Monthly Archives: February 2017

Milo Yiannopoulos resigns from Breitbart, proving his free ride on free speech is over – Washington Post

Posted: February 22, 2017 at 3:59 am

Self-described troll and conservative writer Milo Yiannopoulos resigned from Breitbart News on Feb. 21, but his far-right speeches and provocative comments aren't going anywhere. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

Update: Milo Yiannopoulos resigned from Breitbart News Tuesday. In a statement, he said the decision was "mine alone," though The Washington Post's David Weigel and Robert Costa previously reported that "by late Monday afternoon, there were ongoing discussions at Breitbart about Yiannopouloss future at the company."

Here is Yiannopouloss full statement:

The original post follows.

Milo Yiannopoulos claims to hate political correctness. He is about to feel the pain of livingwithout its benefits.

Despite all of Yiannopoulos'stalk, the reality is that the Breitbart News editor has thrived on political correctness. He built his brand not by saying substantive things but by demanding that he be allowed to say whatever he wants whileexploiting the fear that nothing couldbe seen asmore politically incorrect than appearing to deny his right to free speech.

That fear the worry that shutting up Yiannopoulos will make you look like an enemy of the First Amendment faded over the weekend when the Conservative Political Action Conference canceled a scheduled speech by the professional provocateur after remarks he made last year about sex involving adults and underage teens resurfaced online.

[CPAC rescinds Yiannopoulos invitation amid social media uproar]

In one interview from January 2016, Yiannopoulos shared his viewthat pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13 years old, who is sexually mature.

The controversyalso prompted Threshold Editions, a Simon & Schuster imprint that publishes conservative authors, to pull the plug on a book by Yiannopoulos that was scheduled for release in June.

Yiannopoulos has never been a sophisticated voice in conservative politics. He has made a career out of being the gay immigrant who tellshis Breitbart audience that it is okay to use gay slurs and discriminate against immigrants. Yet he is remarkably skilled at convincing others that shutting out his kind of intolerance is a kind of intolerance all its own.

[Milo Yiannopouloss Trumpian rise shows how the GOP is stuck in opposition mode]

AsYiannopoulos has promoted the idea that PC police are trying to silence him, college after college has agreed to lethim speak on campus.Even the University of California at Berkeley, a beacon of liberalism, granted a student group's request to host Yiannopoulos earlier this month. A protest that turned violent forced the event's cancellation at the last minute, but the university said in a statement that it felt bound by the Constitution, the law, our values, and the campus's Principles of Community to enable free expression across the full spectrum of opinion and perspective.

Bound is the key word there. Yiannopoulos knows that people and institutions feel bound to let him talk because of their commitment to free speech and, yes, because of political correctness. Free speech and political correctness have long been Yiannopoulos's best weapons in his relentless PR push.

Now, however, no one will feel bound to givea microphone to someone who thinks sex between a grown man and an underage boy can be consensual. No one will feel bound to amplify a voice that even CPAC deemed unworthy of inclusion.

Until this weekend, the politically correct thing to do was to just let Yiannopoulos talk. Not anymore.

Read more from the original source:
Milo Yiannopoulos resigns from Breitbart, proving his free ride on free speech is over - Washington Post

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Milo Yiannopoulos resigns from Breitbart, proving his free ride on free speech is over – Washington Post

Dave LaRock’s Virginia Campus Free Speech Resolution – National Review

Posted: at 3:59 am

Virginia Delegate Dave LaRock (R-Clarke, Frederick, and Loudoun Counties) has just filed House Resolution 431, The Campus Free Speech Resolution. HR 431 is based on the model legislation I co-authored with Jim Manley and Jonathan Butcher of Arizonas Goldwater Institute.

Since the Virginia House of Delegates is nearingthe end of its current session, Delegate LaRock is offering a resolution conveying the sense of the legislature, to be followed up next session by detailed legislation based on the Goldwater model. As Delegate LaRock put it in a press release, This resolution will put down a marker as a precursor for next session when I will follow up with legislation to assure that universities take this seriously.

Explaining his reason for taking up the Goldwater proposal on campus free speech, Del. LaRock said, Virginia is the cradle of democracy and it is a disgrace that many universities have lost track of the idea that it is their responsibility to uphold free-speech principles By passing this measure we are communicating to universities and the public that students are in school to learn how to think; they are not going to college to be protected from differing opinions.

Virginias HR 431, and Del. LaRocks promise to follow it next session with fuller legislation based on the Goldwater model, means that Virginia is now the third state to move forward with initiatives based on the Goldwater proposal. North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest has announced that a bill will soon be filed in that state, and Illinois Representative Peter Breen has introduced HB 2939. And although no bill has yet been filed, I will be testifying at the request of Education Committee Chair Michael Bileca before the Post-Secondary Education Subcommittee of the Florida State House this Thursday on the Goldwater proposal.

Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He can be reached at [emailprotected]

More here:
Dave LaRock's Virginia Campus Free Speech Resolution - National Review

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Dave LaRock’s Virginia Campus Free Speech Resolution – National Review

Why We Cannot Hide Behind Free Speech – Harvard Crimson

Posted: at 3:59 am

Controversy surrounded Martin Shkreli's speech, which took place last week after the Harvard Financial Analysts Club extended him an invitation to campus. Despite Shkrelis infamy in the pharmaceutical industry and the public eye, he attempted to steer clear of those topics and focused on his investment career. Given his tenuous connections to Harvard itself and his refusal to engage on the topics for which he is known, it is questionable why HFAC invited Shkreli to speak at all.

Although HFAC has not commented on their reasons for inviting Shkreli, his presence appears part of a broader trend, especially on college campuses, that confuses contrarianism for its own sake with intellectual output and achievement. While both are protected, the ideals of free speech are held to improve public debate and recognize multiple viewpoints. In theory, giving those with more iconoclastic views a public platform falls under these goals.

Despite HFACs claim that the event would be governed by guidelines on free speech, their actions state otherwise. Prior to the talk, HFAC told attendees they could raise any concerns with Shkreli during the question and answer session. However, questions related to his personal or legal issues, the source of many audience grievances, were forbidden. Additionally, at the talk itself, HFAC intentionally attempted to bar press access to the event. Restricting the audiences questions, preventing honest reporting, and hindering the public knowledge of the event censored free speech rather than permitting it.

While Shkreli may have particular insights into the pharmaceutical industry, his speech did not discuss his experience in that sector, implying that he was invited more for his notoriety. His more than 5000 percent price increase of the drug Daraprim, compounded by fraud charges and a slated court case, are all infamous hallmarks of his pharmaceutical background. Shkrelis history of harassing women on social media is another cause for concern. Most troublingly, Shkreli has shown no remorse for his actions.

HFAC and similar organizations use free speech to support their assertion that their invitees have something of value to add to campus conversation. In reality, speakers such as Shkreli flood the marketplace of ideas with noise rather than discussion, just to garner attention for those doing the inviting. In the future, we ask those who wish to invite controversial speakers to consider the value of their contribution rather than just their fame. Both should be protected; only the former is wise.

Read more from the original source:
Why We Cannot Hide Behind Free Speech - Harvard Crimson

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Why We Cannot Hide Behind Free Speech – Harvard Crimson

Report: UMN’s bias response team poses little concern for free speech – Minnesota Daily

Posted: at 3:58 am

The University of Minnesotas bias response team stands out for its free speech and academic protections, a survey of over 200 similar teams across the country found.

The report, published this month by the nonpartisan, nonprofit group Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, compared schools based on who reviews reports, what constitutes bias and whether the team agrees tension exists between bias reports and free speech.

The Universitys Bias Response and Referral Network fared better than many schools surveyed.

BRRN members say this is a result of concerted efforts to foster open conversation on campus during its formation last year. For the first nine months following its January 2016 launch, BRRN received about 25 reports.

The University did not immediately respond to a request for more recent data.

FIRE conducted the survey with the stance that tension between protecting free speech and addressing bias is unavoidable. About half of the 232 teams surveyed mention free speech on their websites or in their policies, the report found.

The Universitys BRRN page states the team is committed to safeguarding the free expression rights of all University members and considers whether an incident has implications for free speech or academic freedom when a report is made.

Additionally, the studys lead author, Adam Steinbaugh, said the Universitys definition of what constitutes a bias incident is one of the best hes seen.

Acts motivated by 14 specific characteristics, like race, disability and sexual orientation, are included in the Universitys definition. Definitions of bias at other schools, like the University of North Carolina-Charlotte and Dartmouth College, encompass political and social views, which could invite administrative and police surveillance of political activity, the report says.

Including strong free speech protections in the teams procedures was an easy decision, said Tina Marisam, University Title IX coordinator, Office for Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action director and BRRN member. She said the most effective response to a bias incident is often open conversation about its harmful effects.

Working to end bias, in our view, requires free speech and creating more opportunities for free speech, Marisam said.

The best bias response teams, Steinbaugh said, are clear about their limitations in order to avoid a chilling effect on free speech. In addition, they are not responsible for investigating reports or punishing students.

If theyre just trying to gather information about whats going on on campus, that doesnt have as much of a threat to freedom of speech as investigating people [does], he said.

To avoid such a chilling effect, the Universitys BRRN doesnt have any investigatory or disciplinary role, said BRRN member Karen Miksch. The team instead tracks local and national trends in bias reports and serves as a referral network to direct reporters to the appropriate resources, she said.

Forty-two percent of schools surveyed include law enforcement on their response teams, the survey said.

While police should investigate bias cases involving criminal conduct, it otherwise could lead to regulation of political activity and other speech, Steinbaugh said.

The Universitys group is among those that dont include law enforcement.

If members suspect an incident might require a police response, they forward the report to the University of Minnesota Police Department, according to the BRRN webpage.

In order to protect academic freedom, teams should include faculty, Steinbaugh said. The survey found that only 27 percent of teams do.

[If] they dont have faculty members on the team, that makes it less likely that the team is going to be able to say, Hey, this is an issue of academic freedom, Steinbaugh said.

Miksch is one of two faculty members on the Universitys BRRN. She was sought out for it because of her research background in academic freedom, she said.

She is also a member of the University Senates Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee.

This spring, Miksch will host free speech training for BRRN members. Only one school out of those surveyed Louisiana State University trains its members in First Amendment concerns.

At the training, BRRN members will consider potential bias scenarios and discuss how to foster open dialogue on campus, Miksch said.

The University is a place where people can have these kinds of debates and conversations but doesnt put up with what would be illegal or criminal, she said.

Here is the original post:
Report: UMN's bias response team poses little concern for free speech - Minnesota Daily

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Report: UMN’s bias response team poses little concern for free speech – Minnesota Daily

Robesonian | Left frowns on free speech – The Robesonian

Posted: at 3:58 am

Citizens United, or Citizens United v. FEC, is a 2010 case in which the Supreme Court struck down limits to independent political expenditures on First Amendment freedom of speech grounds. The ruling didnt affect lobbying activities and direct contributions to political parties and candidates that continue to be subject to regulation. It allowed individuals, corporations, and labor unions to spend what they wanted to enter the public debate about politics and policy that inevitably surrounds elections and their campaigns. It gave rise to what has become a household term super PAC.

The decision led to a torrent of criticism, mainly from the left. The essence was Citizens United enhanced political inequality by amplifying the voices of corporations and the rich. President Obama said at the time this ruling strikes at the heart of democracy. Indeed, the amount of such independent spending skyrocketed outside group expenditures associated with presidential elections tripled from 2008 to 2012 much of it advocating conservative-type policies and candidates. The presidential election saw an interesting decline, a Trump effect, if you will.

The First Amendment says nothing about equal speech, just that you cant prohibit it. The Constitution surely places a larger burden on the opponents of the decision than its supporters. But lets assume Citizens United poses a challenge to our democracy. Certain people and groups, by dint of their wealth, can make greater contributions to public debate than others. They join what John Adams called a natural aristocracy, a class of people distinguished by their ability to influence others votes a class already populated by educators and media, which are dominated by the left.

But its critical to remember the behavior permitted by Citizens United like other forms of salutary free speech takes the form of persuasion, not coercion. It allows individuals to make a case to large numbers of people. Theres no cost to rejecting the appeal. Surely political action designed to compel others to take a public position on a matter of policy or cast a vote for a particular candidate is considerably more harmful. Democracies should embrace advocacy but reject force.

Yet force is everywhere in politics today, much of it designed to exert economic pressure. Liberals across the country have organized efforts to make North Carolinians who support House Bill 2 change their views or face economic harm. Businesses connected with Trump are threatened if they dont disassociate from his administration. Those who ran Super Bowl ads implicitly critical of his agenda face reprisals from the other side. The aim is to punish and constrain freedom. Economic and political liberties are inextricable. As Milton Friedman noted, free commerce allows humans to enjoy social and financial gains from exchange without letting political differences get in the way. Using economics as a political tool leads us down the road to authoritarianism.

Groups use intimidation in ways other than economic boycotts. The ostensible goal of the new left-wing anti-Trump Indivisible movement is to execute, like the Tea Party before it, a full-court press on members of Congress. But its greatest wish is to embarrass and harass non-conforming citizens who we perhaps might call deplorables into silence.

The target isnt always people with whom they disagree. Such groups also attack their own. Those who reject orthodoxy become pariahs. Pro-life women were barred from the marches immediately following the Trump inauguration because the organizers, as self-proclaimed definers of female identity, believed they werent woman enough.

Alexis de Tocqueville warned Americans of such tyranny nearly 200 years ago. He saw a tendency to evangelize and bully. All of this seems fresh and particularly intense again. We are deeply divided, in a kind of political war. For many who profess to embrace free speech, theres no longer room for broad and reasoned debate, for independence of thought.

Although they constitute a naked effort to compel subjects to behave in a particular way, these kinds of politics are surely protected under the Constitution. Besides, in practice, how would effective regulation work? The left therefore turns gleefully to advocacy and the ability of its opponents to make their case something conservatives must do directly because the media, education establishment, and other privileged citizens with state-funded or protected megaphones wont. Citizens United facilitates broad public discussion of parties, candidates, and policies. But in the logic of the new lefts morality, its more harmful than efforts to force Americans how to think and act.

http://robesonian.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/web1_andy-taylor-1.jpg

Andy Taylor is a professor of political science at the School of International and Public Affairs at N.C. State University. He doesnt speak for the university.

.

Link:
Robesonian | Left frowns on free speech - The Robesonian

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Robesonian | Left frowns on free speech – The Robesonian

As atheism rises, nonbelievers find one another – MyAJC

Posted: at 3:58 am

Jeff Newport can cite the Bible chapter and verse.

He went to Christian schools, attended church every Sunday and delivered his first sermon at 13.

In 1996, he was called to pastor a small Baptist church in Jesup with a congregation of about 30 for Sunday morning services.

Everything revolved around church, Newport said. We would not have even thought of missing a service unless we were ill. Family Bible reading and prayer were normal activities we never had a meal, even in public, for which we didnt say a blessing.

Today, though, the 46-year-old Savannah man considers himself a nonbeliever.

He lost faith in faith.

Its not easy being a nonbeliever or a skeptic in the Bible Belt South.

Move to a new city. Start a new job. Or meet a potential romantic interest.

One of the first things youre asked is: Where do you go to church?

RELATED:7 churches, 1 building: A Clarkston church that offers a reflection of Atlantas religious diversity

RELATED:Liberal or conservative? Religious outlook can blur the answer

RELATED:Faith in Atlanta photo essay

Religion is big in these parts. It can be the social center of a persons life. Often friendships are built within the walls of a sanctuary. Families worship together. Faith and where you worship not only give people a sense of believing but belonging.

Still, atheism (or at least the acknowledgment of it) appears to be on the rise though slightly.

Pews 2014 Religious Landscape Study found that 3.1 percent of American adults say they are atheists, up from 1.6 percent in a similarly large survey in 2007. An additional 4 percent of Americans call themselves agnostics, up from 2.4 percent in 2007.

The Washington, D.C.-basedSecular Coalition for America, for instance, boasts 29,000 people on its mailing list and more than 130,000 followers on its various social media accounts. Its followers include atheists, agnostics, humanists and other nonbelievers or those who arent sure of the presence of a higher spirit.

Thats an increase in 2016 of more than 5,000 new subscribers on their email list, more than 7,000 new Twitter followers and more than 10,000 Facebook likes.

Turning away

For Newport, it was a gradual change. For most of his early life, he never doubted the existence of God or the doctrines of Christianity.

The more he attempted to learn and weigh evidence pro and con, the more that faith began to unravel.

He left the Baptist ministry in 1999 and converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church. During his 12 years in this tradition, he gradually laid aside some of the dogmas of Christianity the reality of a literal hell, the inerrancy of the Bible, the exclusivity of Christianity as the only way to God, among others.

At the same time, he developed a love of science and the reliability of an evidence-based approach to find truth.

In 2012, he took a job that required work on Sundays. It gave him time and space to re-evaluate his faith. My faith couldnt stand up to this scrutiny. By the middle of 2014, I had quietly, but firmly, decided I no longer believed in God or the supernatural.

He has never approached the topic with his parents, who are dyed-in-the-wool Christians.

I think they would be disappointed, and would certainly worry about my soul if they knew I no longer believed, Newport said.

Newport is a member ofthe Clergy Project, which was formed in 2011 to create a safe and secure online community for former and current religious leaders who no longer believed in God. Many of the former pastors and church leaders prefer to remain anonymous, in part because of fear of being ostracized by family and friends. For pastors, stepping away from the pulpit can also mean loss of income.

The organization has more than 750 members in 34 countries.

Initially, all were from Christian backgrounds, but its members now include Muslims and Buddhists.

About a third of its members still serve in religious leadership positions, although they no longer believe in a higher power. It runs the gamut from more scientific stuff to more theological questions, said Drew Bekius, president of the Clergy Project. They see tragedy in the world, yet you see people claiming God just got them a parking space. So God will answer the prayer for a parking space while millions of people are in poverty?

For others, its more personal. Perhaps there was a personal heartbreak or death of a loved one. Perhaps they saw immense suffering and wondered how could God allow people to suffer?

A large part of it is that people are dissatisfied with the moral teachings of some of the religions they belong to, said Casey Brescia, a spokesman forSecular Coalition for America. For instance, a lot of people are turned off by their churchs position on LGBTQ equality. But also people are beginning to find community elsewhere. Churches dont play the same role in the community they used to. Its just a wide variety of factors.

He sees a growing number of younger Americans who eschew any religions, and that, he said, is a tectonic shift. That means that people are walking away from church and walking away from institutions that used to play such an important role.

In what has become an annual holiday tradition,American Atheistslaunches billboards nationwide urging viewers to celebrate an atheist Christmas by skipping church. Several of the locations in Southern states will be up later this year to promote the solar eclipse convention the atheists will host in Charleston, S.C., in August 2017.

It is important for people to know religion has nothing to do with being a good person, and that being open and honest about what you believe and dont believe is the best gift you can give during the holiday season, David Silverman, president of American Atheists, said in a release about the holiday billboard campaign.

Doubts and discomfort

Its hard to say how many atheists there are in the United States. Even the Pew Research Center has trouble giving an exact number. Why?

Its complicated.Some people who describe themselves as atheists also say they believe in God or a universal spirit, according to Pew. Conversely, some people who identify as Catholic, Protestant or Jewish also say they dont believe in God.

According to a survey by theAtheist Alliance International, most people who identify as atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, nonreligious or secularists are male, college-educated and more than a third are between the ages of 25 and 34.

Mandisa Thomas, the founder and president of theBlack Nonbelievers, a 3,000-member organization based in Atlanta, grew up in a black nationalist household.

In this age of information, she said, a lot of traditional notions are not holding up anymore. We are beginning to see the world is not right. Were told to just have faith or pray on it. Thats just not enough for people anymore.

Its especially hard for African-Americans, she said.

Religion is still so ingrained in the black identity that to openly state that one is atheist means that youre rejecting your race and culture.

Nonbelievers often talk about how uncomfortable it can be to navigate a world that can be largely faith-based.

You get a lot of unnecessary attention, and most of it is negative, said Deric McNealy, 28, a machine operator who lives in Jonesboro. People always try to come up and save you. They try to speak to you about God all the time or badger you, and that makes work very uncomfortable.

McNealy grew up in a Christian family that included church leaders.

He began to question things in the Bible at an early age.

As McNealy became older, he began to apply critical thought to all aspects of my life, and religion just happened to be one of the main things.

His family wasnt too happy.

I think its a lot easier today than in the past because of the internet, he said. In the past, there was no community, no communications for people who questioned their beliefs. Now we go online and link with like-minded individuals.

Atlantan Ross Llewallyn, who identifies as atheist, grew up in a Methodist household in Atlanta. I had a good time going to Sunday school and the service, said the 28-year-old software engineer. Over time, he began to think more about the presence of God.

I was always someone of science and reason and tried to be true and accurate in my understanding of the world, he said.

Take prayer, for instance. He was always told that before going to bed, he should get on his knees by the side of his bed and pray. He prayed for good things to happen to family, friends and himself. Soon he questioned whether he really needed to be on his knees. Why not just in bed? And why did he have to say his prayers aloud? Couldnt God just hear his thoughts? I started thinking more critically about things like that, he said.

EVERY DAY IS SUNDAY

Sunday may be the prominent day of worship in Atlanta, but thats changing as a growing number of other religions establish congregations in our global city. This is an occasional series that examines how religion impacts life in Atlanta. You can read the earlier entries in the series onmyajc.com.

Read the rest here:
As atheism rises, nonbelievers find one another - MyAJC

Posted in Atheism | Comments Off on As atheism rises, nonbelievers find one another – MyAJC

Atheists Online: -How Atheists Grew An Active Internet Community- – Conatus News

Posted: at 3:58 am

The Pew Research Center

A

There are a multitude of websites aimed at an atheist audience.Many tend to follow the same lines, talking about problems of religion in society as well as attacking religious apologetics.These sites are tremendously popular, as many atheists were brought up in a religion and have some amount of animosity towards what they see as a repressive ideology that did them harm in the past.Atheists are by no means limited to religious talk, however.A number of sites are devoted to atheist political action, most of which promulgate a highly progressive political agenda.

Many atheists seek to do more online than read someone elses arguments, advice, or calls to action though.As with almost all media endeavors in the modern world, consumers want lots of content and lots of interaction.One of the most popular places on the internet for users to interact is Reddit.While there are numerous subreddits for atheists, skeptics, agnostics, and the like, the top dog is the /r/atheism subreddit. Currently with about 2 million subscribers, it is in the top 100 subreddits (

Some, who are willing to broadcast their atheism to the world, are able to reach hundreds of thousands.There are over 1,000 religious radio stations in the U.S. but I was able to find no atheist stations, and a very small number of broadcast atheist themed shows.That does not mean, of course, that there are no atheists in radio, but rather that a new niche has been created and populated very well, in online atheist radio and podcasts.Some of the most prominent atheists in the world, including Sam Harris, have a weekly podcast, but there are hundreds of others done on different aspects of atheism.Examples include

I recently had the pleasure of interviewing Thomas Smith about his take on the online atheist community.Thomas told me that through his podcasting and online activity he has been able to develop meaningful relationships with others.He believes that the internet has provided a place where atheists can congregate without needing to physically go to any location, allowing the scattered atheist community to support each other. The internet is certainly a boon to any minority group, and atheist demographics, which skew young, white, and male, are also some of the biggest internet users.Thomas recently changed the name of his main podcast from Atheistically Speaking to Serious Inquiries Only, a step he said came in part from losing guests because of the societal stigma attached to the word atheist.He says that after the name change he had numerous people tell him they loved it, because now they could share the podcast with friends and family without outing themselves as atheists.

This societal stigma is certainly part of the reason atheists seem so drawn to internet interactions.Anonymity, or at least the safety of separation from those around you, provides the ability to truly speak ones mind.For atheists that means declaring their atheism.For atheists in some parts of the world that anonymity could literally be a matter of life and death, as there are

comments

See more here:
Atheists Online: -How Atheists Grew An Active Internet Community- - Conatus News

Posted in Atheism | Comments Off on Atheists Online: -How Atheists Grew An Active Internet Community- – Conatus News

No God? No Problem: Atheism in AA as a Human Right – TheFix.com

Posted: at 3:58 am

Is AAs God as we understand Him as inclusive today as it was intended in 1939? A debate over the sacredness of AA language and rituals started in Toronto Intergroup and landed at the doorstep of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. The Fixcovers the press release here.

I couldnt grasp what seemed to be the integral concept: the concept of God. I began to consider God as an acronym for Great Others Divine, Sharon, a Toronto AA member tells The Fix. However, in my cognitive struggle, there was the literature so chock full of Him with the capital H. I was unable to reconcile what I saw to be a rift too incongruent. I could not shake the ever-present notion that I was failing to grasp something key and, by extension, that I was a failure.

Sharon first came to Toronto AA in 1975, and a 38-year in-and-out struggle began. Sharons first agnostic meeting was in 2014. When I was walking out of that first We Are Not Saints secular meeting, This could work for meas incredulous as it seemedfilled my mind. Seeds of connection were planted. Sharon has remained sober and active in her agnostic group and as a regular in hospital and other AA meetings.

Lawrence was a member of We Agnostics in Toronto. His group was de-listed by Intergroup in 2011. Sincere efforts were made by Toronto AAs broader-path members to restore unity. A vote to re-list the two agnostic groups in 2012 failed and Torontos third secular group was de-listed, too. In 2014, while Sharon was finding lasting sobriety in agnostic AA, Lawrence filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Both the Greater Toronto Area Intergroup (GTAI) and AA World Services (AAWS) were named in the discrimination complaint. AA came under the microscope of the Human Rights law which states:

The Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code) states that it is public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person and to provide equal rights and opportunities without discrimination. The aim is to create a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person, so that each person feels a part of and able to contribute to the community.

In AA, member rights, or AAs Code, is found in the six warranties contained in Concept XII in the AA Service Manual.

The AA Traditions accord the individual member and the AA group extraordinary liberties ... Because we set such a high value on our great liberties and cannot conceive that they will need to be limited, we here specially enjoin our General Service Conference to abstain completely from any and all acts of authoritative government which could in any way curtail AAs freedom

So there seems to be no conflict between AAs individual and group rights vs. the Human Rights Code. Anyone with a desire to stop drinking can declare themselves a member. There is no vetting. Bill W. expressed AAs radical inclusion policy in AA Grapevinein 1946:

AA membership[does not] depend on money or conformity. Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobrietymay call themselves an AA Group.This clearly implies that an alcoholic is a member ifhesays so; that we cant deny him his membership; that we cant demand from him a cent; that we cant force our beliefs or practices upon him; that he may flout everything we stand for and still be a member So long as there is the slightest interest in sobriety, the most unmoral, the most anti-social, the most critical alcoholic may gather about him a few kindred spirits and announce to us that a new Alcoholics Anonymous Group has been formed. Anti-God, anti-medicine, anti-our recovery program, even anti-each otherthese rampant individuals are still an AA Group ifthey think so!

Lets compare how 1940s early AA America looked? Judeo/Christian adherents were 95% of Americans, 5% had no religion and 0% were other religions.Statistically, this means that less than half of 1% of 1940 Americans practiced a faith that wasnt monotheistic.

Statistically, God as we understand Him resonated with 95% of early AA members. In more fluid AA language, our narrative would use more contemporary language that would include a growing population of members who have more progressive spiritual or secular views. Heres some data from Pew Research:

The religiously unaffiliated population is expected to nearly double in size, growing from 59 million in 2010 to 111 million in 2050. The number of Muslims is expected to nearly triple, from more than 3 million as of 2010 to more than 10 million in 2050, making Muslims the third largest religious group in the region by mid-century.

The first group(s)like Larrys We Agnosticsthat took God out of the 12 Steps were Buddhists. In 1955 on page 81 of AA Comes of Age,Bill found himself defending non-theists' AA Steps to AA traditionalists:

To some of us, the idea of substituting good for God in the Twelve Steps will seem like a watering down of AAs message. But here we must remember that AAs Steps are suggestions only. A belief in them, as they stand, is not at all a requirement for membership among us.

Celebrating 30 years of atheism in AA, original-six member Jim B., in a 1968AA Grapevine, coaches other AA non-believers. Jims article shared that The AA Fellowship became my Higher Power for the first two years, and, Gradually, I came to believe that God and Good were synonymous and were found in all of us.

The first North American AA for atheists and agnostics group (Quad-A) started in 1975 in Chicago. In 2017, around the world, secular AA gatherings happen about 400 times a week. The first international gathering for Secular AA was in Santa Monica in 2014, then Austin in 2016, and Toronto welcomes the world of AA non-believers in 2018.

How does Toronto Intergroup defend doing their own thing? Conceived by an unelected Ad Hoc Sub-Committee Re: Human Rights Complaint in Toronto Intergroup, the following legal defense was made as public record which included:

In order to be part of GTAI [Intergroup], a group must be prepared to practice the 12 steps and thus the members of the group must have a belief in God GTAI also submits that it is a bona fide requirement that groups that wish to be part of this Intergroup must have a belief in the higher power of God.1

Imposing requirements for a belief-in-God for AAs violates the Ontario Human Rights Code. People are free to believe in God in Ontario, but they cant impose views on others.

The right to be free from discrimination based on creed reflects core Canadian constitutional values and commitments to a secular, multicultural and democratic society. People who follow a creed, and people who do not, have the right to live in a society that respects pluralism and human rights and the right to follow different creeds.

What was AAWSs role in all of this? In the 2016 interim decision, it was still to be determined if AAs General Service Office was guilty of willful blindness. Delegates and concerned AAs, including Lawrence, made GSO aware that an unlawful practice was probably going on in Toronto, and an intervention was sought to encourage Intergroup inclusivity and toleranceand follow the rule of law. Heres where GSO may have been off-side, per the Code:

Organizations must ensure that they are not unconsciously engaging in systemic discrimination. This takes vigilance and a willingness to monitor and review numerical data, policies, practices and decision-making processes and organizational culture. It is not acceptable from a human rights perspective for an organization to choose to remain unaware of systemic discrimination or to fail to act when a problem comes to its attention.

Around AA, from coffee shops to secret Facebook groups, GTA Intergroups mandatory obedience to God requirement was a hot topic. Even the most adamant anti-agnostic deacons couldnt get behind Toronto Intergroups religious requirements for inclusion in AA.

The showdowns next step was mediation.

Kate Sellar, a lawyer with the Human Rights Legal Support Centre explained the process to The Fix regarding how the Tribunal can order remedial action if a respondent is found to violate the Code.

First, the Tribunal wants to put the applicant back in the position that he or she would have been in if the discrimination hadnt happened.

Secondly, the Tribunal can do what they call "remedies for future compliance." The Tribunal can order a respondent to put a human rights policy in place where policies and procedures were not in place before, or to participate in human rights training.

In the eleventh hour, mediation succeeded and a hearing was averted. AAWS appeared to side with Lawrences wish to have his group included without Intergroup governance. AAWS did not side with Intergroups view that the 12 Steps are sacred and a belief in God is mandatory. AAWS was released by the complainant.

GTA Intergroup agreed to return agnostic groups as rights-bearing equals. In a report to Intergroup, GTA Intergroup acknowledgesthat the manner in which individual AA members or groups of AA members interpret and apply the Steps and Traditions in their own lives is a matter for those individuals alone."

Is there a place for secular AA? Sharon, who recently celebrated three years of sobriety, deserves the final word: Now there are no thoughts that I am failing in any way. Now I have a firm foothold in the fellowship and I reap the same rewards as recognized by and accessible to others for decades. I credit agnostic Alcoholics Anonymous with saving my life and then giving me a life very much worth living.

Jesse Beach is a researcher/columnist for Rebellion Dogs Publishing.

In 2013, Rebellion Dogs Published the first secular daily reflection book for addicts/alcoholics, Beyond Belief: Agnostic Musings for 12 Step Life by Joe C., foreword by Ernest Kurtz http://rebelliondogspublishing.com

Ontario Human Rights File Number: 2014-18832-1, Adjudicator Laurie Letheren, Interim Decision February 17, 2016

Read the rest here:
No God? No Problem: Atheism in AA as a Human Right - TheFix.com

Posted in Atheism | Comments Off on No God? No Problem: Atheism in AA as a Human Right – TheFix.com

The Truth About Europe Paying Its ‘Fair Share’ For NATO – Jalopnik

Posted: at 3:56 am

U.S. Army vehicles cross the Polish border in Olszyna, Poland, Thursday, Jan. 12, 2017 heading for their new base in Zagan. First U.S. troops arrive in Zagan in western Poland as part of deterrence force of some 1,000 troops to be based here and reassure Poland that is worried about Russias activity. (AP Photo/Czarek Sokolowski)

At a time when Russia is launching cyberattacks against Europe, exploiting the chaos that is President Donald Trumps first month in office and not backing down in Ukraine, NATO seems to be needed more than it has since the end of the Cold War. Though the tone from the White House suggests Europe is a deadbeat partner not paying its fair share of the rent, the reality of the situation is a lot more nuanced.

In short: Europe may be paying its fair share in ways Washington doesnt appreciate. That may need to change as we contemplate the defense needs of the region in 2017 and beyond.

Trump has lamented that NATO is obsolete and that our European allies need to pay their fair share financially. His newly appointed Defense Secretary James Mattis said last week that alliance members must pay at least two percent of their GDPs on defense or face moderated military support from Washington. So far, only five of the 28 alliance members spend two percent or more of their GDP on defense. To be fair, the two percent benchmark was agreed upon by NATO countries themselves in 2006.

First, a few facts on spending. As The Washington Post noted last year, America pays 22 percent to cover NATO directly as an organization, with Europe covering the rest of the costs. That is far less than the lions share Trump talks about. Though when he mentions indirect contributions, he has a point, as The Post reported:

The volume of the US defense expenditure effectively represents 73 per cent of the defense spending of the Alliance as a whole, NATO says in a discussion of indirect funding. This does not mean that the United States covers 73 per cent of the costs involved in the operational running of NATO as an organization, including its headquarters in Brussels and its subordinate military commands, but it does mean that there is an over-reliance by the Alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities, including for instance, in regard to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refueling; ballistic missile defense; and airborne electronic warfare.

Now, I agree that Europe could do a much better job in supporting NATO operations. For example, Belgium sent just six fighter jets and 155 people to Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq. Many other NATO members have similar contributions that could be improved upon the military front.

That said, national defense doesnt always amount to the number of guns, tanks, fighter jets and troops a nation is ready to deploy. Another reality we have to consider is that America is the overwhelming contributor to NATOs coffers because its military objectives are far larger than, say, Estonia or Slovakia or even France. Context matters.

Heres a few points to consider when we ask Europe to pay its fair share, and what that can and does look like.

Hundreds of thousands of refugees have migrated to Europe over the past five years, most of them coming from Syria since the beginning of its civil war in 2011. In 2015 alone, Germany took in more than one million refugees. Other European countries have taken on the challenge of welcoming refugees that enter Europe by the thousands each day.

America, by comparison, has admitted more than 10,000. While plenty of research exists that shows refugees have not negatively affected the economies of the countries that host them, it still costs substantial sums to integrate this population. Helping refugees find employment, learn the host country language, and making them feel they are part of their adoptive nations society should all count as national security. Trump has complained that Syrian refugees pose a major national security risk to America. Why, then, can we not consider that Europe integrating them into society is one way to counter terrorist organizations propaganda toward them?

Also, what would the consequence be of having thousands of people in Berlin or Paris without a good-paying job? For example, a report in 2016 found that migrants committed or tried to commit more than 69,000 crimes in Germany during the first quarter of last year; most of the crimes were theft or forgery related. Making sure that people who enter Europe have jobs so that they do not resort to a life of crime is a form of security and could be argued as an anti-terrorism measure.

Most Americans cant imagine the challenges Europe has with the influx of refugees. Because of the oceans that insulate the U.S. from most of the world, the migrant crisis has little impact on us so far. Europe is picking up the heavy lifting of hosting refugees, and the continent must constantly fight any propaganda suggesting that ISIS or Al-Qaeda care more about them than their new hosts.

One reason why most of Europe may not pay two percent of its GDP for defense is because its global objectives arent as robust and far-reaching. America has more than 800 military bases in more than 70 countries, making it the most global military on the planet. In comparison, France, Britain and Russia have 30 foreign bases combined.

NATO is primarily financed by the U.S., but Americans almost never go into combat alone. Americas operations in Afghanistan, for example, includes some 13,000 personnel from partner countries. A middle ground could be European nations sending more of its troops to combat missions that help U.S. objectives. This may not be as much a question of military spending as it is of deployment.

We also have to consider how Europe supports its soldiers. As Peter Layton explains in The National Interest, Europe pays for defense in ways we may not have considered:

Americas defense budget also allows for spending on unrelated items. For instance, medical spending consumes nearly 10 percent of the Department of Defense budget. Other nations pay for family and ex-service personnel medical care as part of national health systemsit is not a defense impost.

Additionally, the items within various defense budgets varies considerably. Perhaps 10 percent should be added to allies defense totals to compensate for this difference? Varying accounting approaches allow many ways to game a 2 percent benchmark, and it has already started.

The bottom line is that Europe could certainly be more proactive in contributing to NATOs finances and military missions, but it is not nearly the freeloader the Trump administration suggests it is. A new way of looking at what European NATO members contribute, how it supports its military and how they can help Washingtons long term objectives may fill the economic gap Trumpand prior administrationscomplain about.

See more here:
The Truth About Europe Paying Its 'Fair Share' For NATO - Jalopnik

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on The Truth About Europe Paying Its ‘Fair Share’ For NATO – Jalopnik

America should be grateful for its NATO partners – Washington Post

Posted: at 3:56 am

February 21 at 6:56 PM

The Feb. 19 editorial A time for Europe to step up noted that the United States is spending more on defense thanmostNATO members and implied that other countries need the United States more than the United States needs them.

Many of these countries came to our aid in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Moreover, Russia is building a pipeline and a nuclear power plant in Turkey.If Turkey dropped out of NATO,we couldface a situation in which Russia, whichhas a reliable client state in Syria and a working relationship with Iran, signed a defense pact with all three countries and with Iraq, where Iran has influence. That would allow Russia toextend its influence over the price of oil and could make anymilitary action in the MiddleEast by the United States or Israel extremelyproblematic.

Perhaps we should be more grateful for our NATO partners.

Susan Altman, Washington

Go here to read the rest:
America should be grateful for its NATO partners - Washington Post

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on America should be grateful for its NATO partners – Washington Post