#mens-issues — Public Fediverse posts

If you're a man struggling and need someone to talk to, my DMs are open.

I'm not a psychologist and won't pretend to be. I'll listen without judgment and point you to people who can actually help.

I'm just a man who believes your pain is real and valid. Men's issues are real, male suffering is real, and you are not weak for struggling.

You are not alone and not broken.

I can't always reply immediately but I will reply. 🤝

#MensHealth #MensMentalHealth #MensIssues #Stoicism #Brotherhood

Secular Coalition Warns of Christian Nationalist Bias in U.S. Religious Liberty Commission

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/07

Nnenna Onwukwe (They/Them) is the Federal Policy Associate at the Secular Coalition for America, where she advocates for church-state separation, secular inclusion in policy, and protections for religious freedom for all. Onwukwe discusses the Religious Liberty Commission, criticizing its predominantly Christian nationalist composition and lack of secular or interfaith representation. They warn the Commission may use “religious freedom” as a tool for legalizing discrimination, especially against LGBTQ and non-Christian communities. Onwukwe also highlights concerns about IRS policy shifts, political endorsements from the pulpit, and school voucher programs redirecting public funds to private, religious institutions, which threaten public education and constitutional neutrality. SCA has sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury regarding the IRS’s decision not to enforce the Johnson Amendment. You can read the full document on their website: https://secular.org/2025/07/sca-lets-it-be-known-the-johnson-amendment-must-be-enforced

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, what is the Religious Liberty Commission? Moreover, how have they responded to concerns about bias toward one faith over another?

Nnenna Onwukwe: The Religious Liberty Commission was established by President Trump via executive order on May 1, 2025, as part of his broader agenda to promote religious expression in public life. It is housed in the Department of Justice and overseen by the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships and the Domestic Policy Council.

It is chaired by Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, with Dr. Ben Carson as vice chair. The Commission’s term runs through July 4, 2026, coinciding with the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

The Commission’s goals include producing a report on the history and current state of religious liberty in America, identifying threats, and recommending policies, particularly regarding parental rights in religious education, conscience protections, vaccine exemptions, and the use of religious symbols in public spaces.

Jacobsen: So, where does SCA come in?

Onwukwe: We are with the Secular Coalition for America. Our concern is whether the Commission is showing bias toward Christian perspectives. The panel is predominantly composed of conservative evangelical Christians, along with a few Catholics and one Orthodox Jewish representative. There is no real representation of secular individuals, Muslims, Hindus, or other minority faiths.

Before their first public meeting in June, held at the Museum of the Bible, we sent a letter requesting clarity. We wanted to know whether the Commission’s reports would primarily focus on Christians or encompass all faiths, including nonreligious Americans. We also raised concerns about possible discrimination against non-Christian groups.

Jacobsen: Did they respond?

Onwukwe: No, we have not received a reply. Given the composition of the panel and the rhetoric at their first meeting, they may not be interested in secular input. However, we will keep advocating. They must know we are here and that we are watching.

Jacobsen: What are some of your specific concerns with how they are operating?

Onwukwe: So we sent them a couple of questions. We were particularly concerned because, even in the first meeting, there was much rhetoric about America being a “Christian nation.” However, if you examine the actual history of the United States, the founding documents intentionally omitted references to religion.

The founders deliberately moved away from a system that fused religion with government. They envisioned a secular nation with a clear separation of church and state. Hearing language that implies otherwise is troubling.

The composition of the Commission is also a concern, as it lacks secular voices on the panel. During and even before the first meeting, we observed a strong focus on what is often referred to as “anti-Christian bias,” particularly with the establishment of the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force.

The issue is, organizations like ours—and others—have not seen compelling evidence of systemic anti-Christian bias. We worry that the phrase “anti-Christian bias” is being used to justify policies that would allow Christians to discriminate against others, especially in workplaces or service settings.

For example, if a Christian employee claims their religious beliefs are being “discriminated against,” that might be used to excuse discriminatory behaviour toward LGBTQ individuals or people of other faiths. So the implications could be profound.

Jacobsen: Who comprises the Liberty Commission? That is important to know.

Onwukwe: The Commission includes Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Dr. Ben Carson, and Paula White, who serves as a senior adviser in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships. Interestingly, Dr. Phil McGraw is also on the panel, though his inclusion has raised some eyebrows.

The panel consists of Christian leaders, many of whom are affiliated with the Christian nationalist movement. It was strange. Even during the Commission meeting, Dr. Phil spoke out against one of the issues being discussed, which was interesting. Dr. Phil may be the one person on the panel who speaks up. I do not know.

The panel is primarily composed of Christians, many of whom are recognizable figures in the Christian nationalist movement. I believe one of them was a former Miss America contestant who publicly stated that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

That kind of viewpoint reflects the broader makeup of the Commission. Paula White—the head of the White House Faith Office—has been actively pushing the narrative of “anti-Christian bias” and helped establish the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force.

She was a frequent spiritual adviser during Trump’s presidency and was present when both the Religious Liberty Commission and the Anti-Christian Bias Task Force were launched, often leading prayers at those events.

Interestingly, she has also claimed that women should not hold positions of power, despite holding one herself. That contradiction is, of course, hard to ignore. Overall, it is a panel dominated by prominent Christian nationalist voices who support the idea that America is inherently a Christian nation.

Even the Jewish panellists did not speak up when those kinds of statements were made, which we found concerning, mainly because those statements are not factual.

Jacobsen: What about their makeup?

Onwukwe: The majority of the makeup of the commission are Protestant and conservative Catholics. There are a few rabbis and other Jewish members and at least one person who is Muslim. During their first meeting there was only one Jewish person sitting on the panel, the rest of the panelists were Christian or Catholic.

Jacobsen: Are there any secular voices on the Commission or involved in any way?

Onwukwe: None that we saw. None that are openly secular, at least. Most of the individuals involved are prominent figures in Christian media or associated with the Christian nationalist movement, unfortunately. That is a significant concern for us.

Onwukwe: We even provided them with names—people who could represent secular Americans and offer a valuable perspective—but nothing has come of it so far.

Jacobsen: Another important point—while not necessarily from a secular perspective alone, it is still concerning: How diverse is the Commission in terms of religious representation? Because it is not just secular voices being excluded; it is also about whether they include a broad interfaith representation. 

Do they reflect the growing diversity in American religious identity? They ignore the expanding secular population, but are they at least capturing denominational or interfaith diversity?

Onwukwe: The majority are Christians, as I mentioned earlier. There are a few Jewish voices, and I believe there may be one or two Muslim individuals involved. However, it is unclear whether they are formally part of the panel or just a participant in the broader conversation.

However, aside from that, the overwhelming majority of the Commission members are Christian. So, in terms of true interfaith diversity, it is minimal. As you said, there is a growing secular movement—an increasing number of Americans now identify as nonreligious.

We have been advocating for secular representation in Congress and other federal bodies for years. It is deeply concerning that this Commission was created without any meaningful representation of nonreligious Americans.

Jacobsen: So, in a sense, this version of “religious liberty” seems like a highly selective interpretation of freedom of religion and conscience?

Onwukwe: We often see this with groups like this one and others that promote Christian nationalism.

They often claim they are fighting for “religious freedom” or “religious liberty,” and that they are being discriminated against, when in reality, what they are pushing for is the freedom to use their religion to discriminate against others or insert their religious beliefs into public institutions, like schools.

The Commission reflects this mindset. They interpret the First Amendment not as a protection from religious imposition, but as a license to impose their spiritual values on public life under the guise of protecting religious freedom.

So yes, that is our concern. They have taken a highly selective interpretation of religious liberty—one that favours a particular brand of Christianity—and are using it to advance a very narrow cultural and political agenda.

Jacobsen: They are using that interpretation to justify discrimination.

Onwukwe: And that is one of our biggest concerns: that the Commission will use this distorted view of religious freedom to target minority groups, framing it as though Christians are being discriminated against, when in fact, they are the ones seeking legal cover to discriminate.

Jacobsen: And this is not new. I remember hearing similar arguments as far back as seven years ago. It would usually come in the form of a brief controversy, such as a 15-minute segment on Fox News, when something happens at a school or church.

When I was interviewing two people from The Satanic Temple several years ago, they mentioned a persistent persecution complex. They have framed it in a way that if they do not get 100% of what they want, they see it as oppression. They push this narrative. So when they do not get everything exactly as they want it, they claim they are being persecuted.

How they frame this “victimization” is revealing. Some isolated concerns might be valid, but overall, they are using the idea of victimhood as a political tool.

Onwukwe: Yes. Moreover, as we have discussed, the secular community is growing. Younger generations, especially, have different views on social and moral issues—things the older, more religious generations often find threatening or uncomfortable. That discomfort is sometimes interpreted as discrimination by those older groups.

The rise of LGBTQ rights—such as marriage equality, trans rights, and protections for people of other religions or no religion—is often perceived by some conservative Christian groups as an attack on their faith.

They see it as a threat to the version of America they grew up with, even though the United States has always been a secular nation. It is unfamiliar to them, and they interpret these changes as direct attacks on their beliefs.

This perception extends to issues such as vaccine mandates and mask requirements. In 2020, we witnessed widespread outrage over church closures, despite all public gathering places being closed due to health concerns.

Still, they felt singled out because of their religion, even though the policies were broad and applied to everyone equally. What we are discussing is ensuring that all Americans—regardless of their religion or identity—have equal rights and freedoms.

However, for some, equality feels like persecution because it challenges the privileged position they have long held. You can also see it in schools. Many Christian organizations have been advocating for initiatives such as mandatory prayer in public schools.

Moreover, with the recent Supreme Court decision—Mahmood v. Taylor—there has been a push to allow parents to opt their children out of public education that conflicts with their religious views.

So when they claim they are being “discriminated against,” it often really means they want their religious beliefs to take precedence over others’ rights. That is something we see a lot in the Christian nationalist movement and among many far-right Christian groups.

Jacobsen: So, the IRS has weighed in on political endorsements from the pulpit. That is the way it is being framed, although the specifics, outside of press releases, are essential to examine. There are questions about what exactly constitutes a political endorsement—financial or otherwise—and how that interacts with the Johnson Amendment, or whether this is an attempt to override or circumvent it. I am not yet aware of the implications.

Onwukwe: So basically, over the years—as you have probably seen—a lot of Americans have filed complaints with the IRS, objecting to religious institutions and leaders openly endorsing political candidates from the pulpit. That is a clear violation of the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits tax-exempt religious organizations from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office.

Despite this, the IRS has taken minimal action. We, along with other secular organizations, have issued alerts and encouraged the public to submit formal objections to the IRS. However, the agency has not responded decisively or pursued many of these cases.

With the recent developments, the IRS is now taking the stance that religious institutions can endorse political candidates from the pulpit, essentially making it clear there will be no consequences. That is deeply concerning.

It opens the door for politicians to funnel untaxed money through churches in exchange for endorsements. You will start seeing political ads or candidate promotions coming directly from megachurches on TV or in services. Since these ads occur within religious institutions, the funds and activities associated with them will not be taxed.

This poses a serious threat to the separation of church and state. We expect this will have significant adverse effects on future elections, undermining fair democratic processes and increasing the influence of religious institutions in partisan politics.

Jacobsen: Are there any limits on the amount?

Onwukwe: On how much someone can donate to a church for political purposes? No, there are no clear limits. So, someone could donate any amount they want to a church to promote a candidate. Moreover, that messaging will end up on people’s TVs, in their social feeds, or even from the pulpit itself.

There is also ambiguity around whether religious institutions can now endorse candidates on social media or through other channels. That is something we are still watching closely. Since this just happened, we will have to see how far it goes. A lot is still unclear at this point.

Jacobsen: When was the last time the United States was in a situation like this? Was there anything before the Johnson Amendment that served a similar purpose? Or has it always really just been the Johnson Amendment?

Onwukwe: That is a good question. I do not know. I am aware that the Johnson Amendment was introduced to prevent churches and other tax-exempt institutions from endorsing political candidates.

However, it was created in response to a specific incident, or was it a more preventative measure, intended to ensure that political activity remained separate from tax-exempt religious institutions?

Jacobsen: Does this change anything regarding verbal endorsements, written endorsements, or other forms of promotion from churches or politicians?

Onwukwe: That is another good question. We are still not sure. In this particular case, the IRS was responding to a specific incident and stated that the priest involved could promote candidates from the pulpit. So, that is the precedent being set right now.

However, whether that opens the door to broader endorsements—such as written letters, church-produced media, or full-on political ads on TV from a megachurch—is still unknown. It is very concerning. Like I said, we will have to wait and see how churches use this new leeway—and how prominent political donors might take advantage of it.

If someone wants to make a tax-free donation to promote a candidate, they could funnel it through a church and let the church handle the endorsement.

Jacobsen: The reality is, voters get their information about politicians from many different sources. For some, it might come directly from the presidential campaign. Still, for others—especially down-ballot races—it could come from more indirect means.

Depending on the voter, they may not have regular access to the internet or social media. They may not be tech-savvy or connected digitally at all. A significant portion of their political information comes through TV, primarily through ads like these.

That is where attack ads are particularly effective. Moreover, now, imagine that same person regularly attending church. If their priest or pastor is saying, “This is what you should be doing,” “This is who you should be voting for,” and “This is how to act as a faithful person,” that has a profound influence.

If someone has a strong connection to their religious leader, that endorsement can significantly shape their vote. This influence had already been happening under the radar, but now it has essentially been given the green light to proceed at full speed ahead. Is there already a legal counter-challenge to this decision?

Onwukwe: So far, I have not seen any formal legal challenges. I am sure efforts are being made behind the scenes, or announcements may be forthcoming soon. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds legally, especially when it comes to directly challenging this interpretation of the Johnson Amendment.

If it can be challenged, we will see action to at least slow it down or stop it entirely. However, for now, we are in a “wait and see” phase.

Jacobsen: How is this being received within your network, such as the Secular Coalition and its partner organizations?

Onwukwe: Across the board, our network has reacted strongly. All of our member organizations are in substantial alignment on this issue. Even in the past, when megachurches came out publicly in support of candidates, the Secular Coalition for America and many of our partners would issue public statements, send letters to the IRS, and encourage members and supporters to do the same.

Seeing this new stance—effectively dismantling the Johnson Amendment—has sparked considerable concern. Many people are speaking out and trying to figure out what can be done next. What is especially striking is that this new interpretation appears to be limited to churches.

Other 501(c)(3) organizations—particularly secular nonprofits—are still prohibited from endorsing candidates. While religious organizations can now promote political figures from the pulpit, secular nonprofits, including ours and many of our partner groups, are still bound by these restrictions. It is an apparent double standard.

Jacobsen: To be explicit and specific about leaders, what about pastoral political advertising?

Onwukwe:  It does not appear this ruling will explicitly allow pastors to engage in political advertising. They may, however, be able to circumvent this by sending social media, emails, and other forms of communications to their congregations to further endorse political candidates. 

Jacobsen, what about temples or mosques—are other religions also allowed to do this?

Onwukwe: Yes, they are. It applies broadly to religious institutions, such as churches, mosques, and temples. However, again, secular 501(c)(3) organizations are excluded from this privilege.

Jacobsen: There we go. Are there any final points we should add?

Onwukwe: I guess one other thing we have been working on—you might have heard about it—is the Educational Choice for Children Act. That has been in the works for a while now. We discussed it during our lobbying event in March.

A lot has been happening behind the scenes. It ended up being included in what the Trump administration has been calling their “Big, Beautiful Bill”—the actual language they have used to brand it. It is a terrible name, honestly.

However, the bottom line is that the bill passed in an amended form. The Secular Coalition for America is particularly concerned about the implications it could have on the separation of church and state, especially in the education sector.

What this law does is allow for federal school vouchers. The vast majority of those vouchers ultimately end up in private religious schools. That means public funds, which could be used for public schools and essential services, are being diverted to help families pay for religious education. That is a significant problem.

We are particularly concerned about how this affects public schools and marginalized students. These private religious schools are allowed to discriminate in admissions, whether that is against families of a different religion, students with disabilities, or families who do not meet their financial expectations.

For example, if a parent does not belong to the school’s preferred faith, the child can be rejected. If a student has a disability that the school does not want to accommodate, the school can also refuse to accept that student.

Moreover, the vouchers themselves do not cover the full cost of tuition at these schools. So they will not help low-income students get access—they will primarily benefit families who are already close to being able to afford it. It is a subsidy for the middle and upper-middle class, not real access for the underserved.

Additionally, in rural areas—where there are few or no private schools—students often lack the option to take advantage of the voucher program. In those areas, states that opt into the program will see funding stripped away from their public schools, without offering any viable alternative.

So there is much concern. We will have to wait and see how this plays out. The way the bill was passed includes an option for states to opt out, which is one positive aspect. States that do not wish to participate in the program are not required to do so.

However, we are already seeing signs that some states—which have previously expressed support for school vouchers—are moving forward with implementation, despite local opposition.

Even in states where voters have rejected similar measures in the past, leaders now have the green light to proceed without another public vote. In states where political leadership is divided—say, a governor who supports vouchers and a legislature that does not, or vice versa—this can also lead to significant internal conflict.

So we will continue to spread the word. You will probably see something from us in the next few days that lays out what the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA) is, what it does now that it has passed, and what kind of impact we might see on public education.

We will continue to raise awareness and ensure that people are informed, so they can speak out against it if they choose.

Jacobsen: Good work—let us stay in touch.

Onwukwe: Thanks so much, Scott.

Jacobsen: Thanks so much. 

Onwukwe: Have a good one. Bye-bye.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

#ethicalMen #genderEquality #lifestyle #menSIssues #movies #progressiveMasculinity #selfImprovement #technology #TheGoodMenProject #travel

The Luxembourgish Humanist Conference Reflection

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/31

Bob Reuter shared his reflections on the 2025 Humanists International General Assembly and the International Humanist Conference held in Luxembourg, highlighting a warm, collegial atmosphere and emotional moments, such as Mubarak Bala’s attendance. He praised the dynamic “inspiring practices” format and emphasized the importance of striking a balance between local and international contributions. Challenges such as funding for global collaboration and inclusion of diverse communities were discussed. Reuter advocated for practical humanist services, like non-religious weddings and funerals, to better reflect non-religious values. He also emphasized the importance of emotional connection, leadership accountability, and fostering solidarity, suggesting ideas such as humanist couchsurfing to strengthen community ties across borders.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are your main takeaways from the 2025 Humanists International General Assembly and the International  Humanist Conference you hosted in Luxembourg?

Bob Reuter: A feeling of bliss is the first thing that comes to mind. I found the entire weekend — from Friday to Sunday — to be exceptionally warm and friendly. It was truly remarkable to see so many people gathered together. Everything went well. Aside from a few minor hiccups, the event ran very smoothly.

Jacobsen: What kind of hiccups?

Reuter: Just a minor one — Andrew Copson did not receive a lunch that accommodated his dietary requirements. It was a minor oversight, likely unnoticed by most attendees, but it stood out to me. I try to be very attentive to the well-being of participants, especially those in key roles.

Jacobsen: Like Sideshow Bob stepping on a rake — it hits you in the face, even if you saw it coming. There is even a whole episode devoted to that gag. What were some highlights from the speakers? What stood out to you? What feedback did you hear from attendees?

Reuter: I will start with the first keynote speaker — someone I know personally. He was relieved that his talk went smoothly, that his English was clear enough, and that he stayed within the time limit. During the break, he received many thoughtful and friendly questions. As academics, we are used to conferences where questions sometimes aim to show off. However, the atmosphere here was much more collegial. Attendees asked questions out of genuine interest. It created a space focused on sharing ideas and learning, where people gained new perspectives on topics they may not have been familiar with before.

Regarding the sessions on “inspiring practices,” many attendees praised the format. Each speaker had ten minutes, which made the sessions feel dynamic and engaging. If one speaker was less engaging for you, it was only a short wait until the next — potentially more inspiring — presentation. This approach worked well because people’s interests are personal, and the short format helped sustain engagement across a wide range of topics.

Jacobsen: Would it be helpful to have a semi-academic format, such as poster presentations, where attendees could present their ideas in a less formal setting?

Reuter: Potentially, yes. At the 2023 World Humanist Congress in Copenhagen, for instance, a poster session was held. That event was larger, with parallel sessions on various themes. I attended one focused on humanist services, particularly in youth work. Those talks were significantly longer than ten minutes.

It was very appropriate for those presentations to be much longer because you want to dig deeply into an established practice. You want to learn how they do it, what their foundational principles are, and also what observed effects they have had.

It is tough to convey all of that in just ten minutes. Consider showing a video of an activity, such as a ceremony, youth camp, or similar event. Therefore, the ten-minute quick talks, followed by a roundtable, are not necessarily the ideal format.

However, if you only have one day, it is a good way to provide people with a wide range of input without making it too long or overwhelming. I remained alert and excited throughout the day. However, as an organizer, you have that adrenaline running through your system, wondering: will everything be okay? Will we stay on schedule? Will we make it to the restaurant? Will people like the food? Will the music work?

So, yes. For other participants, the day might have felt long because the amount of input was quite intense.

Jacobsen: Do you think humanist organizations, if they were to host a similar event in the future, and let us say they are mid-sized or even small but highly motivated to host, should leverage their specific strengths within the context of the conference?

Reuter: It’s always a good recommendation to lean on your strengths. However, it is challenging to pinpoint exactly what those strengths are, as they can vary significantly.

In my case, one of my strengths in this context was that about half of the presentations came from people based in Luxembourg. As a small country, we know everyone and have quick access to many interesting individuals. I could have invited even more people involved in public science communication because I know many in that field.

However, I also did not want the conference to be overly local. I wanted a balance between local contributors and international experiences. In other contexts, strengths could be entirely different.

In much larger countries, one of the strengths might be access to internationally well-known figures. In Luxembourg, we do not have many internationally famous personalities — that is a challenge.

When I look at what Humanists UK did during the pandemic with their online seminars, they featured some famous people — individuals you would recognize from television or prominent YouTube channels. They could host them and draw in a large audience simply because people wanted to hear from someone well-known.

That is something we struggle with in Luxembourg. Mainly, when catering to a more Luxembourgish audience, well, “No one is a prophet in their town,” to use that phrase. In Luxembourg, you often know the locally famous figures personally, and you are also aware of their shortcomings. So it is harder to place them on a pedestal.

Even though, as a humanist, I do not believe anyone should be put on a pedestal — we are all human and should be treated as such. Still, there is this effect where people who have achieved something gain attention and admiration. When someone is internationally famous, it is easier for the public to overlook their flaws or not even consider them. That distance creates a kind of allure.

Jacobsen: On that note, there was a massive boost to the humanist movement when it gained momentum alongside the New Atheist movement. However, that movement has fragmented and declined in terms of its core following.

What should humanists lean on now — whether it is around a personality or alignment with another movement — to maintain relevance or momentum on specific issues? How can we ensure that the humanist life stance remains responsive and relevant to the context?

Reuter: One thing I heard during the weekend event is that many people want to develop intercontinental collaborations and stay connected, doing things together across borders. We already have the European Forum within Humanists International, where we collaborate regularly.

We’ve had a lot of online meetings — that’s just how it unfolded. We recently had our first in-person meeting. I think it will be beneficial to have more of those in the future. These intracontinental meetings are feasible due to the ease and speed of travel nowadays.

However, especially when you want to collaborate and secure funding — particularly from sources other than our own organization or umbrella organization — that is where people tend to struggle. With Erasmus+, organizations in different countries can jointly submit a proposal, but it has to be organizations from European countries. I know the Romanians did that with colleagues from Malta and another country. You need at least three countries, and then it becomes viable. However, imagine you want to do something with an organization in Nigeria — there is no international funding scheme currently available to support that.

So yes, it is something people aspire to, but there are fundamental limitations. I do not have answers, I recognize the gap.

Jacobsen: The international case is tricky. For instance, the Norwegians do receive significant governmental or federal funding for identifying as a humanist organization and having a large membership. Additionally, a substantial portion of the public — whether tacitly or explicitly — identifies as humanist, making it a very welcoming environment for them at this point. Another issue, however, is that they cannot use that government funding internationally.

Reuter: They are not supposed to — exactly. The same applies to our Belgian colleagues. They do receive public funding, which is quite substantial compared to others, but it must be used within the country.

Jacobsen: One way to utilize those funds in an international context is to invite people — scholars, fellows, or organizers.

Reuter: Yes, that is a possibility. You can frame it as continuous professional development for young people, which it genuinely is.

Jacobsen: It benefits them, and they gain international European experience in a humanist context. That could be valuable. It does not require a significant amount of funding. For example, a buddy system could be helpful: their flight is paid for, but they stay with a colleague or a host family — someone from that country who is willing to support them. That would reduce costs if that is a concern.

Reuter: Yes, and that reminds me of an idea I heard in Glasgow a few years ago at another International Humanist Conference. It was the concept of staying over at a fellow humanist’s home.

The idea, proposed by someone at the time, was that religious communities already do this — they rely on mutual solidarity. You essentially trust someone you do not know personally.  You trust a stranger simply because you share the same religious faith, which is unusual, but that’s what people often do. There is a certain built-in credibility, or credit, that you are granted in advance. Only if you prove unworthy of that credit does it disappear.

So, humanist couchsurfing — I think that is a nice idea. Many of us travel internationally as humanists, often without funding from an organization or employer. So this kind of network could be a valuable initiative.

It could also be a great way to connect with people internationally and show that we are a community with a sense of solidarity.

Because having a network that offers reciprocal support — where being part of the community means not just giving but also receiving — is powerful.

Jacobsen: What were some moments that stood out for you during the conference?

Reuter: Honestly, the fact that Mubarak Bala was with us — that was incredibly emotional. We had been celebrating his release and donating money to support him, even though most of us had never met him. That kind of altruistic concern for another human being, based solely on shared values, was profoundly moving.

I remember thinking how lucky I am. I can be the president of an association of Humanists, Atheists and Agnostics in Luxembourg and speak out publicly without really fearing for my safety. I do not believe my life is in danger because of my humanist identity — at least, so far, I have not felt that way.

Meanwhile, in another country, just saying something that would be considered mundane here — like criticizing religion or the Prophet — can lead to imprisonment or worse. Perhaps that is because the religious communities in Europe have undergone a kind of moderation. I guess 200 years ago, saying such things here might have gotten you killed, too.

So yes, imagining that expressing your beliefs could be dangerous — it is almost unimaginable. And then hearing Mubarak speak, talking with him on Sunday evening after everything quieted down — that was powerful.

Listening to him describe what it felt like to be imprisoned, the uncertainty, not knowing if or when he would be released — it was chilling. And then, hearing how elements of his religious upbringing still linger with him, even in terms of how he feels he should dress, that struck me.

There are moments when he breaks free from that influence, and he questions: Why shouldn’t I dress how I like? I may enjoy dressing that way. Moreover, I can separate it from its religious or cultural significance and make it my own.

Another very emotional moment for me was when Leo spoke about Andrew’s achievements. I had not realized it was under Andrew’s leadership that Humanists International became a much more diverse organization.

To me, that diversity now feels natural. It is like — yes, this is how it should be. Moreover, to some extent, you could say, well, it is still not enough.

I have seen it from behind the scenes — the delegates from Uganda were not present because they did not receive their visas. Europe, and Luxembourg as part of the Schengen Area, did not allow them in.

They were not there. So, it is still not the safe and inclusive space that it should be. However, we have rules, regulations, and bylaws stating that people must run this association from different continents and regions of the world. That now seems natural — but apparently, it was not always the case. So yes, it is still a challenge. Moreover, we also struggle with diversity here in Luxembourg.

We do not have 50% women on our board, and we do not have 50% of our overall membership represented by women. Moreover, it is not because we do not want that — I am not entirely sure why that is the case. I think it is worth analyzing.

Also, in terms of our membership, we are not fully reaching or engaging with the internationally diverse population living in Luxembourg. Around 50% of people living in Luxembourg do not have a Luxembourgish passport. We fail to engage with some of them. Part of it may be due to prejudice — we may assume specific communities are more religious than they are. So we may think: “This will not interest them, because they are just religious — end of story.”

However, is that the case? Probably not. So then — why not try? In that sense, there is something to be learned from this international organization — lessons that can be applied to local organizations in highly diverse countries.

Jacobsen: A good observation is that, in many cases, when you look at religious populations within a given country — especially newer ones — they are often minority groups demographically. However, when those communities have been around for 20 or 30 years, a new generation has emerged.

That generation tends to be much less religious on average than their parents. They also tend to adopt many local cultural customs as part of adapting their belief systems. Moreover, about one-third of those kids tend to leave religion altogether.

Therefore, the self and identity are not static. Culture is fluid. Moreover, people are, too. It is not as though those things are fixed forever. Moreover, in terms of the gifting to Andrew, what did you think of the enormous number of gifts? At least three scarves, if I recall.

Reuter: Yes. I found it comical. It almost looked like a religious ritual. However, I took it as an opportunity to think: “No, this is just a human way of giving something from one’s culture or community to someone as a symbol.” It says, “We consider you one of us.”

If people associate that with religion or religious traditions, so be it. However, I think we are always in a space where we do things — and also observe and critique what we are doing — yet we do it anyway. Because, why not?

Jacobsen: It is also — I mean — we are not dry. You know? This is not a science conference. However, science plays a part in it. 

Reuter: Exactly, I appreciated the fact that humanism is also about emotions.

Jacobsen: That is a huge comfort, yes. I think many people see it as a way of looking at — or at least approaching — the world, not just intellectually. There is a great deal of comfort in it. I remember Leo; when he was speaking with Andrew, he used the word ‘longing‘.

He said he was “longing” for these moments — seeing people from all over the world come together. Moreover, I think that is a widespread sentiment. It is always there. This is one of my favourite times of the year — attending a big international humanist conference. What was your funniest moment?

Reuter: That is interesting. I do not know. I do not think the event was funny — I would not call it humourless — but there is no specific moment that stands out to me as the most amusing.

Jacobsen: I found the banter over dinner — just little things like that — hilarious—the random conversations. One of my funniest moments was actually with Mubarak. I did several interviews with him. Moreover, when we spoke, he said I was the last person (or among the very last) he talked to before the police took him.

We were doing an “Ask Mubarak” series for a now-defunct publication, Canadian Atheist. The session right before — the one I was about to send him — had a subtitle that included: How bad can it get? I attended the conference, but I couldn’t find our seating area.

I was unable to find the conference room at the time. I had been travelling, so I went to the bathroom. As I turned, I saw a man wearing a small hat — someone I recognized. Moreover, I said, “Are you Mubarak Bala?”

He said, “Yes.”

I said, “Hi, I am Scott.”

Then he said, “Oh… what?”

Then he told me, “Come with me.” 

He took me through the back entrance — through the red slider, where you would usually need the ticker tape or badge access. We went under and through, using the back route into the conference room. And so the first person I ran into at the conference was Mubarak Bala. Stuff like that — circumstantial happenstance, funny.

What else? We had a first for Humanists International this year. We had the first VP-P woman duo in the history of Humanists International.

That will be very fruitful and interesting, as you will gain a completely different approach and perspective on specific topics that may have been overlooked for a while. I am very excited to see how that develops over the next few years.

Reuter: Yes, true. Even though we should not expect too much from women in leadership to change the world just because they are women. The structure of the world is not necessarily conducive to change, particularly when it comes to dismantling patriarchy.

Jacobsen: A big help will be that the strengths of Ross and Maggie will come through. Maggie, in particular, is — I think — a quintessentially American phenomenon. She has much energy.

Reuter: That may be one moment I found funny. When she spoke before she was elected, I had the impression, “This is a politician speaking.”

And I mean that in a good way. She is very eloquent. She knows how to address a crowd. She knows how to engage both emotionally and intellectually. So, yes — I thought, “Wow”. 

But, in our community, we have an ambivalent relationship with the allure of power. Because, yes, like Karl Popper, the Austrian philosopher, we think we should give power to those who do not want it. Because  those who excel in leadership are often at risk of being seduced by the power that comes with it. I believe it is essential to have safeguards in place — mechanisms to ensure that the people we elect into power do not accumulate too much power.

This is precisely what we are seeing now in the United States — with someone who appears extremely egocentric, or even narcissistic, or however you might describe it. I am not trying to diagnose anyone from a distance — that is always dangerous — but from what I observe, they seem to love being in charge. They love using that power to their advantage.

There is now sufficient evidence to support this case. That is truly dangerous. Because people in leadership should care about others, that is how democracy should function. We should also be able to remove leaders — peacefully, through democratic means — without resorting to violence.

I mean, voting — one aspect that people often take as fundamental to democracy is the idea of majority rule. However, I do not think that is the most crucial part. What matters more to me is that we can remove our leaders without needing to kill them, because we can change our minds about who we want to lead us. 

And not just about the person, but also about the government’s ideas and the policies they promote. We can say, “Okay, we were wrong — let us change it.”

Jacobsen: Right, we do that quite well. It is not always easy, but we manage it better overall than many. I like the idea of elections as a “mini revolution.” You know — so we do not have to behead Marie Antoinette to move forward.

Reuter: Yes, true.

Jacobsen: What is next for the Luxembourgish Humanists?

Reuter: One thing we have been working on, in parallel to organizing conferences, is setting up humanist services, particularly through the European Humanist Services Network.

For instance, we have been working on the EU wedding standard and implementing it, including providing training. On Monday, just after the conference, we had a meeting with people from Flanders, Belgium, who will provide training for our celebrants. That way, we can get things going and offer practical humanist outreach by providing services to the broader community.

This can help us become known for something positive, rather than being known as the group that opposes religion and fights against religious privilege (which, of course, we will continue doing as long as it is necessary).

The next big area is developing services for humanist funerals. We have been working on a new brochure. In 2019, we published a small booklet on baby-naming or newborn welcoming ceremonies — how to conduct them in a humanist and non-religious manner, your rights, and the possibilities available.

It was not meant to be a recipe book but rather an encouragement to empower people to do something on their own, in their own way.

We are now attempting to create a similar publication, focusing on death and funerals. Because when you have a newborn or are planning a wedding, you typically have more time to prepare. There is no urgency. However, with funerals, it is different. Things must happen within days.

Moreover, we still see that many people default to contacting a priest and having a religious funeral, because that is what people know. It is still the standard offer. It is culturally familiar.

However, more than 50% of Luxembourg’s population identifies as non-religious. In that case, they should have access to funeral services that reflect their values — services that cater to their own needs and convictions.

Jacobsen: Thank you for your time. Have a good day.

Reuter: You are welcome. Bye.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: [email protected]. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

#ethicalMen #genderEquality #lifestyle #menSIssues #movies #music #progressiveMasculinity #technology #TheGoodMenProject #travel

Where it went wrong for Gen Z men: a Gen Z man’s perspective

http://dlvr.it/TGvQBG

by @thebigjohnnyd for @shot_au
#MensIssues #MentalHealth #GenZ

The government has unveiled plans to encourage more men to take child care leave, as one of the priority policy measures over the next three years to tackle the depressed birthrate. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/06/22/national/paternity-leave-birthrate/?utm_content=buffer6f252&utm_medium=social&utm_source=mastodon&utm_campaign=bffmstdn #news #japan #children #paternityleave #parenthood #womensissues #mensissues #masanobuogura

Around 30% of Japanese fathers in their 20s or 30s are eager to find more time for housework and child care, suggesting that there have been changes in family-related attitudes among young men. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/06/16/national/dads-child-care-time/?utm_content=buffer402cc&utm_medium=social&utm_source=mastodon&utm_campaign=bffmstdn #news #japan #children #jobs #surveys #womensissues #mensissues

In this segment, Cypher corrects errors in reporting about #andrewtate and how all his #alphamale bravado was unpinned by hate and violence.

Check out the live news roundup every Thursday @ 8PM EST.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47haygCavPo

#podcasts #news #commentary #analysis #mensissues