Humanism is now an officially recognized religion throughout the Virginia prison system after FFRF stepped in and helped out a prisoner there.

Christopher Landeck, a freethinking inmate at Coffeewood Correctional Center in Virginia, contacted FFRF because his prison had meeting options for Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims and a variety of other minority religious groups, but no opportunity for nonreligious inmates to meet and converse about their beliefs.

"Where inmates are demoralized, dehumanized, subjugated and silenced on a daily basis, humanist ideals should help restore the humanity and fill the vacuity that life behind bars carves out of the individual," Landeck wrote.

Landeck applied to start a humanist study group with equal access to prison chapel resources, but was denied because the Virginia Department of Corrections (VADOC) did not recognize humanism on its list of "Religions Approved to Operate in DOC Facilities." Because of that, Landeck was being effectively denied the opportunity to meet with like-minded prisoners to discuss his beliefs.

FFRF Staff Attorney Sam Grover sent a letter to the VADOC in February 2016 to argue for equal access to prison chapel resources for nonreligious inmates. After a back and forth between FFRF and the prison, humanism became an officially recognized religion throughout the Virginia prison system as of June 22. Subsequently, Landeck's group was also approved at Coffeewood Correctional.

"Thanks to FFRF, we have the ability to offer an alternative lifestance for inmates not affiliated with traditional religions and nonbelievers that only attend religious services in order to feel part of something larger than themselves, " Landeck wrote to FFRF. "Freethinking inmates are now excited to be able to organize into groups of like-minded individuals to talk about substantive issues of the day, philosophy, art and culture, and most importantly, a productive secular life after prison.
Inmates who adopt a worldview of inclusiveness will find themselves in a much healthier paradigm and better prepared for re-entry into society."

With a humanist study group now operating at the prison, the participants are eager for educational materials about atheism and freethought. So FFRF Co-President Dan Barker and FFRF agreed to donate 11 books to the prison chapel library so that all inmates have access to nonreligious views.

"It is our sincerest wish that these books will help enlighten many inmates on what it means to be 'good without God' and inspire them to lead a purpose-filled life," Barker wrote to Chaplain Burke at the facility. The donated books were written by Barker (Life Drive Purpose, The Good Atheist, Godless, God: The Most Unpleasant Character in Fiction), FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor (Woe to the Women: The Bible Tells Me So, Women without Superstition: 'No Gods — No Masters') and FFRF founder Anne Nicol Gaylor (Lead Us Not Into Penn Station), among others.

If you would like to donate books or other materials in "new" condition to the humanism group at the prison, please send them, along with a list of their titles and retail values, to:

Chaplain Burke
Coffeewood Correctional Center
P.O. Box 500
Mitchells, VA 22729-0500

More than 26 million voters with no religion could turn out on Election Day Nov. 8, dwarfing previous records and providing the power to sway the direction of the country for the first time in history, according to an analysis from the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

The ranks of atheists, agnostics and those with no religious affiliation — the "Nones" — have increased by 19 million since Barack Obama was first elected president in 2008, according to Pew Research, making them the fastest growing "religious" group in America. In 2004, the Nones comprised just 16 percent of all American adults, but have now grown to represent a quarter of all adults and a third of Millennials.

Despite their size, the Nones have been underrepresented at the ballot box. According to the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), religiously unaffiliated voters comprised just 12 percent of all voters in the 2012 presidential election.

However, their participation is set to spike in 2016, according to FFRF's new analysis of data on religious affiliation and voting participation, drawn from numerous sources.

Popular vote projections by FiveThirtyEight.com in mid-October showed Democrat Hillary Clinton with a lead (49%) over Republican Donald Trump (43%), with the remainder of voters supporting third-party candidates.

Using the 2012 popular vote (128.6 million) as a base, we can project that more than 63 million votes would go to Clinton and approximately 55 million would go to Trump using those percentages.

How would that break down by religious affiliation? Approximately 30 percent of Clinton's supporters are religiously unaffiliated and 13 percent of Trump supporters meet that definition, according to PRRI.

That means Clinton could receive almost 19 million votes and Trump could receive more than 7 million votes from the Nones. That's more than 26 million projected votes for the major party candidates, a more than 70% increase from the 15 million Nones who turned out during the 2012 election.

"This election could be a flashpoint where secular voters finally eclipse other major religious groups in terms of turnout and influence," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "It's time that candidates acknowledge our presence and commit to keeping religion out of government."

Earlier this year, FFRF launched its "I'm Secular and I Vote" campaign to mobilize voters across the country through national TV, billboard and bus campaign ads, featuring young Millennial voters. FFRF is also enlisting students on college campuses and launching a digital marketing campaign to reach voters online. Ninety-six percent of FFRF's membership is registered to vote, according to a member survey.

"The next president will have the power to determine the direction of the Supreme Court for a generation," says Gaylor. "We expect secular voters to come out in force and make their voices heard."

There are a few ways you can donate to FFRF, including directly through our website, through the CFC or AmazonSmile.

If you are a federal employee, you may now make donations to FFRF though the CFC (Combined Federal Campaign) until Dec. 15. If you wish to help FFRF through this campaign, the CFC code to designate your contribution to FFRF is 32519.

It is recommended that all CFC donors check the box to include their name and mailing address (in addition to e-mail) with the donation. Donors will receive an acknowledgment from FFRF when we receive pledge notification (throughout the year).

From the CFC website: "The CFC is the official workplace giving campaign of the federal government. The mission of the CFC is to promote and support philanthropy through a program that is employee focused, cost-efficient and effective in providing federal employees the opportunity to improve the quality of life for all. The CFC is the world's largest and most successful annual workplace charity campaign."

Another way to donate automatically is through AmazonSmile. It's a simple way for you to support FFRF (or other charitable organizations) every time you shop, at no cost to you. When you shop at smile.amazon.com, you'll find the exact same prices, selection and shopping experience as Amazon.com, with the added bonus that Amazon will donate a portion of the purchase price to your favorite charitable organization. Visit our AmazonSmile donation designation page and select the Freedom From Religion Foundation to donate 0.5% of eligible purchases to FFRF.

The AmazonSmile Foundation is a 501(c)(3) private foundation created by Amazon to administer the AmazonSmile program. All donation amounts generated by the program are remitted to the AmazonSmile Foundation. In turn, the AmazonSmile Foundation donates those amounts to the charitable organizations selected by their customers. Amazon pays all expenses of the AmazonSmile Foundation; they are not deducted from the donation amounts.

Muhammad Shohiduzzaman received $2,000 in late September from FFRF as a Cliff Richards Student Activist.

By Muhammad Shohiduzzaman

My name is Muhammad Shohiduzzaman and my pen name is Paplu Bangali. I am a blogger, a student activist and a theatre activist in Bangladesh. I am an atheist, even though I come from a conventional Muslim family.

I was born in a small village in the Sylhet District in Bangladesh. It's a multicultural area where Christian, Hindu and Buddhist religious minorities live among the Muslim majority. People in my village are very religious and conservative.
I attended a government primary school and then at the age of 14 I was sent to my uncle's house in Upazlia to get a better education. After finishing my secondary education there, I enrolled in business studies at Madan Mohan College in Sylhet. That was when I first got involved with social, cultural and political movements, including theatre activism.

For the last decade, I have been working on various social issues, including human rights of religious minorities, violence against women, religious fanaticism, and secular and science based-education.

I have been writing in the areas of freethinking, criticizing Islamic fundamentalism and repression of religious minorities. Recently, I have been active in raising voices against the killings of bloggers. I organized and led protests and rallies demanding justice for all these murdered bloggers and freethinkers in Bangladesh. Many national print and electronic media interviewed me about this movement because we have been demanding the arrests of the killers.

As a civil society activist, I founded and/or worked with a number of organizations and political networks:

Bangladesh Student Union (BSU): I have been a member of BSU since 2010 and the ex-president of the Sylhet district committee. BSU was established in 1952 and is an independent, democratic, leftist political network that primarily works for the rights of students in Bangladesh. Its membership exceeds 20,000 students. The mission of BSU is to establish a nondiscriminatory science-based secular and uniform education system.

Bangladesh Udichi Shilpigosthi: I have been a member since 2008. It is the largest anti-sectarian, progressive and voluntary organization in Bangladesh, which plays a significant role in all secular and cultural movements in Bangladesh. Since its inception, the organization is engaged in raising awareness among the public through cultural activities — songs, dances, recitations, dramas, films, fine arts and literary works.

Youth for National Interest: I am the founder of Jatyo Sharthe Amra Tarunno (Youth for National Interest), which was established in 2013. I worked as the coordinator until I left Bangladesh in March 2016. We organized civil society campaigns against all forms of sexual abuse and violence faced by children and women.

Blogger & Online Activist Forum: I am also a founding member and organizer of this group in Sylhet since 2012. This forum promotes freethinking and the rights of online bloggers and other freethinkers. We organized various civil society campaigns against arrests and killings of bloggers.

Transparency International-Bangladesh: The Youth Engagement and Support (YES) group is a movement initiated by Transparency International-Bangladesh (TIB) to engage and empower the youth of Bangladesh to address issues related to corruption. I worked as a volunteer in this group from 2006 to 2012, helping raise awareness against corruption, organizing and participating at protests against sexual violence faced by women and children, and in other issues related to women's empowerment. I performed in different street dramas as a theater actor. I was also a scriptwriter for these dramas.

As a result of my activism, I was physically attacked three times by Islamic fundamentalists

• On Dec. 23, 2013, a religious extremist group threatened to kill me. I reported this to the Sylhet police, but they did not respond. Furthermore, a local religious extremist group organized a procession against bloggers and freethinkers in Sylhet, and shouted slogans against me and other bloggers. The group also threatened to kill us. I found out that I am at the top of its list because of my anti-religious fundamentalism activities and my demand for justice against the murdered bloggers.

• On Jan. 11, 2014, I was attacked by a group of fundamentalists with the intent to kill me. Fortunately, I managed to save my life; however my head was injured and my right hand was fractured. I stayed in the university medical facility for two days. I was attacked because I organized the protest with Youth for National Interest days earlier. The protest condemned Bangladesh's widespread attacks against religious minorities, and we demanded justice for victims of human rights violations.

• On May 12, 2015, I organized a protest in Sylhet against the murder of blogger Ananta Bijoy Dash after he was killed by fundamentalists. During the protest, members of the ruling party's student league attempted to attack me because I was the main organizer. I was taken to a safe place by other protesters. However, I then found out that some of my activist friends were physically attacked by them.

• On Feb. 4, 2016, I was attacked while I was traveling by rickshaw to my home in Sylhet. Six unidentified persons dragged me out of the rickshaw and called me "nasthik," which means atheist. Then they physically assaulted me. Fortunately, bystanders intervened and saved me from the attackers. I reported the attack to the local police, but they did not take any steps for my safety. They just told me to leave Bangladesh because it was not safe for me to stay.

The current Bangladesh government keeps silent over the killings of bloggers and freethinkers because the government is keen to maintain its ties to the fundamentalist groups in order to hold onto its political power. Therefore, there has been no action taken against the fundamentalist groups, so the religious extremist groups, as well as ruling party's supporters, targeted me.

I made a general complaint to the police station two times regarding the attacks on me. However, the police failed to take any action. After the incident on Jan. 11, 2014, with the assistance of my political friends, I sought temporary relocation to a rural village in Bangladesh. After that, I returned to the city, and changed my place of residence. Following the incident on May 12, 2015, I took similar precautions and changed my residence again. After the incident on Feb. 4,, 2016, I moved to Dhaka with the help of my fellow bloggers.

In Dhaka, I contacted Forum Asia and it, in collaboration with INFORM Human Rights Documentation Centre in Sri Lanka, assisted me in temporarily relocating to Sri Lanka. I stayed there for five months under a tourist visa. Then in August of this year, I was relocated to the Philippines with the help of PAHRA (Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates).

Several of my colleagues, including Nazimuddin Samad, who denounced the last attack I faced, were killed while I was in Sri Lanka. Such attacks clearly indicate that returning to Bangladesh is impossible and life-threatening. Therefore, I am in need of a long-term relocation. Currently I am looking for an opportunity to enroll in a post-graduate course.

So while I vow to continue my activism and education, I must do it outside of Bangladesh.

Muhammad Shohiduzzaman received $2,000 in late September from FFRF as a Cliff Richards Student Activist.

By Muhammad Shohiduzzaman

My name is Muhammad Shohiduzzaman and my pen name is Paplu Bangali. I am a blogger, a student activist and a theatre activist in Bangladesh. I am an atheist, even though I come from a conventional Muslim family.

I was born in a small village in the Sylhet District in Bangladesh. It's a multicultural area where Christian, Hindu and Buddhist religious minorities live among the Muslim majority. People in my village are very religious and conservative.
I attended a government primary school and then at the age of 14 I was sent to my uncle's house in Upazlia to get a better education. After finishing my secondary education there, I enrolled in business studies at Madan Mohan College in Sylhet. That was when I first got involved with social, cultural and political movements, including theatre activism.

For the last decade, I have been working on various social issues, including human rights of religious minorities, violence against women, religious fanaticism, and secular and science based-education.

I have been writing in the areas of freethinking, criticizing Islamic fundamentalism and repression of religious minorities. Recently, I have been active in raising voices against the killings of bloggers. I organized and led protests and rallies demanding justice for all these murdered bloggers and freethinkers in Bangladesh. Many national print and electronic media interviewed me about this movement because we have been demanding the arrests of the killers.

As a civil society activist, I founded and/or worked with a number of organizations and political networks:

Bangladesh Student Union (BSU): I have been a member of BSU since 2010 and the ex-president of the Sylhet district committee. BSU was established in 1952 and is an independent, democratic, leftist political network that primarily works for the rights of students in Bangladesh. Its membership exceeds 20,000 students. The mission of BSU is to establish a nondiscriminatory science-based secular and uniform education system.

Bangladesh Udichi Shilpigosthi: I have been a member since 2008. It is the largest anti-sectarian, progressive and voluntary organization in Bangladesh, which plays a significant role in all secular and cultural movements in Bangladesh. Since its inception, the organization is engaged in raising awareness among the public through cultural activities — songs, dances, recitations, dramas, films, fine arts and literary works.

Youth for National Interest: I am the founder of Jatyo Sharthe Amra Tarunno (Youth for National Interest), which was established in 2013. I worked as the coordinator until I left Bangladesh in March 2016. We organized civil society campaigns against all forms of sexual abuse and violence faced by children and women.

Blogger & Online Activist Forum: I am also a founding member and organizer of this group in Sylhet since 2012. This forum promotes freethinking and the rights of online bloggers and other freethinkers. We organized various civil society campaigns against arrests and killings of bloggers.

Transparency International-Bangladesh: The Youth Engagement and Support (YES) group is a movement initiated by Transparency International-Bangladesh (TIB) to engage and empower the youth of Bangladesh to address issues related to corruption. I worked as a volunteer in this group from 2006 to 2012, helping raise awareness against corruption, organizing and participating at protests against sexual violence faced by women and children, and in other issues related to women's empowerment. I performed in different street dramas as a theater actor. I was also a scriptwriter for these dramas.

As a result of my activism, I was physically attacked three times by Islamic fundamentalists

• On Dec. 23, 2013, a religious extremist group threatened to kill me. I reported this to the Sylhet police, but they did not respond. Furthermore, a local religious extremist group organized a procession against bloggers and freethinkers in Sylhet, and shouted slogans against me and other bloggers. The group also threatened to kill us. I found out that I am at the top of its list because of my anti-religious fundamentalism activities and my demand for justice against the murdered bloggers.

• On Jan. 11, 2014, I was attacked by a group of fundamentalists with the intent to kill me. Fortunately, I managed to save my life; however my head was injured and my right hand was fractured. I stayed in the university medical facility for two days. I was attacked because I organized the protest with Youth for National Interest days earlier. The protest condemned Bangladesh's widespread attacks against religious minorities, and we demanded justice for victims of human rights violations.

• On May 12, 2015, I organized a protest in Sylhet against the murder of blogger Ananta Bijoy Dash after he was killed by fundamentalists. During the protest, members of the ruling party's student league attempted to attack me because I was the main organizer. I was taken to a safe place by other protesters. However, I then found out that some of my activist friends were physically attacked by them.

• On Feb. 4, 2016, I was attacked while I was traveling by rickshaw to my home in Sylhet. Six unidentified persons dragged me out of the rickshaw and called me "nasthik," which means atheist. Then they physically assaulted me. Fortunately, bystanders intervened and saved me from the attackers. I reported the attack to the local police, but they did not take any steps for my safety. They just told me to leave Bangladesh because it was not safe for me to stay.

The current Bangladesh government keeps silent over the killings of bloggers and freethinkers because the government is keen to maintain its ties to the fundamentalist groups in order to hold onto its political power. Therefore, there has been no action taken against the fundamentalist groups, so the religious extremist groups, as well as ruling party's supporters, targeted me.

I made a general complaint to the police station two times regarding the attacks on me. However, the police failed to take any action. After the incident on Jan. 11, 2014, with the assistance of my political friends, I sought temporary relocation to a rural village in Bangladesh. After that, I returned to the city, and changed my place of residence. Following the incident on May 12, 2015, I took similar precautions and changed my residence again. After the incident on Feb. 4,, 2016, I moved to Dhaka with the help of my fellow bloggers.

In Dhaka, I contacted Forum Asia and it, in collaboration with INFORM Human Rights Documentation Centre in Sri Lanka, assisted me in temporarily relocating to Sri Lanka. I stayed there for five months under a tourist visa. Then in August of this year, I was relocated to the Philippines with the help of PAHRA (Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates).

Several of my colleagues, including Nazimuddin Samad, who denounced the last attack I faced, were killed while I was in Sri Lanka. Such attacks clearly indicate that returning to Bangladesh is impossible and life-threatening. Therefore, I am in need of a long-term relocation. Currently I am looking for an opportunity to enroll in a post-graduate course.

So while I vow to continue my activism and education, I must do it outside of Bangladesh.

Madeline Ziegler and Ryan Jayne have started their second years as legal fellows for FFRF.

From September 2015 to August 2016, Jayne was the Diane Uhl Legal Fellow and Ziegler was the Cornelius Vander Broek Legal Fellow. The Diane Uhl Legal Fellowship was set up in Diane's honor by an FFRF donor interested in furthering FFRF's legal work.

Ziegler's fellowship was named for a member leaving a bequest large enough to cover the year-long legal fellowship.

"We are so grateful to this member, a friend of benefactor Diane Uhl, who prefers not to be named, for making possible the start of a legal fellowship for FFRF," says Dan Barker, FFRF co-president. "This will permit FFRF to reward deserving legal interns to work for one to two years for FFRF as attorneys, and to broaden the net to attract other recent law school grads seeking short-term fellowships to work for the separation of state and church."

For the next year, Jayne will be known as the Eric & Elaine Stone Legal Fellow, just endowed by FFRF's generous members Eric and Elaine Stone ($50,000). Ziegler's second year is being paid for by a generous bequest from Patrick O'Reiley. The rest of that bequest has gone into a legal fellowship endowment, whose interest will be used to help pay at least part of legal fellowships over the years.

Individuals who contribute $50,000 to FFRF may have the legal fellowship named for them.

Name: Roger Daleiden

Where and when I was born: Milwaukee on the vernal equinox (March 20).

Education: University of Wisconsin-Madison (MFA in fine art painting and printmaking), UW-Stout (BS in studio art).

Family: Mary Jane, and cat Neeko.

How I came to work at FFRF: I was looking to change jobs after five years as a graphic designer at a catalog company when I heard of a graphic design position open at FFRF. I was eager to get back into an editorial environment that is focused on education and cultural advancement.

What I do here: I'm here to help create our newspaper, brochures and other printed materials to assist in communicating our message to promote nontheism and help defend the separation between church and state.

What I like best about it: It is important to me that the job that I do helps to improve the lives of others, by promoting knowledge and reason over myth and fantasy.

What gets old about it: Parking in downtown Madison is very hard to find on our little isthmus between lakes Mendota and Monona.
I spend a lot of time thinking about: Planning my next outdoor adventure. It's early fall now, so I'm still obsessed with bicycling and hiking.

I spend little if any time thinking about: The massive amount of time I wasted in mandatory church services.

My religious upbringing was: Roman Catholic. I was sent to Catholic schools from the second grade until the end of my sophomore year of high school. I decided that enough was enough, and so I transferred to a public high school. I have never looked back.

My doubts about religion started: I have always been interested in science and science fiction. As I learned more about scientific fact, modern religion seemed more similar to primitive mythologies that were trying — and failing — to explain the natural world and the universe.

Things I like: I am fairly absorbed with outdoor activities like hiking, bicycling, paddling, and downhill skiing.

Things I smite: Our current political climate, where politicians wave the bible and claim to be religious, when in reality they are just pandering for votes to maintain their money and power.

In my golden years: Some day I hope to get back to producing fine art (art for art's sake), whether it's traditional media or digital, as I still may have something to say.

Atheists and agnostics are among the wealthiest groups in the United States, based on religious affiliation.

According to the 2014 Religious Landscape Study by the Pew Research Center, 30% of atheists and 29% of agnostics have an annual household income of $100,000 or more. That is only behind Jews, Hindus, Episcopals and members of the Presbyterian Church (USA). The lowest earning group was Jehovah Witnesses, with just 4% of its members making more than $100,000 as a household.

David Masci of Pew points out that "there is a strong and proven correlation between education and income, but it's harder to know whether there also is a link between religion and wealth. What we can say is that members of some religious groups — not to mention atheists and agnostics — on average have a higher household income than others and those in the richest religious groups also tend, on average, to be better educated than most Americans."

Nearly half of Hindu adults and almost one-third of Jewish adults hold postgraduate degrees. Other factors besides education — including age, race and ethnicity — also are correlated with both religion and income.

Self-identified atheists and agnostics are among the top earners, "which may call into question any link between high levels of religious belief and wealth," writes David Masci of Pew. "Members of all these groups also are more likely to be highly educated than the general population."

Among those denominations with the lowest household income are two historically black churches, the National Baptist Convention (9% live in households with incomes of at least $100,000) and the Church of God in Christ (9%), according to Pew's data. In those two groups (plus Jehovah's Witnesses), almost half of all members have household incomes of less than $30,000 per year.

Most people know that the group of religiously unaffiliated, known as "Nones," has been growing significantly in the past decade.

But the question is why.

Surveys in the 1970s and '80s found that fewer than 10% of U.S. adults said they had no religious affiliation. Now, 23% describe themselves as atheists, agnostics or "nothing in particular."

The obvious assumption is that fewer people in the country are religious. But some argue that, instead, the increase in the "Nones," is simply because more people are "coming out of the closet," so to speak. It may be more socially acceptable now to claim that one is an atheist or agnostic or nonbeliever than it was in previous generations.

The Pew Research Center looked into the data to see if the numbers showed a "why."

According to Gregory A. Smith and Alan Cooperman of Pew, "Americans who are not religiously active and who don't hold strong religious beliefs are more likely now than similar people were in the past to say they have no religion."

But they make the point that there is more to it than that. The share of Americans with low levels of religious commitment also has been growing. Another factor is generational change.

"If you think of America as a house of many different faiths, then instead of imagining the "Nones" as a roomful of middle-aged people who used to call themselves Presbyterians, Catholics or something else but don't claim those labels anymore, imagine the unaffiliated as a few rooms rapidly filling with nonreligious people of various backgrounds, including young adults who have never had any religious affiliation in their adult lives," Smith and Cooperman write.

According to the 2014 Religious Landscape Study by Pew, there is a distinct generational pattern. Young people who are not particularly religious seem to be much more comfortable identifying as "Nones" than are older people who display a similar level of religious observance.

Almost 80% of Millennials with low levels of religious commitment describe themselves as atheists, agnostics or "nothing in particular."

Also, the share of the population that exhibits low levels of religiosity is growing. In 2007, for instance, 14% of U.S. adults had a low level of religious commitment (based on self-reported rates of attendance at worship services, daily prayer, certainty of belief in God and self-described importance of religion in people's lives). By 2014, the share of U.S. adults with low religiosity had grown to 19%.

"Millennials, who make up a growing share of the population as they reach adulthood and older Americans die off, are far less religiously observant than the older cohorts," Smith and Cooperman write. "Whether Millennials will become more religious as they age remains to be seen, but there is nothing in our data to suggest that Millennials or members of Generation X have become any more religious in recent years. If anything, they have so far become less religious as they have aged."

FFRF is concerned about a Catholic organization possibly being given charge of a public center for the homeless in Wisconsin's capital.

Dane County is planning to contract with Catholic Charities Madison, a religious group, to provide a publicly paid and affiliated resource center for the homeless. The Catholic Charities Inc. Diocese of Madison has an explicitly religious mission, stating in its tax return that it "serves as a visible presence of the Catholic Church of the Diocese of Madison by providing services that effectively address the physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of individuals and families."

While it is laudable that Catholic Charities works to address community needs, it has a distinctly Roman Catholic affiliation. The organization was recently described by the Wisconsin State Journal as being the "outreach arm of the church."

Despite assurances from Catholic Charities that it "serve[s] and employ[s] persons regardless of sexual orientation, religious, ethnic, racial or social background," FFRF questions how the organization can do so and remain true to church doctrine. It also wonders whether the resource center will be used to proselytize. Such a use of this publicly funded facility will be contrary to the dictates of the Wisconsin and U.S. Constitutions, FFRF asserts.

The homeless include women of childbearing age who are in need of reproductive medical help, as well as the LGBTQ community. Catholic ideology is officially at loggerheads with both reproductive and LGBTQ rights.

Catholic Charities has said it would not allow Planned Parenthood to provide services in the proposed center.

Catholic-related entities have refused to subscribe to the rules promulgated under the Affordable Care Act to ensure that women employees have access to contraceptive insurance. "The homeless come in all religious and nonreligious stripes, who, regardless of affiliation, are in desperate need of even-handed and secular facilities without fear of religious coercion or expectation of worship in order to utilize such services," FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor writes to Dane County Executive Joe Parisi.

"Those of us taxpayers who are nonreligious, comprising 24 percent of the population, today outnumber rank and file Roman Catholics. Non-Catholic believers — Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan, Hindu and others — are equally concerned with our tax dollars being used wisely and equitably to ameliorate conditions for the homeless in our county."

FFRF has asked a judge to declare a New Jersey county's millions of dollars in grants for church repair a violation of the state constitution.

FFRF and member David Steketee recently submitted their final brief in support of their motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit filed on Dec. 1, 2015. The suit seeks to protect the rights of New Jersey citizens to not be compelled to support religions with which they disagree.

Steketee, a taxpayer in Morris County, and FFRF are contesting grants to churches by the county's Historic Preservation Trust Fund. Since 2012, the board has awarded more than $4.6 million to such entities, which is more than 40 percent of the money disbursed by the fund.

FFRF's case relies on the religious aid prohibition in New Jersey's Constitution, which states that "No person shall . . . be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing any church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right or has deliberately and voluntarily engaged to perform."

FFRF's brief points out that the New Jersey Constitution prohibits the government from spending taxes to "repair any churches," and cites cases where the New Jersey Supreme Court and Appellate Court have enforced this provision, even under circumstances that are less clear. Morris County told the court that it didn't spend tax dollars to "repair" churches, but only to "stabilize, rehabilitate, restore, and preserve" them. "Constitutional obligations cannot be escaped with synonyms," FFRF answered. In addition, the county itself used the word "repair" to describe the challenged grants.

Morris County also argues that denying churches access to taxpayer funds would violate the churches' rights, but FFRF explained that this misses the mark. "The county may not prohibit the churches' free exercise of religion, but this does not mean Morris County must pay the churches' repair bills," FFRF asserts. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state constitutional provisions very similar to New Jersey's, despite similar arguments against them.

FFRF has asked that the court grant FFRF's summary judgment motion, declare that the grants violate the New Jersey Constitution, prohibit Morris County from issuing similar grants in the future, and require the churches to repay the grants they improperly received. The court will hear oral arguments for the case on Oct. 13. Since Morris County has spent tax dollars on the exact thing the state constitution prohibits, FFRF is confident that it will prevail. With this victory, FFRF will ensure that Morris County taxpayers will no longer be forced to finance religious buildings.

The lawsuit is being handled by attorney Paul S. Grosswald. FFRF Staff Attorney Andrew L. Seidel and Legal Fellow Ryan Jayne are co-counsel. FFRF v. Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders, Case No. C-12089-15 is in the Chancery division of Somerset County in New Jersey state court. The judge assigned to the case is Margaret Goodzeit.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is proud to announce the 2016 Brian Bolton Graduate/Older Student Essay Contest winners.

The list of awardees has seven top places and four honorable mentions. Students were asked to write 600 to 800 words on the topic of "Why God and politics/government are a dangerous mix." FFRF has offered essay competitions to college students since 1979, high school students since 1994 and graduate students since 2010.

The winners of the competition are listed below and include the award amount, age and college or university they are attending. Students who are a member of a secular student group received $100 bonuses.

FFRF awarded Stephanie $3,000.

By Stephanie Wise

It is tempting to point an accusatory finger solely at religious groups for their encroachment on the constitutional protection of the Establishment Clause.

No doubt we see examples of religious interference in government that threaten First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, among them same-sex marriage bans, the Mississippi religious-objection law and the Texas abortion law. But the wall of separation endures attacks from citizens, media and politicians on both the left and right, not uniformly from the religious, nor always intentional, indicating a larger cultural problem at root.

The culprit may be the national culture of identity politics, which unintentionally encourages cultural conflict, thereby arousing threats to the integrity of the separation of church and state.

Identity politics rightly enpowers communities with shared traits (such as ethnicity, class, sexuality or religion), which are able collectively to correct gaps in their legal protection. Yet, occasionally, we reap unpleasant side effects, such as the ubiquitous experience of animosity toward out-group individuals (which includes racism) or compulsory conformity.

This cultural rigidity sparks public culture wars, leading to expectations among the electorate that politicians will take sides. Espousing a political theory or specific policies is not enough; politicians must link themselves with an identity acceptable to their electorate or suffer rejection. Thus we find candidates' religions on full display as if a qualification for office, in oblivious contradiction to the constitutional prohibition of religious tests for federal office-holders.

We see the most obvious evidence of religious intrusion in the very public realm of presidential elections. In the March Democratic debate, an audience member directed a question to Hillary Clinton: "To whom and for what do you pray?" Clinton eventually rattled off a series of civic-religious platitudes the audience would accept. Her prayer life, of course, bears no relevance to her qualifications for the presidential office.

But demanding knowledge of a candidate's precise religious experience is clearly a demand for cultural benchmarks to categorize the candidate. Moreover, Clinton's implicit recognition of the topic's validity is most disturbing. When candidates allow such categorizing questions without protest, they give tacit approval to continued religious interference in public life and diminish the likelihood that they can effectively represent the interest of unreligious citizens.

Some candidates do protest, however obliquely. But even in these cases, their protest is often rebuffed. Earlier in the March debate, the same citizen posed a different question to Sen. Bernie Sanders: "Do you believe that God is relevant?" Sanders delivered a universalist response, stepping outside his religious identity to recognize universal human problems, which his religion also recognizes. But this response prompted the moderator, Anderson Cooper, to repeat a concern among Jewish leaders that Sanders purposely stifled public expression of his Judaism. The media thus corralled Sanders back into the frame of identity, forcing him to publicly display his religion.

These informal religious tests have no de jure power, but this religious culture yields a high percentage of citizens — 25% — who identify as less inclined to vote for candidates who profess a certain faith. The de facto religious test for political candidates harms the religious and nonreligious alike by encouraging, even compelling, habitual integration of religious identity in political contests.

This habit can inspire religious attacks on constitutional protections, but we ought to fear more its effects on foreign policy. In the January Republican debate, Ohio Gov. John Kasich advocated a Sunni-centric Middle Eastern foreign policy, couched in explicitly anti-Shia language. He first warned of a "Shia crescent" falling over the Middle East before opining that allies of the United States should "knock off the funding and teaching of radical clerics," referring to an executed Saudi Shiite.

This bizarre act of pledging support to a particular Muslim sect foolishly invests the country in the identity politics of remote regions. The convoluted interplay of theocracies, religious sects and terrorist organizations in the Middle East is difficult enough to juggle without the added challenge of politicians doling out religious favoritism. In particular, this statement threatens already-tenuous relations with Iran and other non-Sunni nations. And it stems once again from the habit of identity politics, which tells politicians that it is not only permissible, but desirable, that they should cast about their opinions on religion.

More Americans engage in politics during an election year, providing candidates the unique opportunity — and difficult responsibility — of setting the agenda for many citizens at once. Candidates adhering to the Constitution cannot allow identity politics to erode our national culture any further. Each candidate who chooses sides in some foreign religious conflict, or chooses to answer questions about their personal religion, detracts from the national vision of preventing established religion. Religion sways dangerously over politics already, and shifting political culture from under its shadow is the best — perhaps the only — solution.

Stephanie Wise, 26, grew up in Naselle, Wash., and graduated from Baylor University with a degree in political science. She now attends Oregon State University (where she also works as graduate coordinator for the Department of Mathematics), while applying to graduate programs in political science. She enjoys running, hiking and reading political philosophy.

FFRF awarded Charlotte $2,000.

By Charlotte Ljustina

What do the political stage and a schoolyard have in common? Other than bullying and people stealing your lunch money, both of these have a long-standing friction with one subject in particular: religion.

And, if ever there was a time when, as Roger Williams wrote, "the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" shouldn't merge, it is during election season — a time where emphasis is intended upon issues and policy platforms rather than beliefs and theories. Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase "separation of church and state" as a protective measure of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

However, when we widen the aperture of historical religious-political relations, we see that many forefathers never sought to expel the church from society. In fact, religion was fully integrated in the life of the nation. But today, American citizens recognize religion as a private matter to be kept out of the political sphere. Media coverage has reflected this by condemning the combination of religion and politics. Cultural development and generational change, pop culture and echoes of historical disaster make it clear that politics and religion should remain unmarried.

Perhaps the best place to begin in the analysis of this non-marriage is at the core of either partner. Religion is the belief in a God or gods; politics is the work of the people who represent the government. By definition, the two worlds are polarized. The former, which founds itself in faith and belief, is like oil, while the latter, founded in logic and reason, is vinegar.

Why then did George Washington and Alexander Hamilton promote religion as a pillar of civil society without which there would be anarchy? According to them, religion and politics should not only mix, but they should practically be symbiotic.

Well, both the cultural and generational landscapes have developed, particularly with regard to religion. As our forefathers weaved society into a thick tapestry, they issued general fasting times for humility and prayer. This is unsurprising, though, for religious liberty was heavily founded in Anglican principles. In short, our forefathers worshiped the same God. The general fasting was later questioned, since "religion and conscience" are entities with which "the government has nothing to do," wrote the General Aurora Advertiser in 1798. The Advertiser also acknowledged a "connection between state and church affairs as dangerous to religious and political freedom."

Today there are more than 4,200 religions. And, with an increasingly liberal population and radical shifts in previously standardized concepts, such as gender and sexuality, religion has developed several different meanings.

This generational change has also led to pop culture and media development. Notably, this medium reaches masses in quick, visual and (often) entertaining ways, which make audiences more susceptible to reception. For example, in the network TV drama, "Scandal," the prominent political figure Sally Langston battles with her Christianity — especially during her presidential campaign. Leveraging her Christianity, she solicits support on the basis of her religion. A crisis ensues when she commits a murder. The drama highlights the struggle of Langston's sin throughout the show as a Christian woman at odds with her faith and, therefore, at odds with herself. Through this show, the internal process of spirituality is exposed to show chaos and, often, exactly what Hamilton was trying to avoid: anarchy.

For those less persuaded by television and more by history, there are abundant events dictating danger between politics and religion. One may think of the "ethnoreligious purification" of the Turkish Empire in the early 20th century or Soviet efforts to exterminate avowed religious groups listed in the U.N.Convention during the same epoch.

And while genocide occurred transcontinentally, perhaps the first to be remembered is the Holocaust — a politically charged eradication of an entire people based on several aspects, including religion. This extreme case demonstrates the scenario in which a politician's religion is not only to be celebrated, but any other religion is to be eliminated.

When religion creeps into politics, it may become less about God or an entity and more about the character of an observer. This creates a scale of humanity: Those worthy as deemed by religious devotion and those not. The polarization of people on any ground is dangerous. This was prevalent in the fight for gay marriage. It is still apparent in the fight for abortion and women's rights.

The sociopolitical issues that already divide due to morality or environment are pulled further apart because of religion. If there is any hope of acceptance, peace and unity within our democracy, then a divisive piece such as religion must be removed from the game entirely.

Charlotte Ljustina, 22, was born and raised in Florida. She attended Mount Holyoke College, where she graduated with degrees in mathematics and English. She then attended Boston College Law School in 2015, but left after one semester. She is now in the master's program in negotiation and conflict resolution at Columbia University. Her interests include gymnastics, acroyoga, photography, theater and cuisine.

FFRF awarded Ashley $1,000.

By Ashley Peralta

When I was 12, I stopped saying the same Pledge of Allegiance that the rest of my class was chanting. If we truly were "one nation under God," why was it that so many people were spreading hate about Muslims? Why was it that people sang Christmas songs, but I never heard about Chanukah? I did not understand why so many supposedly loving gods allowed their followers to be hateful. So I stopped believing that one fully existed when I was 12.

When I was 14, I realized that friends stopped talking to me when I told them I did not go to church, nor did I want to. President Obama became president and people questioned what kind of Christian he could be, and I learned in my government class that every president of the United States had been Christian, as that belief would stay true to the American way.

When religion and politics blend, we have instances such as Kim Davis using her religious freedom to deny the rights of others. Planned Parenthood can stop being funded in Texas, resulting in low-income women with little to no resources being forced to travel across the state to receive services.

When this happens, people use their beliefs to interpret laws and validate their actions without consideration for other groups. Because I grew up around mostly Christians, I was socialized into thinking that lying and not believing in Jesus would send me to hell. The media would simply validate the opinions of those constantly around me, with faint protest from the few who were brave enough to oppose the majority.

When I came to college, I saw how hateful educated members of society were to their fellow human beings. My belief that my college experience would be different from high school changed quickly when Christian religious fanatics would spit and shout at Muslim girls walking by, or yell at same-sex couples exchanging sweet words to one another.

Things deteriorated more rapidly once Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz became serious contenders for the Republican nomination for president. Evangelical extremists and xenophobic bigots were suddenly being publicized and followed to the point that gun lobbyists were advocating for their weapons to be at the conventions, and Mexicans were told that there would be a mass deportation. An extremist Christian targeted Planned Parenthood, and not a month later we had another shooting in San Bernardino by ISIS supporters.

All of these attacks were in the name of a higher power, or the individual's interpretation of what their God sees as "just." Saying I was voting for a Democrat was met with scorn; meanwhile, hate perpetuated as politicians encouraged others to fall back on faith in times of crisis.

Facebook filled with "Prayers for Paris" or "Prayers for Orlando" as religion took a dark twist — as it has for centuries — and people used God as justification for inflicting violence. While all of this is happening in our world, as our fellow humans are being bombed, burned, shot or tortured in the name of Allah, Jesus or whichever higher being, the prayers for the afflicted did nothing to stop the continued violence. The media coverage of our politicians' ignorant remarks about race, women's rights and sexual orientation did not stop the fanatics from inflicting more harm; it merely encouraged the hate to grow faster.

God mixed into politics puts people like me at risk just being out in the world because I do not belong to any majority group.

America will not be "great again" when those in power feel they can speak for the underrepresented groups as they have been for centuries. Christians cannot speak on my behalf, men cannot speak on my behalf, whites cannot speak on my behalf, and if religion continues to bleed into our political justice system, more lives will be at risk for simply being different.

The United States is supposed to encourage diversity, but in today's society, diversity is unsafe and we as a people will grow more disconnected and become more intolerant unless church and state officially disconnect.

Ashley Peralta, 22, attends the School of Education and Human Development at the University of Colorado in Denver. She is working toward a master's degree in early childhood special education. She is involved in social justice issues and works with underrepresented minorities, including those with intellectual, physical and developmental disabilities.