and prejudice at all levels of American society?

People who live in urban, progressive areas probably aren’t encountering too much bigotry – at least not active bigotry. We still have to endure civic prayer, God references, and make up for the taxes churches don’t pay.

The secular folks in the bible belts (there are many) are another story. Many must maintain a low profile or risk being ostracised. One’s business success or career track might depend on some serious discretion when it comes to revealing religious beliefs.

Why?

Evangelical Christians and fundamentalists in other religions are constantly being told that secular folk are anything from God-haters to Satan-lovers. (We don’t believe in either!) The Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells in their world have poisoned minds about their neighbors. Most of us are likeable…I think.

Since 1999, you have been the Executive Director of Center for Inquiry-Los Angeles (CFI-LA). What tasks and responsibilities come with this station?

My responsibilities span from making sure the building and office are in working order to bringing critical thinking to my fellow human beings. We specialise in religion, philosophy, and scepticism and bring a science and evidence-based perspective to issues under those headings.

I get to represent those perspectives everywhere from network TV (Dr. Phil, Oprah, Hannity & Colmes) to a comparative religion class at Ontario Christian High School. I am a free-range evangelist for critical thinking.

You wrote for Free Inquiry and Skeptical Inquirer. What is the importance of these magazines to scepticism?

Ok, I am biased, but I think these magazines are the top of the line resources for great information in the arenas of secular humanism and scepticism. Our editors Tom Flynn (FI) and Ken Frazier (SI) get great talent to contribute to these publications. I always learn something new from reading them – even after years in the business!

You are the Founder and Chairman of the Independent Investigations Group (IIG) in Hollywood, California. What are some of its more notable investigations into the legitimacy of paranormal claims?

We found pseudo-science being taught to California nurses. We’ve tested psychics, telepaths, dowsers, fortune tellers and telekinetics. We learned how TV mediums John Edward and James Van Praagh appear to converse with the spirits of dead people. We’ve investigated ghosts, UFOs, athletic enhancement devices, perpetual motion, and dozens of other claims.

Just for the record, we’ve found zero evidence that the paranormal exists. ZERO.

What demarcates real science from pseudo-science, non-science, and bad science?

I’m not sure I’m qualified to say what good science is, but here goes: Good science is peer reviewed, checked and double checked. It is replicable, transparent, and falsifiable. Good science withstands criticism from those most knowledgeable about the claim, and often enjoys a clear consensus of experts in the field. Good science is evidence-based and is provisionally thought to be the best current explanation until – if and when – better evidence comes along.

Science is both knowledge and process. Knowledge about the natural world through empirical methodologies. Process to attain empirical knowledge. What is the best way to teach both of these at the same time – because science can be seen as the Periodic Table of Elements, the names of species, the names of minerals, the traits of different astronomical bodies, and so on, alone?

Yes, science has accumulated great gobs of knowledge over the last few centuries, but it’s the process part that carries over to other areas. Once we learn the best proven ways to get reliable information, we can point those methods at any question and know that we’ve done our best to get a good answer.

What is your favourite scientific discovery ever?

The expanding universe and all the exoplanets are pretty mind-blowing. Let’s find some life out there!

What is your favourite debunked pseudo-science?

I find the cryptids – Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, Chupacabra, etc. – kind of funny. I hate to see people waste their money on psychics and alternative medicines or faith healers. They’re all debunked, by the way. ☺

You offer 100,000 USD prize through IIG. Has anyone ever won it?

Not even close.

Who has been the closest?

Once during a rehearsal for a test, one of our people guessed a bunch of Zener cards correctly, but it was a fluke. His final score was average, though he scored real well early in the test.

What was their failure?

Telepathy.

What is your current work?

Teaching others to test and investigate.

Where do you hope it goes into the future?

A serious reduction in the belief in things that are apparently not true. Is that too much to ask?

Thank you for your time, James.

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-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2022. 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): Conatus News/Uncommon Ground Media Inc.

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2016/10/21

Reba Boyd Wooden is Executive Director of Center for Inquiry Indiana. She started The Humanist Friendship Group of Central Indiana in 1999 which became the Center for Inquiry Community of Indiana in 2005. On April 1, 2007, Center for Inquiry Indiana opened on the Indianapolis downtown canal walk at 350 Canal – Walk, Suite A.  Reba has a BA from University of Indianapolis with a major in Social Studies Education and a minor in Business Education, an MS from Butler University in History/Education, and an MS in ​Counselling and Counsellor Education from Indiana University.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In brief, what is your family story? What about your personal story?

I was born on September 21, 1940 in Daviess County Indiana to Lester and Opal (Burch) Boyd.  I am the oldest of four children.  I have two brothers and one sister. Norm Boyd recently retired as a senior vice president of AGO Corporation and lives in Atlanta, GA. Janet Boyd Nowling is a retired teacher from Monroe County School Corporation and lives in Bloomington. Gib Boyd farmed the family land for several years and now is semiretired and is a real estate salesperson.  He lives in Martinsville, IN.

My father was a farmer and active in civic affairs. His only elected office was as a county commissioner.  He was very active in soil conservation projects such as the Prairie Creek watershed and served on the Indiana state conservation board where he was named Man of the Year one year.  My mother was a homemaker and teacher before and after raising her family.  We lived with my grandmother, Elfa Bissey Burch, who was also a mother figure to me and had a great influence on my life.

In 1958, I graduated first in my class of 13 from Epsom High School (now consolidated with three other high schools into North Daviess High School). I was very active in 4-H club for ten years at the local and county level.  I credit 4-H with developing my leadership skills. I am proud that my son, Jeffery Wooden, is now a member of the Indiana state 4-H board.  It is a great organisation.

In the fall of 1958, I came to Indianapolis to attend Indiana Central College (now University of Indianapolis) where I majored in Social Studies education and minored in Business Education.  I was secretary of my class my sophomore and senior years and was co-editor of the college yearbook my junior year. I graduated in 1962 and got a job at Mooresville High School because I fit exactly what they needed—a half -time social studies teacher, half- time business teacher, and yearbook sponsor.   I earned my MS from Butler University in History and Education in 1968.

In December of 1962, I married Nuel Wooden who at that time was a teacher in Perry Township School Corporation and later taught at University of Indianapolis.  We divorced in 1992.

In 1966, I left my teaching job to have a family. My son, Jeffrey Wooden, was born on December 8, 1966. He is now Director of IT Business Services at Eli Lilly Company and has worked at Lilly since his college graduation from University of Indianapolis with a major in Computer Information Systems in 1989.  He has two children and two stepchildren.  Michael Wooden is a senior at Ball State majoring in Digital Media/Video Production. Taylor Wooden graduated with the class of 2016 from Hamilton Southeastern High School and is freshman at Purdue University in the School of Agriculture.  Ben Deo is a sophomore at HSE and Nick Deo is an eighth grader. Ben plays violin in the school orchestra and runs cross country and track.  Nick plays percussion in the band. My daughter-in-law, Holly Deo Wooden, is an account executive for Microsoft. She was recently a presenter at the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing.

My daughter, Cindi Wooden Esquinasi, was born on January 13, 1969. She graduated with an MS in Physical Therapy from University of Indianapolis in 1992 and works as a Physical Therapist doing home health in Seattle, WA.  She has three children. Sophia is a freshman in high school this year.  She is a ballet dancer and has attended ballet camps in New York City and Portland, OR.  Isaac is twelve years old and is on the top soccer team for his age group with Seattle United and was recently accepted into the Seattle Sounders Soccer Academy.  Ella is nine years old and also plays soccer and wants to be a politician when she grows up. My son-in-law, David Esquinasi, is also a physical therapist and works in an outpatient clinic for Swedish Hospital.

In 1974, I had the good fortune to be hired as a social studies teacher at Perry Meridian High School where I worked for thirty-one years, retiring in 2005.  I taught US History and Psychology for 18 years and team-taught a course in current issues for gifted seniors for five of those years.  I was the coordinator of the Challenge Education program for six years which was a program to aid in the integration process with the beginning of court ordered busing of intercity students to our suburban school system.  Having earned my MS in Counseling and Counselor Education from Indiana University in 1990, I worked as a guidance counselor at PMHS from 1992 until my retirement in 2005. I have credit for 37 years in public education on teacher retirement.

My children were both competitive swimmers.  So, I was a “swim mom.”  I was on the board of Indianapolis Swim Club during that time and served as meet director for a few years and as president of the club one year.

In 1999, I founded Humanist Friendship Group of Central Indiana which became Center for Inquiry-Indiana in 2007.  CFI-Indiana is the Indiana branch of an international organisation that seeks to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry and humanist values.  I now serve as executive director of the Indiana branch.  This branch has grown and has a centre in Indianapolis which provides many services to the people of Indiana, including English as a second language and opportunities for all ages to interact.

I developed and am the director of the Center for Inquiry Secular Celebrant program which certifies celebrants to perform marriages and memorial services. I was the lead plaintiff in a successful lawsuit for the right of secular people to solemnise marriages in Indiana

I have worked for LGBT rights and networked with those groups.  Since their right to marry was upheld by the courts and I as a Secular Celebrant became legal to solemnise marriages in Indiana, I have solemnised a number of same sex marriages including the first same sex marriage solemnised by a Secular Celebrant. I am president of Health, Access and Privacy Alliance (HAPA), an alliance made up of several not-for-profit organisations, including Muncie League of Women Voters and AAUW, working to improve access to healthcare and protect reproductive choice in Indiana. I chair the meetings and do advocacy work with the legislature.

I have been a member of the ACLU of Indiana Board of Directors for ten years and have participated in bringing information to school age children on Constitution Day.

I am an avid reader. I read mostly nonfiction—biographies, history and political science related topics.  I enjoy doing the advocacy work to make this a better world and the many interesting people I have met through CFI, ACLU, and other organisations. I work out with a personal trainer two mornings a week and try to stay healthy. I have hiked over 8,000 miles with Indianapolis Hiking Club in the past and try to do some walking on my own now but don’t have time to make many of the official hikes. I have been a season ticket holder at Indiana Repertory Theatre for several years and enjoy the plays there.

You earned a BA (Social Studies Education and Business Education) from the University of Indianapolis and an MS (History/Education) from Butler University, and an MS (Counselling and Counsellor Education) from Indiana University. What were the main lessons and perspectives about the world gained from those academic qualifications?

My major history professor at University of Indianapolis, Dr. St. Clair was a great influence in exposing me to an in-depth view of history which widened my world view and started me on the road to progressive thought.

After 37 years in public education, you retired in 2005. What were some of the most memorable experiences that come to mind in that time?

The weekend retreat to Bradford Woods for the Challenge Education program was designed to aid in the desegregation process initiated by court ordered busing of students from Indianapolis Public Schools to Perry Meridian High School. When I was asked to participate in the fall of 1985, I was so impressed with the program that I volunteered to be in charge of the program.

I developed a selection process by which students could apply and then I made the selections. Many more students applied each year than I could take to the retreat.  I made selections to keep an equal balance of male/female, 9/10/11/12 grades, IPS students/Perry Township students. After I made the selections, I divided them into groups also keeping the same balance. Once we arrived at Bradford Woods, Indiana University students took charge of the activities.  I also asked for volunteer faculty members and assigned one or two faculty members to each group.

During the weekend, participants did team building activities such as the trust fall, ropes course, the wall, the DMZ, the amoeba, a night hike, and group discussions. Through these activities, students who might not have interacted at school became acquainted and formed friendships. Each group also developed a skit to perform in front of the entire retreat.

Some memorable moments included when an IPS student remarked on a night hike that he didn’t know there were so many stars in the sky, when Isaac Booth was a small 9th grader and we used him to do the difficult moves on the DMZ activity (Isaac went on to play college football), and when Bob Dunn and Ron Bolyard sang “Baby Face” to each other in a skit.

It was sometimes a challenge to get faculty members to give up a weekend to go on this retreat but I think that once they went, they were glad that they did. My most faithful adult volunteers were Sheri Austin, Gloria Sam, Betty Kohls, Ken Knabel, and Greg Robinson.

Greg Waltz, Eric Cox, and others have told me in later years how glad they were that as students they were selected to attend and it was one of the highlights of their high school days. One student whom I would especially expect to say this today is Joe Palmer. Joe was a student in one of my classes and he wanted to go to Bradford Woods in the worst way and kept asking me if he could go. However, Joe was not the most well behaved student in school and had spent time in the dean’s office and Mr. Head always went over my final list and took students off who had behaviour problems. However, I went ahead and put Joe on my list.  Sure enough Mr. Head called me into his office and said, “Mrs. Wooden, you can’t take Joe Palmer to Bradford Woods.” I told him that Joe really, really wanted to go and that if he would let me take him that I would be personally responsible for him. So, Mr. Head relented on that condition.  The next time I saw Joe he asked me if Mr. Head had said he could go or not. So, I told him that yes Mr. Head had said he could go but that I was personally responsible for him and if he caused a problem that I would be in trouble. Joe said that he would be good and he was. He came up to me several times during the weekend and asked me how he was doing and of course he was doing fine.  This weekend probably meant more to Joe than anything he did in high school.  Don’t know where he is today.  I hope he is doing fine. I would bet he would mention his Bradford Woods experience.

I would like to thank Mr. Head for being so supportive of this program, all of the faculty members who sacrificed their weekends to make this program possible, and all of the great students who made this such a rich experience.

You are the Executive Director of the Center for Inquiry Indiana. What tasks and responsibilities come with this position?

I organise social and educational events and do advocacy work on issues involving separation of church and state and promoting public policy based on the scientific outlook on life

Do you consider yourself a progressive?  

Yes.

Does progressivism logically imply other beliefs, or tend to or even not at all?

See Affirmations of Humanism here:

How did you come to adopt a socially progressive worldview?

From being a history major, reading history, observing life.

Why do you think that adopting a social progressive outlook is important?

It promotes more opportunity for more people.

As a progressive, what do you think is the best socio-political position to adopt in the America?

Secular Humanism.  I am not committed to one political party and grew up with a father who was active in the Republican party.  However, in today’s politics, the Democrat party represents my world view in most cases.

What big obstacles (if at all) do you see social-progressive movements facing at the moment?  

Lack of scientific literacy in the general population.  Anti-intellectualism, biased media which spreads fear and unfounded claims.

How important do you think social movements are?  

Very important.  That is how change happens

What are your religious/irreligious and ethical beliefs?

Secular Humanism

Do atheists and secular humanists experience bigotry and prejudice at all levels of American society?

Yes.  I think it is changing for the better at some levels as more people leave religion but it is still there.

If so, why?

Lack of understanding of Secular Humanism.  Religious indoctrination.

Who is a living women’s rights activist that impresses you?

Hillary Clinton

Who are other personal heroes throughout history?

Eleanor Roosevelt. Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Madeline Albright.

What is your favourite scientific discovery ever?

The birth control pill.

Thank you for your time, Reba

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-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2022. 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): Conatus News/Uncommon Ground Media Inc.

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2016/10/14

Eric Adriaans is the former National Executive Director of the Center for Inquiry Canada (CFI Canada). Eric is also a charitable sector leader, student in Athabasca University’s post-baccalaureate diploma program in Legislative Drafting and Fanshawe College’s Logistics and Supply Chain management program, and writer.

Adriaans is extremely interested in Parliamentary e-petition 382, which is opposition to Canada’s blasphemous libel law. This might set the context for Canadian discussion on blasphemy laws. He notes the e-petition system might or might not prove useful to progressives as an innovation in democracy. It has direct links to Parliament. He remains an active CFI Canada member and continues to provide strategic consulting services to CFI Canada.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In terms of geography, culture, and language, where does your family background reside?

My family and I currently reside in Southwestern Ontario but we have lived just about everywhere a highway will take you in Ontario from Thunder Bay to Ottawa and from Elliot Lake to St. Thomas.

We are primarily Anglophones but like most Canadians and almost everyone who has spent significant time in Ottawa, we have a working knowledge of French. My daughter, Chloe-Lynne, and I have both attempted to pick up some German. She’s far more likely to be successful with that than I am.

Culture is an interesting question, isn’t it? My father was born in Germany but when he obtained Canadian citizenship, he proudly identified as Canadian. I don’t recall that he ever used the hyphenated language (i.e. German-Canadian) that people use today. My mother’s family has English roots but has been in Ontario for many generations. Our home was a secular home — meaning religion did not play any significant role in my upbringing. I expect that my parents would have claimed a belief in a supernatural power but there was no religion in my upbringing. Our house was a blue-collar home with a healthy counter-authoritarian independent streak. Education and intelligence was, and is, valued in my family. Literature and reading were core expectations in my family.

For most of my elementary school years, we lived in Ontario’s Durham Region and were connected through my father and sister to the labour movement and the NDP. In today’s language, we might fairly be called social democrats.

My wife, who has been one of the most important influences on me as a cultural person is from a small town north of Montreal. In a way that is very Canadian, our slightly different cultures have come together in our house to create our own family culture that I would call contemporary Canadian. We love the diversity that this country offers.

What seem like pivotal moments in personal belief, and personal life, with respect to humanism, secularism, skepticism, and the associated suite of “-isms” relevant to you?

I consider myself fortunate to have been raised outside of religion in a home that was open to and embracing of people from other cultures. My earliest childhood friends were various…. two kids from first nations families, a brother and sister whose family had immigrated to Canada from India and a couple of brothers from England. Basically, if you were different than me, I wanted to meet you and hang out. That eagerness for diversity and wanting to treat everyone as a valuable and equal person was fundamental. I observed the same trends in my older siblings, so I know it was part of how our family worked.

We were very reluctant to associate with “isms” and I continue to be uncomfortable with labels or the assumptions that come with them. That being said, there are perspectives which gain prominence. I suppose my skepticism came from a basic rule of our family. “Don’t believe them just because they say it’s so,” I heard that about everyone from employers and politicians to teachers or priests. Any authority figure was not to be accepted at face value.

Humanism is a term that I struggle with a bit; I prefer humanitarianism; that is charitable work done for the benefit of people, society, animals and the environment…that general “leave the world a better place” ethic but done without any religious framework. When I was in second-year University, I was choosing between English Literature studies and Psychology. Wanting to avoid significant student debt, I worked during the day. As chance would have it, I was out with a friend who was looking for work and learned about a job at the Canadian Diabetes Association. I was amazed that it was possible to have a career in the charitable sector (I assumed it was entirely volunteer driven) and the path for me was suddenly clear. The idea that my working life could be focussed on helping people was simply too compelling not to act on. Humanism and humanitarianism seem to me to be intimately connected as philosophy and application.

Although the organisations I’ve worked for have always been secular (i.e. not religiously affiliated and embracing modern diversity), I was not a part of the specifically secular movement until I joined CFIC in 2014. As most Canadians have been exposed to issues of faith-based bigotry and violence, so was I. From religious opposition to women’s health progress or physician assisted dying to issues of fanaticism or terrorism…the harms and dangers of religion seemed to have become more prominent to everyone’s attention. I recognised that my former status as a polite agnostic might need to shift to impolite atheist-agnostic in order to defend basic human rights.

You have done some writing and poetry through personal websites. Your writing remains new. In that, the outlets exist, to date, for only a short time. What inspires these forms of self-expression?

Creative writing and journaling has always been an extremely important part of my self-development. Writing allows me to work out my thoughts and try on new ways to communicate. In my poetry, I’ve explored what I think may be new rhyme structures while retaining a deep respect and appreciation for highly formalised structures like sonnets or haiku. I suppose it is the challenge of expressing an idea or creating an image within a pre-determined structure that appeals to me. So often people think they want to do something that is “outside the box” when they may not even know what they can do inside the box.

Whether it is writing or some other undertakings, I am something of a nomad. I am interested in some pursuits for what I can learn or explore. So my writing is sometimes retained only for a short period of time until I’m ready to move on. I don’t hold my prior accomplishments up as significant unless they are informing something that I am working on now or wish to work on in the future. What I do now is intended to help me drive forward.

Sometimes my pursuits are to help me learn something or work on a part of my character. I spent several years watching CFL football and listening to the commentary, because I wanted to understand if the many football metaphors I noticed in the language of business and day-to-day life held any validity. I did eventually become a (American) football fan but it started as an intellectual exercise rather than as a passion. Recently I took up motorcycle riding. I was amazed by the experience of learning a new basic physical skill — the interactions of balance, controlling fear, focussing awareness, coordinating movements.

Self-expression is about communicating something of yourself to others. We do it for strategic reasons whether it is through the way we dress, what we write or anything we do as an attempt to reach others. For me that is all about what I’m learning today, helping others, growing as a person and preparing for tomorrow

You earned a Bachelor of Arts, psychology and English, from 1987 to 1992 at Carleton University. In addition to this, you hold the following certifications: Volunteer Development (1994), Fundraising Management (1999), FDZ Licence (2005), Certified Automotive Fleet Manager (2010), PB Diploma (2014) — with continued education in Legislative Drafting at Athabasca University. Within each domain, the consistent pragmatic elements of charitable leadership and work, management of individuals, and clear communication seem prominent to me, how does each qualification assist in personal and professional life to the present day?

What we learn as individuals today helps to make future options either possible or out of reach. I wanted to learn how to drive large commercial vehicles at one time my life and that positioned me as a uniquely qualified candidate for a specific career opportunity at the Canadian Red Cross Society — not many people have a long charitable sector management background and the capacity to operate commercial vehicles). That career opportunity gave me the opportunity to study legislation and how to communicate the need for regulatory compliance to a variety of people, which in turn led to further studies and opportunities. It may be that my most valuable skills have been literary, an ability to recognise strategically important information and to communicate what I learn.

If you aren’t able to communicate what you know, then the information isn’t of much value to anyone. That to me has been the value of my English literature and language studies.

Leadership in the charitable sector has always been a very clear situation to me. Given the dependence of charitable organisations on volunteers, if people don’t like you or what you’re trying to do, they won’t help. Pretty simple. So I have always looked at it as a situation of creating an environment where people are not only able to do the work of the organisation but actively want to do it. You have to show that you are aspiring to be the best representative of the organisation that you can be.

I actively manage myself more than anybody else; in life and in charitable organisations we have to learn, understand, communicate and drive forward to new and better circumstances and outcomes. We’re here to make things better. The status quo is always a launching point to a better tomorrow.

You worked for the Canadian Diabetes Association (District Coordinator, 1991–1997), The Kidney Foundation of Canada ((A) Executive Director, 1997–1999), The Arthritis Society (Associate Director, Ontario North & East, 1999–2001), Ottawa Humane Society (Manager, Development and Outreach, 2001–2002), Canadian Federation of Humane Societies (Director, Development & Finance, 2002–2005), Avocado Press (Director, Business Development, 2005), The Lung Association (Fundraising Coordinator, 2006), and the Canadian Red Cross Society (Director, Regional Operations, 2006–2014). This work occurred in diverse areas including Thunder Bay, New Zealand, North Superior, Ottawa, and Western Ontario. With respect to these diverse and extensive experiences throughout professional work and leadership, what insights come to mind, and seem relevant, about the nature of the charitable sector, especially for those without religious affiliation?

The charitable sector is about making the world better — not accepting the status quo. It doesn’t matter where you live, things can be made better. No charity I have ever worked for has said “OK, our job is done.” Just as with science, any question or problem that is investigated brings up a host of new questions and problems. Charitable organisations, big or small, will always need more resources and more time.

The charitable sector is the most socially productive counter-authoritarian undertaking I can think of. Charities tell authorities, whether they are governments, media, religions, judiciaries, political parties, corporate forces or any other form of authority that they must not rest. It is the charitable sector which pushes for human rights, education, health or any priority.

Charities are the community expression and engagement of non-religious people. People get involved with issues that matter to them through charities. Charities are the modern secular replacement for churches. There’s nothing supernatural about showing up at a foodbank to help out, coaching a children’s sports team or protesting violence or bigotry.

You were the national executive director of the Center for Inquiry Canada (CFI Canada) on March, 2014 until July 1, 2016. You drafted the Statement of Values, in addition to its revision, which, in part, states:

To educate and provide training to the public in the application of skeptical, secular, rational and humanistic enquiry through conferences, symposia, lectures, published works and the maintenance of a library…I. CFI Canada values people above ideas…the leading international voice for critical thinking, secularism, skepticism, humanism, and free-thought…III. CFI Canada values Humanism…IV. CFI Canada values skepticism; we strive to ensure that information or messages we circulate do not require the audience to accept it without validation of evidence…V. CFI Canada values science, rational thought and critical thinking…VI. CFI Canada values free thought…VII.CFI Canada values human rights…VIII. CFI Canada values education…IX. CFI Canada values the wellness of people…X. CFI Canada values excellence…XI. CFI Canada values transparency…XII.CFI Canada is an open and diverse community of individuals that embraces individuals regardless of sex/gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, or religion. We do not tolerate harassment of participants in any form.

Of course, more information exists with thorough answers to relevant questions about humanistic values, for instance, in the CFI Canada Statement of Values and elsewhere. Regarding the representation and functions of CFI Canada, what does CFI Canada represent — in terms of direct and indirect constituents, and function as — in terms of its general activities, within the general population of Canada?

CFIC’s mission statement includes the term “secular humanist” as a key feature. It also includes keywords like freethought and skepticism. All of these words are charged with history and significance for the people who use them. There are even degrees of identity politics associated with them.

Secular humanist is a very near synonym for atheist. Recently, I have started to encourage the use of the phrase “Your Community For Science and Secularism” to feature the basic values of an evidence-based approach to matters such as education and healthcare and the separation of religion from governance of people.

Many people have assumed that CFIC is therefore an organisation specifically for anyone who self-identifies as atheist, skeptic, agnostic, secularist, secular humanist, humanist, rational, freethinker or rational. To the extent of active members and volunteers, that is mostly true.

I argue, however, that the organisation is for the majority of society, whether they view themselves as religious or not, because it is my perspective that all of society benefits when evidence-based practices are in place and when religious freedom and freedom from religion is assured. I sense that CFIC represents the view of most Canadians, they just don’t know it yet.

I very much want people to move beyond arbitrary and partial labels which will never adequately describe any whole person and get to the work that is done to make the world a better and more satisfying place for more and more people.

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-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2022. 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): Conatus News/Uncommon Ground Media Inc.

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2016/10/13

Pat O’Brien is a Canadian atheist, an activist, and ex-president of Humanist Canada and the British Columbia Humanist Association. The interview was conducted by Scott Jacobsen, of In-Sight Publishing. The interview has been edited for clarity and readability.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In terms of geography, culture, and language, where does your family background reside

O’Brien: Vancouver B.C.

Jacobsen: Your biographic information from the Center for Inquiry Canada (CFIC/CFI Canada) website describes brief personal information about the pivotal moment for your transformation into a skeptic mentality, as follows:

O’Brien: At the age of 8 when told “watched water never boils”, Pat put a pot of water on the stove and proved the adage wrong, thus began the life of a skeptic. Pat did not begin his official involvement in the secular/skeptical movement till 2001 when he was researching a documentary on Humanism.

Jacobsen: What other pivotal moments in early life stimulated intellectual affirmation of skepticism?

O’Brien: I was raised a Catholic but from an early age I liked to ask questions and the church never seemed to have satisfactory answers. My education from grade 1 – 5 was in a Catholic school where we were taught by nuns and they did not have any answers either so it was a gradual realisation that the teaching of the church, since they could not be backed up by facts, must be in some way wrong.

Jacobsen: What about other moments which piqued interest in humanism, secularism, and other “-isms” with relative correspondence, or reasonable conceptual overlap, with aspects of the skeptical worldview?
O’Brien: I was always a contrarian. I liked to take the “other” side of an argument because it seemed the best way to learn about the argument. I never took someone’s word for anything, I always wanted proof. This is the basis of scepticism and although I did not know it at the time, that is the first step towards atheism.

Jacobsen: In your article  ‘Humanists see light at end of subway tunnel’, you defined humanism as, “Humanism is neither a religion nor a theology and the fact that a person can live a moral life, without deferring to any deity, has been recognised and accepted by religious and secular communities. Organisations such as American Humanist Association, within the Humanist Manifesto defined it similarlyWhat does humanism look like in one’s real life to you – big and small aspects?

O’Brien: This will sound arrogant and is something I criticise the religious for but I believe that we are all Humanist at our core. I don’t think people get their morality from religion, I think religion gets its morality from humans and our shared evolutionary past that imprinted morality not on our hearts but in our DNA. So, to answer the question, Humanism is the articulation of that morality that is inherent in most of us (there will always be the Clifford Olsen’s) and our shared humanity, our feeling of what is right and wrong is innate in us, in a naturalistic way. So unlike religion where one must constantly have their religious version of morality reinforced by prayer church attendance etc. we Humanists simply live a moral life without much thought to it most of the time.

Jacobsen: What unique opportunities and representations exist for the sub-population of the “unaffiliated,” “no religious affiliation,” “no religion,” “none,” and so on, in British Columbia (B.C.), Canada?

O’Brien: I think we have a lot to offer the general public, mostly in the area of science and the discovery of the natural world and how that creates a most beautiful way of looking at the world. Some, like Oprah, think atheists can’t have either awe or wonder. I think the opposite is true because we see things as they really are, not as we would like them to be. The beauty of a rainbow is not enhanced by thinking a celestial painter did it, but by the understanding of light and refraction. To paraphrase one of the brightest physicists of the 20th century, Richard Feynman; is it not more awe inspiring to have a complete understanding of the way a phenomenon like a rainbow is created that to have an answer that is almost certainly wrong?

Jacobsen: What instigated involvement with Dr. Robert Buckman for the production of Without God, The Story of Secular Humanism?

O’Brien: I was researching the documentary when I happened to come across the B.C. Humanist Association. I sent an email to the web site and got a reply from their board. I met with several of them who proved to be most helpful in the making of the film. It was one of them that suggested Rob. When I contacted him he was very excited about the project and jumped on immediately. We decided that he would be an excellent on air narrator as he had a lot of experience in front of the camera and with that one of the most influential relationships of my life began.

Jacobsen: What was the core message you wanted to deliver with the film? What was the viewership’s actual reaction?  

O’Brien: We wanted to show two things, first of all, what exactly a humanist is and, more importantly, why we are not less moral than the religious. It is well known that atheists have a bad reputation and we wanted people to know that we are just like everyone else with the same basic hopes, dreams and sense of right and wrong.

Jacobsen: You earned positions including “board of the British Columbia Humanist Association (BCHA), President of BCHA and then on the board of Humanist Canada (HC), eventually taking over as President of HC.”  Can you tell us a bit about Humanist Canada? Its membership involvement, activities, organisational structure and internal dynamics, theory and practice, positions and tasks, internal humanist membership sustainability and national public outreach? How does one run a large organisation from the national scale?

O’Brien: HC, founded in 1968 and with roots in the former Humanist Fellowship of Montreal as an organisation, exists within the philosophy of “education, reason, and compassion.” The fellowship was an organisation of humanists that was founded in 1954 by Drs. R. K. Mishra, Ernest Poser, and Maria Jutta Cahn. Lord Bertrand Russell and Dr. Brock Chisholm were its first patrons.

You don’t run it, you let it run itself. It has been said many times that trying to get Humanists to agree on something is like trying to herd cats. I learned early on that as a leader I could not rule from above, or make unilateral decisions. The membership is highly educated and smart they do not respond well to decrees or being told what to do or what position they should take on a matter so one learns to be inclusive, trying to reach consensus. Without going into too much detail, the reason I resigned was because I felt in a particular circumstance unilateral action was the best course to take and still believe I made the right decision, but it lead to me being forced to resign. In the end, my decision was upheld.

Jacobsen: You held the presidency of the BCHA too. How does one operate a provincial-scale organisation?

O’Brien: It is easier because you meet regularly with members, they know who you are and there tends to be more trust. Again though, the members are smart, skeptical people who will question everything so you have to not only know what you are talking about but must be willing to compromise. All Humanist groups function democratically and all decisions must be discussed and voted on at least the board level. The other thing about running a local group is that it is easier to plan and hold events. Most of the work that gets done even in a national organisation is initiated and run by local groups.

Jacobsen: What common problems emerge, and solutions require implementation, in the midst of leadership at the national and provincial magnitudes?

O’Brien: The biggest problem is fundraising. It is difficult to get Humanists to part with their money. We can’t offer eternal salvation so when we do fundraise it has to be a specific initiative. Even then, most Humanist living in Canada do not feel the need to be out there advertising and being social activists, most are happy with weekly or monthly meetings where they discuss topics of interest. This does not require much money so the donations reflect this.

Jacobsen: You have been an ambassador for Atheist Alliance International, sitting briefly on their board. You have also been involved in many grassroots initiatives in Vancouver. Personally, what social inclinations would you say it takes, to drives such involvement with grassroots initiatives and ambassadorship?

I am someone who wants to make a difference in my community. I like being part of social change and I think we need more people like that who are willing to take on leadership roles to try and make our society better. I really do believe, and the evidence is on my side, that the world would be a better place with less religion. My goal is not to stamp out religion but to show people there is an alternative to living a full rewarding life that does not include believing in the unbelievable and hopefully they will see us as a suitable alternative.

Jacobsen: You are also theBoard Vice-Chair with CFI Canada. What conduct, duties, and responsibilities remain expected with this position within CFI Canada?

O’Brien: CFI Canada is a secular organisation, a registered educational charity, devoted to “educate and provide training to the public in the application of skeptical, secular, rational and humanistic enquiry through conferences, symposia, lectures, published works and the maintenance of a library.”  As the board member from BC I keep an eye on things in the west and try to engage the membership here. I also am the media representative in BC so if a story is in the news and they need the Humanist/Atheist side, I often will get the call. As Vice Chair, all that really means is that I take over the duties of the Chair if he or she is unavailable.

Jacobsen: Your various roles have meant that you have had considerable representation in the media, through CFI Canada, and Humanist Canada. What duties and responsibilities come from influencing the public mind through the media, whilst being an important personality in the educational charity sector?

O’Brien: I think it is the most important thing I do. Communication is the key to understanding and I take my responsibility as a communicator very seriously. It sometimes means I have to tone down the message I would like to give, when one is on TV talking to the masses, one must be succinct and clear, without putting people off to the point where they turn the dial. It is a fine line because to many religious types my very existence as an atheist is offensive to them. So my job is show them that I am a regular person with some (I hope) interesting things to say, and if I can educate one person or show one person a new way of looking at an issue then I call that a win.

Jacobsen: There are many publications and resources that exist for the distribution of principles and values interrelated with critical thinking, humanism, naturalism, secularism.  What importance do flagship publications, such as Skeptical Inquirer, have for the “no religious affiliation” individuals and groups?

O’Brien: You’re right, there are quite a few and they are extremely important. For example, the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP, the old title)/The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI, the new title) publishes Skeptical Inquirer. It is vital that our point of view is out there in the public. Magazines, TV and radio programs are essential to both creating a sense of community and as a means of education, without being pedantic.

Jacobsen: Exemplars manifest themselves under the umbrella of “no religious affiliation,” at least in standard interpretations such as a lack of formal religion. What role do exemplars perform for these movements without direct religious affiliation?

O’Brien: Unfortunately we live in a world where the “cult of personality” influences many people. By creating our own “stars” we are better able to communicate our message. But when an existing star such as Ricky Gervais or Bill Nye take up the cause, people listen. Some in our community see this as a bit of a sell out. I disagree, as long as the message is consistent and not dumbed down, using famous people and TV and Movie starts is a very good way to give your message some credibility.

Jacobsen: What relationship do religious belief systems connected to humanist proclivities have with the secular humanist movements in history?

O’Brien: Apart from non-theistic humanisms, it has been argued that some religious formulations ground themselves, in socio-cultural and ethical life, in belief systems translatable into humanism. This was an argument articulated by Dr. Susan Hughson, another past president of the British Columbia Humanist Association, in conversation with David Berner about Judaism. However, remember that for most of recorded history the concept of an atheist did not exist. It was taken for granted that there was an unseen world inhabited by goblins, ghosts, gods etc. It was not until relatively recently that the idea of a world view that carried no supernatural baggage was even possible. There were pockets of it, some Greek philosophers are a good example but mostly the world was made up of people who had some kind of supernatural belief. So it was the religious, looking for something more, who began the slow intellectual march towards Humanism, Erasmus is a good example. Today he would be considered a religious person but in his day he had many ideas that did not endear him to either the Catholic or the burgeoning Protestant church. He is considered by many to be the founder of Humanism. Today, most religious Humanists seem to come from the Jewish tradition. Jews have a history of doubt and questioning so this does not come as a surprise, in fact the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University is almost exclusively the product of Jewish Humanists.

Jacobsen: With respect to their positive or negative interrelationship, the theistic and non-theistic humanisms, how might their mutual futures turn out to you?

O’Brien: If you are talking about theistic Humanism, I find that a contradiction. I don’t use the term as I think it has outlived its usefulness. Either you believe in God and are a theist or you do not and you are an atheist, many atheist adopt the Humanist worldview but Humanism and atheism do not necessarily go together. So I see a conflict between theists and Humanist and so the term Theistic Humanist is meaningless to me.

Jacobsen: Canada is not as rigid as the US in terms of the separation between Church and State. Preaching the Word of Atheism notes the forceful nature of creationism into Canadian schools and bias against atheists in the family court system too. What remains the highest importance about this separation, the absolute division between church and state?

O’Brien: Religion is a personal matter as are family and personal relationships. In a free and democratic society, the only guarantee that you can keep your personal religious beliefs or your family structure or maintain the relationships that are important to you is by keeping government and by extension, laws out of those areas. When someone tells me that their religion should inform how we are governed my first questions is, which of the thousands of versions of your religion do you want? Which interpretation of you scripture do you want to live under. Religion is something not even the religious can agree on how on earth could we form a societal structure that at its core is purely personal and introspective? The only way to design a society and laws so as to serve the most number of people is to base them on the things we have in common, not those things that divide us and religion is the great divider. The problem we secularists face is that the religious have had it their way for thousands of years. They do not want to give up any ground, this is understandable. But when someone asks for the same rights you have, it is not taking away you rights, many religious people see it this way and we need to fight this notion.

Jacobsen: One quote of Dr. Carl Sagan’s keeps coming up in discussions about a supernatural entity – “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,”. You have stated a version of it, in saying “Claiming there is an unseen transcendental being who is outside space and time and created the entire universe is a pretty extraordinary claim so the evidence had better be pretty extraordinary.” What evidences and arguments make a transcendental being seem impossible, implausible, or unreasonable to you?

O’Brien: It is not the evidence or arguments for the existence of god that are unreasonable, it is the lack of evidence and sound argument that makes gods highly improbable. I have read dozens of books both for and against, seen dozens of hours of debates with brightest and the best of both sides and after all that I have yet to hear a convincing argument in favour of a god. The arguments in favour of a god could fill an encyclopaedia and after all that human effort, no one has proved anything, every argument seems to end with “well ya gotta have faith”, that to me is an admission of defeat.

Jacobsen: What evidences and arguments might make a transcendental entity or object with some, most, or all of the traditional “divine attributes” appear possible, plausible, or reasonable to you?

O’Brien: I have given this a lot of thought over the years and every bit of evidence that I can think of that might convince me that there is a god, I can think of a naturalistic explanation. In other words, I honestly cannot think of any evidence that could convince me. But that does not mean there isn’t any, otherwise I am guilty of the argument from ignorance fallacy. No, if there really is a god who literally created my mind, then that god would know exactly what kind of evidence could convince me. So, if there is a god, the evidence is trivial for it to produce belief. The fact that this evidence is not forthcoming gives me comfort that there is none. Of course the theists would say “Ya gotta have faith”, and that, QED, is the worst kind of evidence.

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-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2022. 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): Conatus News/Uncommon Ground Media Inc.

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2018/12/23

Scott Jacobsen in conversation with Leslea Mair, Co-Director Of Losing Our Religion.

Leslea Mair is the Co-Director of the documentary film Losing Our Religion. Her work builds on the research done by Linda LaScola and Daniel Dennett through the foundation of The Clergy Project. Here we explore the documentary film. The film is scheduled for purchase in November 2018. You may order your copy from the website Losing Our Religion.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What was the inspiration for the title and content of the new fabulous documentary film Losing Our Religion?

Leslea Mair: Wow, that’s quite a compliment! Thank you!

I wanted to make this film after hearing about The Clergy Project. I think changing your mind about something as important to your world view as religion is such an interesting process. But for ministers to stop believing struck me as a real personal earthquake. I read the stories of the non-believing clergy in Daniel Dennett and Linda LaScola’s studies and really wanted to explore stories like that. I was so curious about how that plays out for people, not just in the short term.

Jacobsen: You co-directed the film with Leif Kaldor and based on the work of Professor Daniel Dennett and Linda LaScola. How did you come into contact with Leif Kaldor and the research of Dennett and LaScola?

Mair: Leif and I met at a film festival in central Saskatchewan, close to where we both grew up, about 20 years ago. We’ve been business partners and a couple since then. We bring complementary skill sets to directing – we’ve made quite a number of films together. It’s a partnership that works really well for us.

I was the one who tripped across the studies that Dennett and LaScola published, but we were both intrigued by it from the start. I think I first read about them on some secular/atheist blogs and started thinking about what kind of story you could tell about it, so the film was kind of my baby at the start. But we always bounce ideas off one another, so Leif very quickly became involved in the process. His take on the subject was a little different than mine – his childhood had a lot more religious influence than mine did, so it was a good counterpoint to my thinking in the early stages of developing the idea.

Jacobsen: On reflection and reading of Dennett’s and LaScola’s work, what particular findings struck you, stood out to you?

Mair: The thing that really struck me was how traumatic giving up on believing was for people. You have to understand, I’ve never been a believer, so the idea that you can still be emotionally attached to the idea of a deity even when you’ve ceased believing in it was a little foreign to me. I wanted to understand that better.

What also made an impression on me – although it didn’t completely surprise me – was how swift and unkind, sometimes even cruel, the reactions to these people were when they either confessed or were found out. I was surprised by how strong that reaction was, and that the risks people take in talking frankly about nonbelief are very real and quite severe in some places.

Jacobsen: Minister Gretta Vosper contributed to the documentary film as well. What role did she play in the film?

Mair: Gretta is one of the people who is trying to make non-belief work in a traditionally believing environment. She’s an out atheist in the pulpit. The United Church of Canada is one of the most liberal and progressive denominations out there – I grew up in the United Church myself. So when Gretta and I first started talking, it totally made sense to me that if there was any organization that could handle this, it was this one. But there was still some serious pushback. She was called up on the carpet and has been judged unfit for ministry by a panel in the UCC, but she’s still in her congregation. They’re still trying to figure out what to do with her — they don’t know how to excommunicate her because they’ve never done anything like that — there’s no process, really. It would be funny if it didn’t have such serious repercussions for her.

What role Gretta and her congregation played was to show that a church-style community could be secular in nature. They’re trying to pull a shrinking institution into the future. It’s important work, and the struggle continues.

Jacobsen: How do their narratives speak to the stories of others throughout North America?

Mair: Brendan and Jenn Murphy are our primary characters. They’re a couple in the US — Brendan is a former evangelical pastor, Jenn is his wife.

When I met them, Brendan was a “closeted” atheist and still working in ministry, but Jenn was a devout believer. So they were dealing with multiple layers of crisis. Brendan had joined The Clergy Project and Linda LaScola had put him in touch with me. When he agreed to an interview, he wanted to bring Jenn along, and I was fine with that. I didn’t think it was going to amount to anything. I was SO wrong! Jenn’s a really brave and amazing woman. She was so nervous that day, but she still sat down and gave me not just an interview, but really opened up. This was a major shake-up for her in her personal life and in her faith, and I’m still blown away at how much courage she and Brendan had in doing this.

I was able to follow their story from that point, through leaving the ministry under duress and into their current lives.

Jacobsen: What documentary films speak to telling these important narratives of loss of faith, especially in countries without the massive number of public privileges won such as our own?

Mair: There are a few out there – one of our contributors, Jerry De Witt, is featured in a film that has an excerpt out on the New York Times Op Docs called “The Outcast of Beauregard Parish” about his experience exiting the ministry. And there’s a film called “One of Us” about the struggles of three ex-Hasidic Jews who are adjusting to secular life. And Bart Campolo has just come out with a film about his relationship with his father, Tony Campolo, and how they’ve navigated Bart leaving faith behind.

I don’t know of many films coming out of non-Western countries on the subject, but it’s very dangerous to approach atheism in many places. You’d be taking a grave risk and often putting your contributors in jeopardy. I’d love to find a way to do that if some risk could be minimized.

It’s also hard to find the funding to make a full-length documentary film, or I suspect we’d see a lot more of them. The stories are certainly out there, and there are more of them all the time as people leave faith behind. As far as I know, Losing Our Religion is the only feature-length documentary on The Clergy Project so far.

Jacobsen: What targeted areas of activism seem the most relevant at this moment in time now? For example, the work to prevent the ongoing attempts at the encroachment of individual rights to reproductive health including abortion, the rights to medical care, the right to die, and so on, from groups, ironically, with open, grand, self-righteous proclamations about individualism, the “divine individual,” and individual rights as the highest values to attain within the country – ironic because their preventative and obstructive attempts stand in opposition to these individual rights of legal persons in Canada, of full adult citizens in Canada. I see a similar tragic irony in pro-life activists killing doctors.

Mair: Oh, gosh. There’s so much work to do, isn’t there?

We’re in such a rapid state of change right now. I think that the majority of people — especially here in Canada, although I know a lot of Americans who feel the same way — support reproductive rights, the right to die and universal health care. It’s the vocal minorities that get in the way of those rights. I think Dan Barker said it best in our film when he talked about the religious political right dying out, knowing they’re dying out, and lashing out at anyone and anything that threatens them. The world is changing. It’s going to continue to change. The one advantage the religious right has is that it has an organized voice. I think we have to build communities of support so that we have an organized voice as well.

The really hopeful thing is that those communities are starting to happen — the Oasis communities and Sunday Assemblies and other humanist and secular groups are starting to grow and they’re becoming more active in addressing social justice issues. So I’m optimistic. There are some really fantastic people out there.

Jacobsen: Any final thoughts or feelings in conclusion?

Mair: Not that I can think of!

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

Mair: Thanks so much for taking the time, 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-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2022. 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.