Hemant Mehta's Blog, page 1924

A Fundamentalist Mormon Was Allowed to Keep Silent About Child Labor Violations Due to (Wait For It…) Hobby Lobby

You might remember that a number of atheists, religious progressives, and women’s health advocates had some concerns about allowing an employer’s beliefs about women’s healthcare to determine what kind of coverage they offered, and what that might portend for religious freedom and the law in general.

You might also remember that the Supreme Court did it anyway, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

And don’t forget people insisting that it was not really problematic (and certainly not a blow to women’s rights!) because it was so “limited in scope.” Or the Supreme Court’s decision the very next day that expanded the ruling.

That aftermath has been the basis for some very interesting cases.

Turns out that ruling wasn’t such a limited decision after all, and Justice Ginsburg may have been onto something when she referred to it as “a decision of startling breadth.”

Ben Winslow reports:

… [District Court Judge David Sam] has ruled that a member of the Fundamentalist LDS Church does not have to answer questions about child labor violations because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Hobby Lobby case.

The individual in question is Vergel Steed (or Vernon Steed — his name appears both ways in the ruling), who refused “to answer even the most basic questions in a recent deposition, because he is protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” The questions were part of a case pertaining to the suspected removal of children from school by FLDS leaders in order to compel the kids to work in FLDS fields. Hundreds of children had been seen at work in pecan field in 2012 (rather than attending school).

In this case, the federal government is suing the town governments of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz., alleging they are de facto arms of the FLDS Church and its leader, Warren Jeffs.

(Yes, that Warren Jeffs — the one currently in prison, after being convicted in 2011 of “one count each of aggravated sexual assault, a first-degree felony, and sexual assault, a second-degree felony.”) The government believes Steed should be required to give testimony on the issue. U.S. Magistrate Judge Evelyn Furst agreed. But Steed’s attorney, Jason Haymore, argued that his client was not obliged to give testimony, as he “retains a closely held religious belief that requires him not to speak openly about matters regarding the Church organization with anyone outside of his religious affiliation.” Judge Sam was persuaded.

“It is not for the Court to “inquir[e] into the theological merit of the belief in question,” Sam wrote, citing the Hobby Lobby decision. “The determination of what is a ‘religious’ belief or practice is more often than not a difficult and delicate task …. However, the resolution of that question is not to turn upon a judicial perception of the particular belief or practice in question; religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection.”

Just as believing inaccurate religious nonsense about contraception is a perfectly valid reason to decide an employee’s health plan shouldn’t cover it — not because it’s an opinion founded in fact, but because it’s religious — claiming to have a belief against talking about Church related matters means you don’t have to do. Because it’s a religious belief.

Citing the Hobby Lobby decision again, Judge Sam further noted

Petitioner has failed to show that forcing Mr. Steed to answer the questions offensive to his sincerely held religious beliefs is the least restrictive means to advance any compelling interest it may have.

This ruling, if it stands, illustrates the “startling breadth” of a decision that essentially elevated the “sincerely held” religious beliefs of some above the secular laws of the land and the interests of the citizenry. It has set up a special standard, by which religious persons can excuse themselves from any number of legal obligations by pleading a religious belief. Instead of the usual expectation — that the law applies equally to all — it then falls on the government to prove that the law is not too restrictive on the sensibilities of the religious person, before all else.

This is not freedom. This is a special privilege, by and for the religious.

(Image via Dan Holm / Shutterstock.com)

Air Force Officials Finally Come to Their Senses and Allow Atheists to Omit “So Help Me God” from Oath

When a service member stationed at Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs, Nevada decided to re-enlist last month, his contract included the words “So help me God.”

He decided to cross the phrase out, which should be perfectly acceptable, but the Air Force said he had to include it or get out. That’s when the American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center stepped in. They wrote a letter to Air Force officials reminding them that forcing the service to sign the oath was a violation of the First Amendment.

Keep in mind that no other branch of the U.S. military has this problem; they’re fine with atheists affirming the oath without mentioning God. Only the Air Force didn’t allow that.

In the past week, we’ve seen Air Force officials ask the Department of Defense for advice (which is like asking a college professor to help you with basic addition — you can’t take care of this one yourself? Really?!), the issue discussed on cable news, and even right wing conservatives admit that the Air Force crossed the line.

Maybe the pressure helped.

Today, Air Force officials issued a press release saying they would finally reverse their policy:

The Air Force has instructed force support offices across the service to allow both enlisted members and officers to omit the words “So help me God” from enlistment and officer appointment oaths if an Airman chooses.

In response to concerns raised by Airmen, the Department of the Air Force requested an opinion from the Department of Defense General Counsel addressing the legal parameters of the oath. The resulting opinion concluded that an individual may strike or omit the words “So help me God” from an enlistment or appointment oath if preferred.

“We take any instance in which Airmen report concerns regarding religious freedom seriously,” said Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James. “We are making the appropriate adjustments to ensure our Airmen’s rights are protected.”

The Air Force will be updating the instructions for both enlisted and commissioned Airmen to reflect these changes in the coming weeks, but the policy change is effective now. Airmen who choose to omit the words ‘So help me God’ from enlistment and officer appointment oaths may do so.

The language in previous instructions was based on an Air Force legal interpretation of 10 U.S.C. 502, 5 U.S.C. 3331 and Title 32, which contain the oaths of office.

The Air Force requested the review following a ceremony at Creech Air Force Base, Nevada, in which an enlisted Airman struck out the words, “So help me God” on the Department of Defense Form 4 and did not include them in his verbal oath. The Airman’s unit was unable to process his paperwork due to the guidance in Air Force Instruction 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, which prohibited any omissions. Now that the Department of Defense General Counsel has provided an opinion, the Airman’s enlistment paperwork will be processed to completion.

Better late than never, right?

The AHA is thrilled, as they should be:

“We are pleased that the U.S. Department of Defense has confirmed our client has a First Amendment right to omit the reference to a supreme being in his reenlistment oath,” said Monica Miller, an attorney with the American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center. “We hope the Air Force will respect the constitutional rights of Atheists in the future.”

…

“After fighting for our rights, nontheists now again have the status quo in the Air Force, a secular affirmation consistent with other branches of service and our Constitution. Now we return to seeking other equal rights such as identification on official records, chaplain support, and spiritual fitness training that helps humanists and other nontheists,” said Jason Torpy, President of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers and board member of the American Humanist Association.

Remember: All of this started with one service member, who still remains anonymous, who refused to sign an oath he didn’t fully agree with. Because he spoke up, the Air Force changed its ways.

(Large portions of this article were posted earlier)

A Religion Class Done Right

We often hear about Bible classes in public schools and how many of them (like the one created by Hobby Lobby President Steve Green) are just ways to proselytize in the classroom.

But in California, the Modesto Public Schools are receiving some well-deserved appreciation for their mandatory World Religions course.

The teachers there have figured out how to teach about religion in a comprehensive, effective, and neutral way:

Board member Steve Grenbeaux said his daughter took the course. “She was raised in a Christian home, so divergent religious thought was new to her. It made for some interesting dinner conservations,” Grenbeaux said.

Johansen High junior Arianna Sibaja said the course helped her get past stereotypes of other religions and have a more informed view of events unfolding in the Middle East. “It helps us understand why it’s going on and what their motives are,” Sibaja said.

…

In an introductory lecture, McIntyre stressed the importance of respecting all views, even those that reject religion. “We’re not talking about agreement. We’re talking about honoring the right,” she said. Gesturing around the class, she said, “We are not a cookie-cutter-looking room in here, neither is the state, neither is the world.”

…

They invited religious leaders from the community to weigh in. “That was instrumental,” she said. The First Amendment Center and Anti-Defamation League gave assistance in teaching sensitive subjects without controversy.

Teachers visited the Islamic Center of Modesto, Congregation Beth Shalom Synagogue, the Greek Orthodox Church and other religious centers. But teacher training was done by professors of California State University, Stanislaus — purposely removed from faith practitioners, she said.

It all seems so obvious. Yet so many school districts do it poorly because there’s an agenda at play that has little to do with educating children. (In Modesto, students have the ability to opt-out of the class for personal reasons, but only a handful of them choose that option.)

This is a curriculum that needs to spread. It’s a wonderful way to not only inform children about various religious beliefs and traditions, but also prevent bullying that’s steeped in religious ignorance. It could pay huge dividends down the road.

(Image via Shutterstock. Thanks to Brian for the link.)

Slavery in Mauritania Is Alive and Well, Thanks In No Small Part to Islamic Apologists

If you never cottoned to the hysterical antics of Pastor Terry Jones, his fellow book-burner Biram Dah Abeid might be more to your liking.

The New Yorker has a profile of Abeid, one of Africa’s foremost anti-slavery campaigners. He is a Muslim — as are his biggest enemies, the slavers.

Mauritania, where Abeid lives, most likely has the highest incidence of slavery in the world: there are 140,000 slaves in the country, give or take – out of a population of 3.8 million.

Because untold numbers of Muslims believe that their religion permits slave ownership, those who question slavery might as well be questioning Islam. That’s dangerous territory for any critic, especially one as vociferous, even strident, as Abeid.

The article about him doesn’t mince words about religious authorities who use the Qur’an to justify slavery.

While Abeid was travelling, a well-known imam had given a televised interview. A journalist asked whether slavery existed in Mauritania, and the imam said no. Then why, the journalist asked, had the imam recently given the journalist’s boss a slave girl as a gift? The imam simply smiled…

Mauritania is an avowedly Muslim country, and though the constitution endorses both secular and religious law, in civic matters Islamic precepts dominate. But the Koran is ambiguous on the essential question of whether slavery should exist. In much of the world, Muslim scholars argue that the only Islamic basis for slavery is in jihad: after conquering unbelievers, Muslim warriors may take them as slaves, provided that they treat them well. In Mauritania, there is little consensus. Imams who defend slavery often refer to a set of interpretive texts that date back as far as the eighth century.

‘Cause consulting ancient books that were written in a time of widespread barbarism and ignorance is the best way to determine what’s just and moral today.

One prominent example is a mukhtasar, or handbook of Islamic law, written by the fourteenth-century Egyptian scholar Khalil ibn Ishaq. According to its precepts, a slave cannot marry without her master’s permission, nor does she have any right to her children; a free man who murders a slave will not be punished by death, but a slave who murders a free man will be; slaves are whipped for fornicating, though a master may have sex with his slave girl; and slaves may not inherit property or give testimony in court.

Abeid will abide (ha) none of it. He doesn’t lack courage, to say the least. During a recent public speech cum prayer meeting, he denounced books that interpret Islamic law, saying:

“These books justify selling people, they justify raping people. We will purify the religion, the faith, and the hearts of Mauritanians.” He held up a red hardcover with intricate embossing. “What the Prophet says was hidden by these books, which are not real words from God,” he said. “These old books give a bad image of Islam. We have no choice but to take this step.”

Then it was time for the book-burning.

One of Abeid’s bodyguards dropped the books into a cardboard box and doused them in lighter fluid. The crowd was on its feet, peering at the spectacle. No one had expected this. Defacing the holy books of Islam is a crime of apostasy, punishable by death. Abeid set the books on fire.

Unsurprisingly, he travels everywhere with bodyguards. I hope they’ll manage to keep him out of harm’s way.

(Image via Wikipedia)

Anti-Gay Biblical Billboard Draws Attention in Tennessee

In Portland, Tennessee, there’s a billboard highlighting that Christian love toward LGBT people we always hear so much about:

I love the bit on the bottom right. It’s hard to see in that picture, but it says “paid for by concerned Christians.”

Nothing says I’m concerned about you like threatening you with eternal damnation for acting on your sexuality in a way that doesn’t affect me whatsoever.

So who are these concerned Christians? It’s just one dude and his homophobic buddies:

Ronnie Monday, a Vietnam veteran, is the man behind the message.

He commissioned the billboard and paid for it with donations from some friends. It has been up for four months.

“When the president came out and indicated that he thought that gay marriage was OK, that was pretty much the last straw,” Monday said.

Really? That’s what tipped him over the edge? Just wait until this guy hears about who they’re letting into the NFL these days…

For any journalist covering this story, when you talk to Mr. Monday, here’s what you need to do: Ask him to name any of the other forbidden crimes in Leviticus. Ask him if adultery and getting a tattoo and shaving are equally abominable. Ask him when those billboards are going up.

He’s an ignorant guy to begin with. You should have no trouble getting a perfect sound bite.

This billboard will be up for at least another six months.

If We Can’t Trust Neil deGrasse Tyson, Who Can We Trust?

Anyone who visits this site or our Facebook page knows how much we love Neil deGrasse Tyson. He may not be a proud vocal atheist, but he’s a purveyor of science and reason and critical thinking and truth.

Gotta love that, right?

But Sean Davis of the Federalist has been closely examining some of the examples Tyson uses in his most popular speeches and has found several holes in them.

As skeptics, we should all be interested in what Davis says.

So let’s start with this talk that Tyson gave at The Amazing Meeting in 2011 (and several other places). Jump to the 1:38 mark:

You hear Tyson make two claims: That a member of Congress said “I’ve changed my views 360 degrees on that issue” and that a newspaper headline in New York City read “Half the schools in the district are below average” (both in quotation marks, no less!)…

These aren’t jokes. These are supposed to document examples of innumeracy in our society.

Davis says he can’t find any documentation of either quotation. If you do a Google search, the only places they appear are… references to speeches made by Neil deGrasse Tyson:

The Nexis and Google results are the same for his exact quote about members of Congress: nada from Nexis, and a mere two pages of Google links that only reference Tyson, rather than a single original source. Now, journalists may be bad at math, and members of Congress may be stupid, but if a journalist poorly plagiarized a joke and then fabricated a quote about a member of Congress, that journalist would likely be out of a job. What happens when a scientist does it?

It turns out, as Davis later found, a member of Congress did say something similar to what Tyson quoted. But it wasn’t the exact line. It was Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) speaking to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-IL) during his impeachment hearing in 1998:

“You have done a 360-degree turn,” Waters told Hyde. “I’m a little disappointed. Never in my wildest imagination did I think that you would have such a conflict in views about perjury and lying.”

Waters is usually a supporter of good science, so this might just be a little slip-up on her part and it’s possible Tyson didn’t want to call her out as an example of Congressional ignorance because of that, but the point is she didn’t say the words between the quotation marks.

Did anyone? Doesn’t look like it.

Meanwhile, there’s still no proof of the newspaper headline.

Maybe Tyson was tipped off to Davis’ article because he (or at least someone pretending to be him) commented on Davis’ post. Far from apologizing or admitting the mistakes, Tyson dismissed the post altogether:

Thanks for your interest in my work. Just some background: When I am invited to give a talk, especially to an audience that is not the general public, but to a specific gathering of people within a trade, I tune the contents for that audience, for that time, and for that place. So tone and flavor and context and intent are all key elements to any message I convey — all missing to anyone who was not present at the time.

I have enough defenders in this thread that I need not rehash already-cited comments. But if this article contains the entire critique of my presentation to Tableau Software — the contents of 2 out of 60 slides — then I consider the talk to be a success, even to eavesdroppers.

But in the clip above, you can see and hear his tone and flavor and context and intent. It’s clear he highlights those quotations because he believes they’re real. And if 2 out of 60 slides are wrong, it may be harmless… but then fix it! Especially if you’re giving the same speech in the future.

Davis wasn’t done yet. He also highlighted this passage from one of Tyson’s books about why he was kicked out of jury duty:

Compare the numbers in that passage to a 2012 tweet from Tyson explaining how he was heading to jury duty again:

The point’s the same, but the numbers are slightly different. No biggie. But then Davis mentions two other examples of Tyson retelling that story — both with completely different numbers.

Davis writes:

Now, either Tyson has a terrible memory about events that he specifically wrote about barely two years ago, or those events, much like the quotes he uses in his presentations, didn’t actually happen in the way that he described them, if they happened at all. The details constantly change, yet the only constant in this jury duty story he tells is that he’s way smarter than that stupid judge.

So that’s weird…

Then we get to the most serious example of Tyson’s alleged quotation negligence. At a different TAM event, Tyson spoke about 9/11 and President George W. Bush‘s response (beginning at 1:35):

… Here’s what happens. George Bush, within a week of [the 9/11 terrorist attacks] gave us a speech attempting to distinguish we from they. And who are they? These were sort of the Muslim fundamentalists. And he wants to distinguish we from they. And how does he do it?

… He says, “Our God” — of course, it’s actually the same God, but that’s a detail. Let’s hold that minor fact aside for the moment. Allah of the Muslims is the same God as the God of the Old Testament. So, but let’s hold that aside. He says, “Our God is the God” — he’s loosely quoting Genesis, biblical Genesis — “Our God is the God who named the stars.”

To be clear, according to Tyson, a week after 9/11, Bush said “Our God is the God who named the stars” in order to distinguish us (the good guys) from the fundamentalist Muslims (the bad guys).

The points he’s making is that two-thirds of the stars that have names have Arabic names (cue audience laughter). Still, if Bush said that, there would be videotape, don’t you think?

There is videotape. But it’s from 2003, after the explosion of the Space Shuttle Columbia, as a phrase intended to unite us all… not from 2001, after 9/11, to separate “we” from “they.” Watch the 2:45 mark:

The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today. The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to Earth; yet we can pray that all are safely home.

…

Here’s the point: None of this impugns Tyson’s excellent science writing or expertise. But when he gives a presentation, his audience expects to hear the truth. That’s what Tyson banks on. If he wants to explain our society’s mathematical ignorance by showing examples from Congress and journalism, it shouldn’t be hard. If you want to make George W. Bush look like an idiot, it *really* shouldn’t be hard. If you’re telling a story involving numbers, the numbers shouldn’t change every time.

A lot of Davis’ commenters see all this as Tyson-bashing (and many support that), but I don’t see it that way at all. I think these are all relevant points. When American Atheists misquoted Sarah Palin on a billboard, they fixed their mistake despite the embarrassment.

I give similar speeches at different places. Believe me, I’ve made mistakes in my talks before. But if and when someone points them out to me, I do my best to fix them. I would expect no less from Dr. Tyson.

Considering that Tyson is speaking at Apostacon on Friday night — to an audience full of skeptics — it would behoove them all to be on the lookout for these quotations or others like them. Do some fact-checking while you’re listening to him. Challenge him if you can’t verify what he says.

If a pastor or right-wing conservative did it, we’d be calling them out on it immediately. Tyson doesn’t deserve a free pass just because his intentions are pure. It certainly wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) get by in an academic setting, and just because he often speaks to a lay audience doesn’t mean he should make up quotations or fail to cite them if they’re real.

Are Men More Likely to Be Secular Than Women?

This is a guest post written by Phil Zuckerman. Zuckerman is a professor of sociology and secular studies at Pitzer College. His latest book, Living the Secular Life, will be published this December.

…

As many of you may be well aware, Sam Harris‘ recently quoted comments concerning why most of his fans tend to be male set off some serious criticisms; Greta Christina’s condemnation of Harris was particularly stinging.

The issue of whether or not men tend to be more secular than women is clearly a hot-button issue; people can be easily outraged or offended by related insinuations, declarations, or interpretations when it comes to the proclivities of men and women to be more or less religious or secular. And women within the secular movement (or any movement) have a right to be hyper-vigilant when it comes to sexism, chauvinism, and any other manifestations of patriarchal malfeasance.

But just because this is a thorny and potentially offensive contention — that men may be more secular than women — doesn’t mean that we should avoid it. And it certainly doesn’t mean that it can’t be empirically supported or denied. Furthermore, if the data does indeed show a gender difference when it comes to religiosity/secularity, how do we then interpret or explain that difference? Our “spin” will make all the difference in the world.

Decades of Research

Let’s start with the data. Do countless studies consistently reveal a discernable difference between men and women when it comes to being secular or religious? The short answer is: yes. Now, that doesn’t mean that every study shows such a difference, or that the difference is always significant. Nor does it mean that the difference is discernable on every measure of religiosity/secularity — for example, orthodox Jewish men are more likely to regularly attend synagogue than orthodox Jewish women.

But when we take the existing corpus of sociological, psychological, and anthropological data together — from the past sixty years — there is clear empirical support for the claim that men are more likely to be secular than women. As Marta Trzebiatowska and Steve Bruce note in their book Why Are Women More Religious Than Men? (Oxford University Press, 2012), “since 1945 the Gallup polling organization has consistently found that, on every index used, American women are more religious than men, and not by small margins.”

Consider, for example, that according to the American Religious Identification Survey, men currently make up 58% of Americans who claim “no religion,” 70% of Americans who self-identify as atheist, and 75% of those who self identify as agnostic. Or consider the Pew Forum’s U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, which found that 86% of American women claim to be religiously-affiliated, but only 79% of American men claimed as much; 77% of women believe in God with absolute certainly, but only 65% of men do; 66% of women pray daily, but only 49% of men do; 63% of women say that religion is very important in their lives, but only 49% of men say as much; 44% of women attend religious services on a weekly basis, but only 34% of men do. The differences may or may not be significant — social science gets fuzzy here — but they are consistent. And for one final example, consider the fact that the Freedom From Religion Foundation reports that 79% of its members are men (see Melanie Brewster‘s essay “Atheism, Gender, and Sexuality” in the Oxford Handbook of Atheism, 2013, for further details).

In short, whatever measures one uses to assess religiosity — frequency of prayer, belief in God, church attendance, or self-identification — men in the United States are more likely to be secular-leaning than women, on average.

And the “on average” is key, folks. The above studies do not illustrate that all men are more secular than all women. It is just an average. A percentage.

OK, but are these averages and percentages universal? Do we find similar differences in other countries around the world?

The short answer is, again: yes.

Global Patterns

According to data analyzed by Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera (see “A World of Atheism: Global Demographics” in the Oxford Handbook of Atheism, 2013), 77% of self-designated atheists in the Ukraine are male, 76% in Portugal, 70% in Uruguay, 67% in Japan, 65% in Israel, 65% in Mexico, 61% in Sweden, 60% in the Netherlands, and so on. True, there are some exceptions — for example, men make up only 47% of self-designated agnostics in Belgium. And only 48% of agnostics in Japan. But these are exceptions; the overall pattern of men being more atheist or agnostic than women the world over is clear and strong, leading these authors to conclude that “atheists, both positive and negative… are predominantly males” and “global comparisons reveal a wide spectrum of male dominance within the positive atheist sub-population.”

I could go on and on, and cite countless other studies and surveys — both national and international — that illustrate the same gendered pattern. But rather than trot these all out, I’ll let the words of professor Tiina Mahlamäki sum them all up:

“Statistics conducted in countries all over the world, for as long as statistics on religion have been collected, confirm that women are more religious than men. This concerns every dimension of religion. Women participate in religious ceremonies more often than men; women pray more often than men; they more likely than men believe in God, a Spirit, or Life Force; they hold matters of faith and religion more important than men do. Women are more committed than men to their religious communities and are less willing to resign from them. Although older women are more religious than young ones, women of all ages are more religious than coeval men are. Women are members of both traditional religious communities and new religious movements more often than men. Young, urban men are the least religious of all groups.”

(See her article “Religion and Atheism From a Gender Perspective” in Approaching Religion, 2012).

Of course, none of the above means that this gendered difference is fated and eternal. In 25 years, we could find different results. But for now, the data is clear and consistent: men are more likely to be secular than women.

WIN-Gallup

But wait — what about that WIN-Gallup poll? True, that massive international survey from 2012 reports that, globally, the gender difference is actually non-existent. Indeed, according to their surprising data, 14% of women worldwide identify as convinced atheists, while only 12% of men worldwide do. And in terms of claiming to be non-religious, both genders are at 23%. Wow. That’s amazing. Fascinating. And it is an utter and complete exception to so many decades of similar research. It may very well be valid. But for now, it is such a major outlier — so much so, that until we have more studies and more data confirming these unique and exceptional findings, we should remain skeptical.

Explaining

So how do we explain the vast body of research that reports that men, on average, tend to be more secular than women?

Here are some leading possibilities:

It could have to do with power and privilege, and the lack thereof. In most societies, men control more wealth than women and tend to have more political and social power than women. As such, women are more easily excluded, exploited, and discriminated against. Perhaps, as a result of this, they are more likely to turn to the consolation of religion.It could have to do with agency, and the lack thereof; men generally have more freedom than women in most societies; they have a greater ability to decide what work to do, where to live, how to get and manage money, etc. In most societies, women are thus more vulnerable than men — financially, legally, domestically, etc. This could make the psychological comfort and institutional support of religion more appealing to women than men.It could have to do with socialization: perhaps boys are socialized to be assertive, independent, and rebellious, while girls are socialized to acquiescent, relational, and obedient, which then manifests itself later in life with women being more open to religion than men.It could have to do with the patterned roles for men and women in society; women tend to be expected to take up roles as caregivers and nurturers, raising children and tending to the sick and elderly, while men tend to be exempt from such roles; this again could make religion more appealing to women than men, for various reasons.It could have to do with who traditionally works inside/outside the home. While men traditionally work outside the home, women the world over are more likely to work within the home, and this might make religious involvement more interesting and appealing to women; indeed, we know that women who work outside the home tend to be less religious than those who work within the home, and those nations with the highest rates of women working outside the home — for example, Scandinavia — tend to be among the most secular.And finally, it could have something to do with innate differences between the sexes, be they genetic, neurological, physiological, or hormonal.

If I had to place a bet, I’d say it is a complex combination of all of the above, in varying degrees. And while, as a sociologist, I tend to emphasize social and cultural forces in explaining human behavior, I’m not going to totally, utterly discount or disregard biology outright. But how big of a role it plays in terms of men and women’s proclivities for religiosity and secularity, I can’t say.

And I’m not sure who can.

(Image via Shutterstock)

Graduates from an Anti-Gay Christian Law School Won’t Be Allowed to Practice in Yet Another Canadian Province

Late last year, I posted about a proposed new law school in British Columbia affiliated with (Christian) Trinity Western University where gay students who acted on their sexual orientation would not be allowed through the doors:

At the time, I defended the school’s right to exist. My thinking was that, like private Christian schools in the United States, they have the ability to create their own standards for admission, even if those standards are ridiculous — and it wouldn’t ultimately matter since the students would still have to learn and defend Canadian law as written and pass the Canadian version of the bar exam. In other words, their Christian anti-gay bigotry wouldn’t work in the real world.

The law school was accredited earlier this year and classes have begun, but they took a big hit last spring. The Law Society of Upper Canada in Ontario decided that graduates of the school would not be able to practice law in that province:

Ontario’s law society has voted not to accredit graduates of a controversial faith-based law school which has drawn opposition over concerns it would discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Benchers for the Law Society of Upper Canada voted 28 to 21, with one abstention, against accrediting graduates of a proposed law school at Trinity Western University…

The rebuke from Canada’s largest and oldest law society is a major setback for ‎the university, which had already won approvals from the B.C. government,‎ the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, and the Law Society of B.C. in recent months.

The Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society later followed suit (although it was a close vote).

This past Saturday, the New Brunswick Law Society voted 137 to 30 to do the exact same thing. (Though the vote isn’t official until the governing council meets in two weeks.)

I’ve said this before, but I still don’t understand these votes. If the students do the necessary work and pass the required exams to become a lawyer, where they went to law school should be irrelevant, even if it is a place that advocated discrimination. The law is clear regarding the rights of LGBT individuals and even Christian lawyers can’t argue their way out of that.

One of the responses I’ve heard from Canadians is that their law societies (similar to U.S. state bars) require that lawyers serve the public interest. But going to an anti-gay Christian law school doesn’t necessarily negate that — unless the graduates say something like “We won’t represent LGBT clients.” So far, they haven’t said that.

All I’m saying is: let’s judge these future lawyers on their actions, not their personal beliefs.

(Thanks to Bob for the link. Large portions of this article were posted earlier)

Football Coach Says He Was Fired Over Team Prayers but Adds That He Didn’t Lead Them

Gary Weiss is the freshmen football coach at Catalina Foothills High School. Or, I should say, was. But there’s confusion over what exactly he did to lose that position…

According to him, he was asked to do something illegal and said no:

… Weiss said he was instructed to tell his players to stop praying before and after games or he would be let go. He refused. Now he says he’s out of a job.

But that’s weird. Students are allowed to pray before and after games. Hell, they can pray during a game if they want. On Friday, the Varsity players, at least, did just that:

(Image via @ElainaMatte)

The district even made clear that it’s perfectly fine if students choose to pray on their own, as long as coaches have nothing to do with it.

So what’s the problem? The KVOA report by Lauren Reimer leaves a lot of unanswered questions on the table.

But considering Weiss’ previous job appears to have been at a Christian school, it’s possible he indirectly led a prayer (maybe by telling students to pray before or after a game), was told to stop, misinterpreted that as district officials telling him prayers were illegal altogether (not just coach-led ones), did the same thing again, and got fired.

I don’t know. I contacted a district official last night for more information and will post an update if/when I hear back.

In the meantime, it seems like the district is doing everything it can to follow the law and they deserve credit for that.

…

There’s one other aspect of this story that’s worth mentioning. Weiss claimed that the prayers were all-inclusive:

The coach said that students’ participation was unanimous and inclusive.

“The prayers of the freshmen team have been recited by Muslim kids, Jewish kids, and Christian kids,” said Weiss.

I’m sure he thinks it was inclusive, but how many of those students don’t believe in God? How many of those players would rather pray in private? How many joined the prayer circle just so they wouldn’t be treated like outcasts? We have no idea.

Again, if the prayers are student-led, there’s nothing we can do about it — peer-pressure isn’t a crime — but I doubt this coach knows the true religious beliefs of every 13- and 14-year-old on that team. If I knew my coach was extremely religious, I’d probably lie about it just to make sure it didn’t hurt my chances of getting playing time.

(Thanks to Brian for the link)

In Funny or Die Clip, Bill Maher Admits the Whole “Atheism” Thing Has Been an Act to Raise Money for Churches

In a Funny or Die clip that’ll make you smile, actress Annabelle Gurwitch catches Bill Maher praying in his dressing room. That forces Maher to explain that he’s an atheist like Stephen Colbert is a conservative. It’s all an act! He just takes the money from his stand-up shows and hands it over to local churches: “And not to charity stuff. They have that shit covered. This is strictly for enforcing religious dogma.”

Even as a secret Christian, though, Maher has no love for Kirk Cameron: “That’s a little prick. I would not go near that guy.”

Good to know he hasn’t gone completely bonkers.

(via Raw Story)