Barry Duke, the Angry Atheist

Search

Search

1. 

   As someone who produced dozens of nativity plays as a teacher and a Sunday School leader, that title ‘A Gay…

2. 

   The defence of a Christian view never seems to be settled by debate: exchange of facts, reference to historical events.…

3. 

   But …… Rwanda is a safe place: Parliament says so.https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/8/contentsSafety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 S 2 Safety…

4. 

   Religion can survive only on the most unquestionable assumptions. The statements made on Sundays on the BBC as if they…

5. 

   Yes, if I’ve got anything remotely like a phobia, as an ex-fundy, its bibles, churches, tracts etc. I like to…

NEWT Gingrich, above, a twice-divorced Republican Roman Catholic and staunch Trump ally, claimed in a tweet last month that “Biden is giving $500,000 grants to spread atheism overseas. Have the Democrats literally lost their minds and become the anti-religious party?“

This prompted Newsweek to fact-check his claim. It concluded that Gingrich, “who has a track record of making misleading claims,” was only “half right.”

A government funding proposal from last year did offer $500,000 grants toward ‘atheist, humanist, non-practicing and non-affiliated individuals of all religious communities’ overseas.

However, as stated within the funding proposal, the money was not intended for atheists alone, nor was its purpose to promote and spread atheism.

Instead, its goal was to ‘combat discrimination, harassment and abuses’ against these various groups, only one of which is atheists, in countries where they face persecution.

Despite this, RealClear Politics reports that three “top House” Republicans are challenging to the Biden administration’s decision to “fund a program promoting atheism overseas.”

The trio—Rep. Mike McCaul, a Texas Republican who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican who heads the panel’s human rights subcommittee and Rep. Brian Mast, a Florida Republican—have taken up the matter with the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) .

Image via Wikimedia Commons

In a letter to Erin Barclay, above, the State Department’s Acting Assistant Secretary for the DLR, and Rashad Hussain, the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, both officials are accused of “continued noncompliance” with their earlier requests regarding the “atheism” programme.

We write once again to ask why it is in America’s interest to promote atheism overseas and why the department refuses to provide certain documents that shed light on that misguided decision.

Newsweek points out:

Read in detail, the proposal from the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) is an offer to fund these groups so they may practice their views with safety and support—much like American citizens do under the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.

The money, to be used over an 18 to 30 month period, was made available to groups and organizations in South/Central Asia and Middle East/North Africa (excluding Libya, Syria, and Yemen) only.

This is some distance from Gingrich’s original claim that Biden is giving $500,000 to atheists alone, or that it was for the purpose of spreading atheism.

The proposal reads.

DRL’s objective is to combat discrimination, harassment and abuses against atheist, humanist, non-practicing and non-affiliated individuals of all religious communities by strengthening networks among these communities and providing organizational training and resources.

The congressmen explained that Humanists International, an organisation that eventually received the grant:

Actively tries to spread atheist beliefs abroad, and works alongside groups that actively promote humanism in the United States.

HI says on its website:

At Humanists International, we track the situation for non-religious people in our Freedom of Thought Report and through our advocacy and campaigns work we frequently highlight violations against the non-religious and defend non-religious rights.

In all this work we—and the individual activists, rights-holders and civil society organizations that we work with or defend—rely on rights and norms established in international law and the human rights framework, protecting our rights to hold and express a humanist worldview or other non-religious ideas.

In taking issue with HI’s stated objective, the three Republicans pointed out that HI has close ties to member organisations that engage in U.S. litigation to promote humanism domestically. These organisations include the American Humanist Association (AHA), which shares a Washington, D.C. office with HI and American Atheists.

They said in their letter:

Far from advancing religious freedom, AHA often takes actions that are antithetical to the idea of religious freedom. HI’s close association with AHA speaks volumes about the true objectives of HI and should be of grave concern to the department.

Please help me keep The Angry Atheist going with a donation.