Michigan school bans religious groups visiting at lunch, giving out Bibles after complaint

MLive
By Danielle James

The post Michigan school bans religious groups visiting at lunch, giving out Bibles after complaint appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

St Michael statue blocked from Massachusetts city building as state Supreme Court showdown looms

New York Post
By Rachel del Guidice

The post St Michael statue blocked from Massachusetts city building as state Supreme Court showdown looms appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Should freethought return to its deist roots?

OnlySky
By Bruce Ledewitz

The post Should freethought return to its deist roots? appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Kentucky sheriff removes unconstitutional Easter posts after FFRF intervention

The Freedom From Religion Foundation convinced the Rowan County Sheriff’s Office in Morehead, Ky., to remove social media posts promoting Christianity after FFRF raised constitutional concerns.

A local resident informed FFRF that the Rowan County Sheriff’s Office posted on its official Facebook page on April 3 in observance of Good Friday. The post said, “Please keep in mind the importance of what this day is about & what Jesus did for each of us!” Additionally, the Sheriff’s Office posted on its Facebook page a photo that read, “Happy Easter ‘He is not here for he has risen just as he said’ Mathew [sic] 28:6.”

“Rowan County’s residents trust their law enforcement officials to attend to their secular duties and treat all community members equally,” FFRF Patrick O’Reiley Legal Fellow Charlotte R. Gude wrote to Sheriff Matt Sparks. 

When a sheriff’s office promotes religion, particularly a single faith, through its social media accounts, it signals government favoritism toward religion over nonreligion and Christianity over all other faiths. By encouraging residents to “keep in mind” “what Jesus did for each of us,” the sheriff’s office abandoned the religious neutrality required of government agencies. Such messaging marginalizes residents who are nonreligious or belong to minority faiths. Data show 38 percent of the American population is non-Christian, including almost 30 percent who are nonreligious. Such exclusionary content sends a message that they are second-class citizens to Rowan County community members who subscribe to minority faiths or no religion at all.

Following FFRF’s letter, Sheriff Matt Sparks confirmed by email that the posts had been removed.

“FFRF takes these kinds of violations very seriously. When members of law enforcement use their position to push their own religious beliefs, community members who do not adhere to those same beliefs undoubtedly feel less safe,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor says. “The sheriff’s office must avoid religious endorsements or messaging in all of its official communications, including on social media.” 

With more than 41,000 members and several chapters nationwide, including nearly 300 members and a chapter in Kentucky, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America.

The post Kentucky sheriff removes unconstitutional Easter posts after FFRF intervention appeared first on Freedom From Religion Foundation.

An LGBTQ arts venue opened in a former church in Australia. Christians shut it down.

This newsletter is free and goes out to over 25,000 subscribers, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can subscribe via Patreon or the Subscribe button below! You can also make one-time donations through Venmo, CashApp, or PayPal.

Subscribe now

A new performance space in Sydney, Australia meant to showcase queer artists has been shut down after one night—all because the landlord and a group of Christian protesters objected to what happened onstage.

At the center of the conflict is the fact that this building used to be a church. Used to be. The building was deconsecrated in the 1930s and has since housed both a children’s school and a theater. Whatever religious significance it once had officially disappeared nearly a century ago.

More recently, with no one in the building, the New South Wales arts agency Create NSW awarded a $100,000 grant to Divine Playhouse to turn it into an inclusive space for artists. Its parent organization also pledged to invest $650,000 to support “more than 1,500 artists, producers, performers, technicians, small creative businesses and staff” over the one-year lease.

The organizers initially called it the “Unholy Playhouse” but abandoned that name after religious complaints. That concession was apparently not enough. When the venue finally opened last Wednesday, its artists enthusiastically embraced religious irreverence:

Catholic activists cited photos and videos shared from the venue’s opening night, including one of a performer dressed as a pig offering McDonald’s french fries as holy communion; performers dressed as nuns waving sex toys; and drag queens reenacting the birth of Christ.

I don’t know what show that was, but I want tickets.

It doesn’t matter if that production was offensive or not. It was for a willing audience inside a building that hadn’t been a church for generations. No one was forced to attend, much less applaud. Yet religious people protested outside and demanded the government rescind its $100,000 grant:

… the Catholic men’s group Fit for the Kingdom and Christian brotherhood the Prodigal Sons have claimed that the venue itself “mocks religious faith”, with about 70 supporters rallying there on Wednesday night and demanding that the New South Wales government withdraw a $100,000 grant…

The protesters essentially argued a former church could not possibly be a home for decidedly un-Christian art. One even argued that these performers could go anywhere else in the city:

“There is no shortage of venues across Sydney where the LGBTQ community is free to express itself and its artistic creativity,” a spokesperson from the Prodigal Sons said. “The selection of a former church is a deliberate and conscious decision.”

Or maybe it’s just a great performance space. Former churches have been converted to everything from skate parks to bars. The architecture and ambiance is the selling point. Just because Christians once occupied the space doesn’t mean it remains sacred forever.

Nevertheless, the protest had an impact because the next day, the owners of that building (“KCSYD Pty Ltd”) canceled the lease. They cited an obscure law that dates back to 1842 to make their case, though lawyers say that argument has never been tested in court. The company also said performers “insulted and mocked the sincerely held religious beliefs of millions of Christian Australians” and argued that future protests could disturb “adjoining properties and to the general public,” making their decision “reasonable.” That’s a textbook case of a heckler’s veto; they’re rewarding the people threatening disruption by silencing the target of their protests.

(Also, it’s hard to believe any landlord would lease space to “Heaps Gay Events” without understanding what that might entail…)

Making the landlord’s sudden decision even harder to swallow is the fact that there’s already a proposal on the table to tear down the building (along with nearby structures) in order to build luxury apartments at a cost of over $55 million. Apparently drag queens performing in the former church is a step too far, but demolishing the building is perfectly fine. That also means the decision to cancel the lease feels pointless; Divine Playhouse would have been out of there by this time next year.

For a short while, the group couldn’t even speak to supporters directly on social media because the platforms shut down their accounts on grounds of potentially offensive speech. But once that was cleared up and the accounts were reopened, Divine Playhouse explained the situation, saying they were exploring their legal options.

This has now become a battle about free speech and censorship. As the group pointed out, “Not every work will resonate with every person, but the freedom to make and experience art is part of what makes an open, creative and democratic society.” They’re currently looking for an alternative space. They’re also asking supporters to join them in protest of this censorship this weekend:

A fundraiser has also been created to help Heaps Gay founder Kat Dopper cover legal expenses. And a petition with nearly 18,000 signatures is calling on NSW Premier Chris Minns to provide emergency funding to the group to help them relocate and ensure they can be a home for the arts without censorship.

The good news in all this chaos is that several politicians understood the stakes and publicly sided with the artists.

When speaking at the venue’s opening on Wednesday, [Sydney’s deputy lord mayor, Jess] Miller celebrated the space as a place for community. “What happens between us when we come to places like this is we create [like] cathedral communities that are ultimately so much stronger for being together than for being split,” she said.

…

The NSW Greens MP Cate Faehrmann said Divine Playhouse should be celebrated as the kind of venue Sydney “desperately needs more of” and called on the state minister for music and the night-time economy, John Graham, to “publicly defend Divine Playhouse, its organisers, staff, artists and patrons”.

“[Graham] should make it clear that the government will stand with artists, venue operators and Sydney’s queer community, not with those trying to shut them down.”

Sydney’s Lord Mayor Clover Moore was also supportive, saying that “Sydney’s queer communities deserve places to create, perform, laugh, dance and belong” and that the closure of the venue was “disappointing and concerning.”

Not everyone was on board, of course:

The NSW premier, Chris Minns, told the Daily Telegraph government officials were investigating the grant application made by the venue’s organisers and said it was “hard to believe” the building was the “best location” for the performances by Divine Playhouse’s artists.

“There are millions of [other] venues,” he said.

The independent NSW MP Alex Greenwich said Sydney needed a wake-up call.

“What has happened with ‘Divine Playhouse’ is part of a worrying trend and I’m concerned that Sydney’s reputation is suffering as a global city,” he said.

James Thorpe, the “vice-chair of the Night Time Industries Association, founder of Odd Culture Group and a PhD researcher in nightlife safety,” penned an excellent column highlighting why this fight mattered. As someone who grew up in a church, he said this was the ideal space to push back against religion:

There is something rather audacious in telling queer people raised under the shadow of the cross that Christian iconography belongs exclusively to those who remained faithful to the institution. We are entitled to wrestle with it, parody it and subvert it. In many cases, it is part of our story too.

He noted that there are plenty of conservative Christians who make horribly offensive statements about LGBTQ people, yet he never sees calls for churches to be shut down as a result:

I find those views profoundly offensive but I have never demanded church doors be closed or tried to control what is said from their pulpits. I have never suggested [homophobic bigot Lyle] Shelton should be denied the taxpayer-funded salary he is seeking in the NSW parliament because I find his politics offensive. Nor have I demanded that religious organisations return the immense tax concessions they receive because I object to the speech they enable.

…

A liberal society cannot reserve public support for ideas nobody objects to. There would be precious little culture, politics or religion left. Christians may preach, protest and stand outside a queer venue and pray. They may tell me my life is sinful and my family is wrong. Queer artists have the same right to make art that is confronting, irreverent and, yes, offensive.

That is the bargain we make in a liberal democracy. It has to go both ways.

And then, in a reminder that the culture wars we see in the U.S. are no different from the ones in Australia, he added: “Australia is not a Christian nation.”

That’s exactly the point. If Christian groups can shut down a queer venue simply by protesting loudly enough, then every theater, museum, and library should be alarmed. Anything can be a “disturbance” if opponents complain aggressively enough. That’s why punishing the targets of that harassment emboldens the would-be censors.

Ideally, this decision to cancel the lease will backfire. The Christian groups will be mocked for their outrage. The landlords will receive negative press. And Divine Playhouse will hopefully get donations, publicity, and public support, which could mean larger crowds at future events and an even better space to hold events. The people who wanted these performances to disappear may have created far more demand for them.

This isn’t just about being offensive for the sake of it. Conservative churches have spent years telling LGBTQ people that their identities and relationships are sinful. It’s why reclaiming Christian symbols, through mockery or obscenity, is so damn satisfying. For so many people who have been harmed by religion, the irreverence is cathartic.

That’s why offensive art should be protected—and sometimes even celebrated. It’s not that every piece is brilliant. It’s that the very existence of this sort of art helps take away the power of those symbols. The freedom of expression matters far more than how some people interpret that expression.

Christians were free to hate the performance. They were free to protest outside, pray for everyone involved, and warn the public that God was furious about the sex toys and french fry communion. But they weren’t entitled to shut down the venue. The “offense” caused by one evening of queer performance is nothing compared to the lifelong harm inflicted by religious zealots who tell LGBTQ people their very existence is an affront to God.

Mainstream Christianity Is Bizarre

Do You Simply CHOOSE What You Believe? feat. @godlessengineer

Atheist Experience 24×7 Live Stream!

New survey suggests Australia’s Census may dramatically undercount the non-religious

This newsletter is free and goes out to over 25,000 subscribers, but it’s only able to sustain itself due to the support I receive from a small percentage of regular readers. Would you please consider becoming one of those supporters? You can subscribe via Patreon or the Subscribe button below! You can also make one-time donations through Venmo, CashApp, or PayPal.

Subscribe now

PERSONAL NOTE: Tonight, I’ll be interviewing Congressman Jared Huffman, the only openly Humanist member of Congress, about his new book No Prophets: The Fight to Save Democracy from Christian Nationalism (affiliate link). It’s a fascinating exploration of the impact religion has on our government.

If you’d like to tune in, you can do so here!

Australia’s Bureau of Statistics conducts its census every five years, and it’s a valuable tool to understand the shifting religious demographics in the country. Unfortunately, because of the way the religion question is worded, the results will once again severely undercount the percentage of non-religious people.

That’s not speculation either. We can now say that with evidence thanks to a new survey sponsored by the “Census – Not Religious? Mark No Religion” campaign.

We’ll get to their results in a moment, but it helps to understand the dilemma.

All of this is a topic of conversation because the percentage of Australians with no religious affiliation has jumped from 22.2% in 2011, to 30.1% in 2016, to an astonishing 38.9% in 2021, marking a rapid shift away from organized religion.

While Christianity was still the most popular religion in Australia in 2021, that year marked the first time the majority of Australians said they were not Christian. There was even reason to believe that, by 2026, non-religious people could outnumber Christians given that 46% of Millennial Australians had no religion, compared to 30% of Baby Boomers.

But all of that really depends on how the religion question is worded… and that question has been the subject of all kinds of controversies over the years.

Here’s how the question looked in 2011:

You can see that “No religion” was placed in No Man’s Land at the bottom of a long list of options… including Other! It was so confusing! How many people saw the first options on the list and just filled in the bubble for whatever religion they were raised in regardless of what they actually believed? It was a horrible way to get accurate information.

In 2016, the question got a little better. “No religion” was placed at the top of the list, making it much more likely that people who left organized religion would see it and mark it.

But even then, it wasn’t perfect.

People without religion usually don’t use that language; they might use a specific label (e.g. atheist, agnostic, Humanist, etc). Plus, the way the question was laid out, it wasn’t clear whether a Humanist should fill in “No religion” or write in “Humanist” under “Other” like the instructions literally told them to do! (While the data collectors would eventually group those together, it was still confusing!)

There was another problem as well: The question itself—”What is the person’s religion?”—was biased because it assumed people were religious. It was coercive, in a way, because it implied you should have a religion and that not having one put you in a separate category.

Despite those legitimate complaints, the 2021 census posed the religion question the same way. (It was arguably worse than before because “Atheism” was explicitly listed as an example of “Other” as opposed to “No religion.”)

The bottom line is that the number of non-religious Australians—a number that has been on the rise for decades now—may be even larger than the census results show in part because of the misleading nature of the question itself.

Then consider all the other reasons people may have walked away from organized religion in the past decade. Since the 2016 census, marriage equality got legalized. When subjects like euthanasia and abortion became political battles, conservative religious views lost the argument over and over again. More Australians have come to realize that their sense of moral decency is incompatible with the bigoted views of the most powerful religious groups in the country. And on top of that, there have been plenty of scandals involving the most prominent Christian preachers in the country, including Brian Houston of Hillsong.

We’ve also seen campaigns by non-theistic groups urging people to mark “No religion” on the census as opposed to the more frivolous “Jedi.” They even put up billboards telling people to be honest if they’re not religious rather than filling in the religion in which they were raised or one that they only call themselves for cultural reasons.

That’s why there’s been such a jump in the “No religion” numbers. Australia is witnessing a massive shift in religious identity, and that’s true no matter how poorly the question is worded on the census.

But accurate information is important.

When Australia was gearing up for its 2026 census, atheists once again urged officials to ask the religion question in a way designed to obtain more honest results. In fact, in 2023, a coalition of non-theistic organizations in Australia called on the Bureau of Statistics to change the question by simply asking it in two parts:

1. “Does the person have a religion?”

2. (If yes) “What is the person’s religion?”

By asking it that way, not only would the assumption that everyone has a religion disappear, it would allow people to offer their own religious labels rather than picking from a pre-selected list of popular ones.

Indeed, the Bureau of Statistics tested that very model to see if it could work.

Unfortunately, last year, the Bureau announced it would not be making any changes to the religion question in 2026, mostly so it would be easier to compare future results with previous iterations of the question. They added that they also didn’t have enough time to test different variations of the question and analyze the potential consequences, which they would need to do before implementing it.

The feedback from consultation highlighted that it is not possible to design a question(s) that will meet the range of needs identified. In addition, understanding the impact that a question change would have on response patterns and comparability between Censuses requires a more extensive testing program than was possible within the 2026 Census timeframes.

Following the extended consultation, the ABS has decided to retain the question design used in the 2021 Census. This includes the question wording ‘What is the person’s religion?’, the 10 response categories, and a write-in box for other religions.

That said, the religion section will include additional instructions to “encourage respondents to use the write-in box if their religion… is not one of the response categories.” They will also remove “Atheism” as an example of “Other” so that there’s less confusion about which box atheists should mark.

There may be another reason they didn’t change the question, though: direct lobbying from powerful religious groups. The Rationalist Society of Australia’s Si Gladman published evidence that the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference literally asked the government not to change the question in 2026 because it would lead to “unwarranted complication for people who wish to record their religion.” Which is a fancy way of saying the Catholic Church doesn’t want the public to realize it’s rapidly losing its grip on society. The government didn’t mention the lobbying when explaining their reason for not changing the wording.

For that reason, the “Census – Not Religious? Mark No Religion” campaign decided to run its own version of the census with the question properly worded. They commissioned an outside group, Essential Media, to ask respondents two versions of the religion question to 2,000 people each: the official version… and the proposed revision.

For the first group (the official version), 43% of respondents marked “No religion,” which would be a small but predictable increase from 2021 if it actually played out that way.

But. The revised version of the question led to completely different results.

… when given a “yes/no” option first (“do you have a religion?”), followed by a text box to fill in if “yes” was selected, 54% of respondents picked “no”. That translates to about 2 million more adults without religion.

As predicted, the more accurate version of the question suggests an even less religious population.

Michael Dove, spokesperson for the Census – Not Religious? campaign, said the new polling provided the clearest insight into the extent of the impact of the leading question.

“We’ve long known that the leading nature of the Census religion question significantly inflates the data in favour of religion and undercounts the non-religious population,” he said.

“The Essential Research poll is the first to test the actual question that the ABS had proposed using versus the flawed question design that it decided to re-use. So it provides the best insight yet into the impact of the bias in the question being used in the 2026 Census.”

He said the ABS needed to fix the question for future Censuses.

He’s not kidding about fixing it, adding, “We’ve already got our eyes on 2031.”

While the census question they plan to use is disappointing because it won’t be as accurate as it could be, the silver lining is that the campaign to get more Australians to mark “No religion” will likely be larger than ever. That means there will be even more opportunities for Australians to realize this is a simple way to declare their freedom from religion once and for all.

Hell, there’s even a theme song (though this one is being released by a different organization working toward the same goal):

Despite undercounting the number of non-religious Australians, there’s still reason to believe Christians will finally be outnumbered when the results are finally released in 2027. Whatever the difference turns out to be, though, keep in mind the actual gap is likely much larger.

(Portions of this article were published earlier)

Religion Can’t Hide Anymore