The Freedom From Religion Foundation strongly supports President Biden’s announcement of a sweeping vaccine mandate, a move that will reportedly affect as many as 100 million Americans.
The state/church watchdog celebrates this triumph of reason over the cacophony of unscientific anti-vaxx noise throughout the country. Eligible Americans refusing to get vaccinated has led to another major Covid surge that was entirely preventable.
Thanks to modern science, we have vaccines that we know are safe and effective. For the well-being of those who cannot get vaccinated, including young children, as well as for overworked health care workers, it is imperative for the federal government to require as many eligible Americans to get vaccinated as it is legally able to.
Unfortunately, Biden’s order will allow those under the mandate to apply for a religious exception to the requirement.
“Religious vaccine exemptions are morally and legally wrong,” points out FFRF Director of Strategic Response Andrew Seidel. “Vaccine refusal isn’t a matter of religious freedom because religious freedom does not include a right to harm others, risk other people’s lives, or spread a lethal virus.”
FFRF is based in Madison, Wis., and has recently pushed for vaccine and mask requirements by the local government, university and school board. Biden’s declaration will help those entities — as well as numerous others around the country — make the right choice.
It is past time for Americans to listen to science and reason.
Image via Shutterstock by BiksuTong
By Dan Barker
Editor’s Note: For the 20th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is repurposing a column from its Freethought Today newspaper that FFRF Co-President Dan Barker wrote in the immediate aftermath of the horror and that remains as relevant today.
Would you buy a used car from a guy wearing a button that says, “‘I’m an Honest Salesman”?
That’s how I feel about those T-shirts that say, “Proud to be an American.” If you are truly honest, or truly American, you don’t need such fanfare — displays that actually raise the possibility of the opposite — because well, of course, you’re honest, and, of course, you’re proud to be an American. Why bring it up?
They must be bringing it up because they are insecure. Our country has been attacked, many feel afraid and vulnerable, so they wave flags, recite the Pledge and pray “God Bless America.” This feels like brave action, but it is only an illusion that masks feelings of helplessness.
Many of us love this country without the fanfare. My family, like many millions of good Americans, does not believe in God, so we could never honestly say “In God We Trust” or recite the religious Pledge of Allegiance in good conscience, even if we did want to jump on the jingoistic bandwagon.
Where did this doctrine of “unification” come from? What do we think will happen if Americans are not united? America never will be unified, and that’s what we should be proud of. The original motto of the United States, chosen by the nation’s Founders, is “E Pluribus Unum” (“From many, one”), not the 1956 “In God We Trust” nervously adopted during the Cold War against “godless communism.”
“E Pluribus Unum” does not mean “United, we stand.” It means “Divided, we stand.” We are divided into 50 different state governments. We are divided into multiple religious, philosophical, cultural and political factions — yet we stand as a nation. We don’t have to agree. We should wear our disagreements as a badge of honor.
Our Founders were fiercely divided on most issues. James Madison vehemently argued against congressional chaplains. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, also wrote that the words of Jesus were a “dunghill.” Benjamin Franklin called for prayers at the Constitutional Convention, but only mustered interest from three or four delegates — so they said no prayers. Nor did they pledge allegiance to a flag or hold hands singing “God Bless America.”
Yet they manufactured a country that stands as a single nation, in spite of their differences. They never wanted to force unity of thought.
Americans who don’t believe in the foisted motto “In God We Trust” are just as patriotic and just as American as those who do.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is running a full-page ad in Sunday’s New York Times asking people to counter the religiously inspired war on women’s rights.
The advertisement features a sketch of a “handmaid” in a reference to Margaret Atwood’s classic. “Roe v. Wade is in grave peril,” it warns.
The ad spotlights the recent egregious Texas abortion prohibition — and the U.S. Supreme Court’s nod to the anti-women measure.
“The Supreme Court majority ominously signaled its stunning hostility to reproductive rights by cruelly refusing to block the draconian ban on abortion in Texas,” it states. “It has also agreed to review an unconstitutional Mississippi ban.”
And the ad puts the national anti-abortion campaign in the full context.
“Emboldened Christian nationalists in state governments have ramped up their relentless, religiously motivated war on abortion,” it cautions. “Our federal judiciary has been stacked with Trump-appointed extremists.”
The ad calls on New York Times readers to mobilize in defense of secular values.
“Join FFRF in defending the treasured constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and in our call for court reform,” it concludes. “Support FFRF in our vital work for emancipation from religious dogma.”
FFRF is placing the advertisement in the country’s most prominent paper because it is deeply concerned about the state of women’s rights in the country.
“Things haven’t been this dire in a long time,” says Annie Laurie Gaylor, FFRF co-president. “‘Freethinkers need to come together to uphold the Constitution.”
The educational ad was made possible thanks to the generosity of FFRF members donating to FFRF’s Advertising Fund.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with more than 35,000 members across the country. FFRF protects the constitutional separation between state and church and educates about nontheism.
The Congressional Freethought Caucus’s mission is to:
Our Founders prohibited governmental “establishment of religion,” protected the individual’s “free exercise” of religion, banned religious tests for public office, and protected the freedoms of speech, press, conscience and assembly in our Constitution.
Our Founders separated state and church to protect a pluralistic democracy and human rights, as well as to advance science and technology and to guard the rights of individual conscience and worship. The Congressional Freethought Caucus’ mission is to uphold these values.
The presence of the Caucus reflects the acknowledgment of a wider trend in American society: Non-religious Americans — the so-called “Nones” — are the fastest-growing demographic by religious identification, now making up more than a quarter of the country, but are vastly underrepresented in our legislatures.
|Rep. Jared Huffman||District: CA-2|
|Rep. Jamie Raskin||District: MD-8|
|Rep. Steve Cohen||District: TN-9|
|Rep. Pramila Jayapal||District: WA-7|
|Rep. Hank Johnson||District: GA-4|
|Rep. Dan Kildee||District: MI-5|
|Rep. Zoe Lofgren||District: CA-19|
|Rep. Jerry McNerney||District: CA-9|
|Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton||District: DC|
|Rep. Mark Pocan||District: WI-2|
|Rep. Susan Wild||District: PA-7|
|Rep. Sean Casten||District: IL-6|
|Rep. Rashida Tlaib||District: MI-13|
|Rep. Don Beyer||District: VA-8|
Abortion rights in the United States are in peril.
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court shockingly refused to block a six-week Texas abortion ban and abortion bounty provision. And now, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem has issued an executive order to limit abortion access in her state. Specifically, the directive prohibits the use of telemedicine for obtaining abortion medication. It also severely restricts abortion medication as a procedure.
Noem is no stranger to anti-abortion legislation. When previously signing such bills, she has clung to her faith, stating in one instance: “God created each of us and endowed all of us with the right to life.”
Noem should prioritize women’s health care by expanding reproductive care options — not banning them. If she had focused on evidence-based medicine, as health care laws in a secular nation should do, the governor wouldn’t have ordered this new abortion restriction. Medication abortion, which was first approved by the FDA in 2000, is a safe and effective way to terminate a pregnancy. Fewer than 0.4 percent of patients develop serious complications.
Abortion medication also democratizes abortion care. When available via mail or pharmacy, it can defray costs, anywhere from $500-$3,000, associated with transportation, child care and work arrangements. Indeed, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a group of 58,000 members, released a statement declaring that abortion medication is safe and that it provides a “significant benefit” to patients.
South Dakota, an abortion-hostile state, only has one abortion clinic, creating an abortion desert for its nearly 500,000 women. For the first seven months of the pandemic, abortions in South Dakota were halted. As a consequence, some women in the state turned to potentially dangerous alternatives to terminate their pregnancies, according to abortion-rights advocates.
Abortion restrictions are not evidence-based nor do they protect women’s welfare and health. The Freedom From Religion Foundation has submitted a formal congressional testimony in support of the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would end these medically unnecessary laws. We urge you to stand up for science and ask your member of Congress to support this crucial bill.
Gov. Noem’s anti-women and anti-science move yet again shows the need for the congressional measure.