Humanist conference relocates, citing U.S. religious nationalism
The Trump administration's actions -- including the deportation of legal immigrants, refusals of admissions to travelers and travel restrictions -- have created an environment that is inhospitable to members of the global secular community, the board chair of American Atheists said. Photo by ua_Bob_Dmyt_ua/ Pixabay
SALT LAKE CITY, June 30 (UPI) -- American Atheists has withdrawn as host of the 2026 World Humanist Congress, originally scheduled to be held in Washington, D.C., citing "new and yet unfolding risks posed by the escalation of religious nationalism and the erosion of human rights" in the United States under President Donald Trump's administration.
The event will be hosted, instead, by Humanist Canada in Ottawa on Aug. 7 to 9, 2026. The decision, made in coordination with Humanist Canada and Humanists International, came after a thorough assessment of the social, political and economic environment in the United States, according to the New Jersey-based American Atheists.
The Trump administration's actions -- including the deportation of legal immigrants, refusals of admissions to travelers and travel restrictions -- have created an environment that is inhospitable to members of the global secular community, Jen Scott, board chair of American Atheists, said in a news release.
The fear of being detained, surveilled or harassed at the borders has caused the number of foreign arrivals to drop, she said. And a significant majority of the potential attendees surveyed expressed apprehension about the political climate and a reluctance to travel to Washington, she said.
"Here's the sobering truth: Under this administration, it is impossible for American Atheists to guarantee or even make reasonable assurances regarding the admissibility of international guests from key regions of the world, nor is it feasible for us to ensure the security of those who are granted entry to the United States or to mitigate against the still unknown events of the coming year," Scott said.
Too large a risk
Reductions to the Department of State's visa application and approval capacity also were a factor in the conclusion that holding the World Humanist Congress was too large a risk to event attendees, staff and volunteers.
Gary McLelland, chief executive of Humanists International, said in a news release that his organization has had very positive discussions with Canadian authorities about how they can help humanists come together in their country.
"Humanists all over the world are alarmed by the escalating religious nationalism and decline in human rights protections in the United States," McLelland said. "As a stable, inclusive and rights-affirming environment, Canada will allow us to convene an event that truly reflects humanist values."
American Atheists is especially concerned about the security of attendees from South America, Central America, the Middle East, northern Africa and central Asia.
Some attendees will be coming from countries that are subject to a travel ban and others will have visas, but still could have problems when they try to enter the United States, American Atheists President Nick Fish said.
There have been recent allegations that some travelers have been detained for hours arbitrarily or because they accidentally checked the wrong box on a form, he said.
The German government issued updated travel guidance in March after three of its citizens were denied entry to the United States and put in detention facilities. Germany's foreign office warned stricter immigration policies under the Trump administration could land travelers in detention or facing deportation.
In one of those incidents, Fabian Schmidt, a German national who is a lawful permanent U.S. resident, was detained March 7 at Boston Logan International Airport despite having a valid green card and no active legal issues.
The case against him centered on a 2015 misdemeanor marijuana possession charge that had already been dismissed under California's revised drug laws, according to David Keller, his Worcester, Mass., attorney.
Keller argued the legal basis for the detention was invalid and an immigration judge found in favor of Schmidt, who was released after spending nearly two months in a Rhode Island facility.
Domestic travelers impacted
Domestic travelers also are at risk because the administration seems to consider criticism of religion or the viewpoint that the United States is not a Christian nation as an attack on America, Fish said.
"We've seen it over and over, with the administration targeting nonprofit organizations, targeting law firms, targeting anybody who speaks out and challenges their policies," he said.
Fish said organizers were anticipating 850 to 1,000 attendees at the World Humanist Congress, which is held every three years. Representatives from the global humanist, atheist and secular communities attend.
The 2023 event in Copenhagen, Denmark, featured talks and training sessions on threats to democracy, gender equality, shared challenges and possibilities for cooperation in different parts of the world, rising secularism in the Western world and humanist ceremonial practices, among other subjects.
Current pressing issues include freedom of expression in the world and the role that American organizations play in exporting Christian nationalism abroad, Fish said.
Topic crosses borders
"This is a topic that unfortunately crosses borders," Fish said of Christian nationalism. "Our failure to grapple with it here in the U.S. means that it is having an extremely dangerous impact on folks all across the world.
"We're so glad our friends in Canada were able to step in and have the event in a country with a government that still respects free expression and freedom of religion."
Martin Frith, the Humanist Canada president, described religious nationalism as a threat to civil liberties and said his organization is excited to host the event.
"We want to stand in solidarity with our American colleagues because they really made a courageous and principled decision to withdraw as hosts," Frith said. "They really prioritized the safety of global participants who would be traveling."
He added that Canada is a "remarkably pluralist society and also remarkably secular."
"And so, while the U.S. talks about separation of church and state, we actually live it much more here," Frith said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
6 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Ford CEO Jim Farley Has a Clever Defense for Auto Tariffs
At a June 27 appearance at the Aspen Ideas Festival moderated by author and biographer Walter Isaacson, Ford CEO Jim Farley defended that some limited, targeted import tariffs could help the Blue Oval and other Detroit automakers survive and create more industrial jobs. Still, Farley said there needs to be a balance between a "fair playing field" to promote U.S. manufacturing while keeping cars affordable, which unfortunately will require importing components from other countries like Mexico. "What I like to say is, let's create a fair playing field for the finished vehicle. For parts, let us import parts from around the world," Farley said. "Let us keep Mexico stable, and other countries. That's what we're working with the administration on." The Ford figurehead's remarks at Aspen comes four months after he criticized President Trump's tariff policies at the same time Ford announced its Q4 and FY 2024 financial results in February, where he noted that they would create "a lot of cost and a lot of chaos," as duties on Mexican and Canadian imports "would blow a hole in the U.S. industry that we have never seen." However, he has slightly softened his position, noting that some protectionist measures could help promote American blue-collar industries, such as construction, manufacturing, agriculture, and skilled trades, to the next generation of skilled workforce instead of white-collar office work. He noted that the American workforce needs "to go back to the basics to trade schools" and that "we need to have a society that doesn't look down on people like that," adding that its factory in Germany participates in an apprenticeship program where students are exposed to an industrial environment "starting in junior high school." "What happens if you [the United States] have to defend yourself?" Farley told Issacson and the crowd at Aspen. "What, is Google going to make the tanks? We've talked a lot about energy independence, but we need to start talking about industrial independence. People do not realize how dependent we are as a country on making things in other countries." Farley pointed to the rare earth mineral crisis as an example. Over the last three weeks, Ford temporarily idled factories in the U.S. due to a shortage of magnets containing rare earth minerals, which are used in many different components. "We cannot get any high-powered magnets without China," Farley said. "We shut down plants for the last three weeks because we cannot get high-powered magnets. We can't make that stuff." As someone who graduated from a vocational high school, I see an inherent value in what Farley is saying. That's especially true as the topic of his conversation with the Steve Jobs and Elon Musk biographer turned to the Chinese EV market, where he mentioned that realizing the strength of the Chinese automotive industry was "the most humbling thing I have ever seen," adding that "seventy percent of all EVs in the world, electric vehicles, are made in China." However, I don't think that getting more people into the trades and into industrial environments is an end-all, be-all solution. As time evolves, technologies such as robotics and AI may have a larger role in industrial might; at least that is what Chinese companies like Xiaomi have been doing to scale up their car factories. Farley isn't wrong for wanting to try at least; however, there is more than what meets the eye on a topic where there is no straight solution. Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Miami Herald
6 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Minnesota agriculture institute joins lawsuit against USDA to save grant funding
WASHINGTON - A Minnesota agriculture group says the Trump administration's canceling of so-called DEI grants in farm country broke the law and imperiled a food network initiative's future, in a federal lawsuit filed in the District of Columbia. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in Minneapolis joined other farm sector non-profits who said last week in a lawsuit that the U.S. Department of Agriculture slashed grants for DEI - diversity, equity and inclusion - haphazardly and without individual review, violating federal law. The grants are intended to promote DEI efforts, from a San Francisco Bay Area initiative to boost LGBTQ and multiracial farmers to a New York soil health program. In Minnesota the IATP's grant for $111,695 to finance the MinnieAg Network, including tools for bridging farmers with food and ag industry officials, was terminated just six months from the finish line. That forced the organization to spend $30,000 from its own pocket to finish the grant's goals. "The abrupt and unexpected cancelation of our grant comes at a critical juncture just before we were planning to finalize our 'Farm and Food Systems 101′ resources to make this information available to all," said Erin McKee VanSlooten, Community Food Systems program director at IATP. VanSlooten said the cuts amount to "negating" 18 months of work, and she worries about the program's future. Upon taking office in January, President Trump signed a flurry of executive orders aiming to root out government funding for equity, sustainability and diversity programs under the charges that such programs were discriminatory or wasteful. According to the ag groups' lawsuit, when USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins posted to X that she'd cancelled a grant in the Bay Area to "educate queer, trans and BIPOC urban farmers and consumers about food justice," she said her agency would refocus around "American farming, ranching and forestry." The lawsuit alleges staff at USDA did not properly review programs and the agency could not revoke funding previously granted. The plaintiffs cover a wide swath of agriculture groups working to build pathways for non-traditional farmers to enter the industry, improve soil health and build climate and food resilience. One nonprofit's grant work aimed to build more trees in cities to provide buffers from the heat. Another sought to teach producers about no-till farming. The lawsuit names USDA, Rollins and other Trump administration officials, including the acting director of the Department of Government Efficiency. In a statement, a USDA spokesperson said they would not comment on pending litigation. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Newsweek
8 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Did Republicans Just Kill the Filibuster?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Republicans are relying on rarely employed accounting methods to push Donald Trump's "one, big beautiful bill" through the Senate, and in doing so could upend established Congressional procedures surrounding the reconciliation process and the filibuster. Why It Matters The filibuster—a procedural move allowing senators to extend debates on bills indefinitely without a 60-vote majority—has long been viewed as a move to encourage bipartisanship in Congress and as a bulwark against political dominance by slim majorities in the upper chamber. Experts told Newsweek that recent moves by Republicans while trying to pass Trump's tax legislation could create new precedent surrounding the filibuster for years to come, including past the period of GOP control. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham looks out from the upper chamber, June 11, 2025. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham looks out from the upper chamber, June 11, 2025. J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo What To Know Republicans are employing the reconciliation process to pass Trump's tax bill, the centerpiece of his second-term domestic agenda, allowing them to eventually advance the bill with only a majority vote rather than the 60 votes normally needed to do away with the threat of a filibuster. A central element of the bill, which the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates would add $4.2 trillion to the nation's deficit through 2034, is the extension of the tax cuts enacted during Trump's first term. Sweeping fiscal moves of this kind are traditionally restricted by the Byrd Rule, adopted in 1985, which limits the sort of policies that can be folded into bills passed through reconciliation, and forbids legislation from adding to the nation's deficit beyond 10 years. However, as reported by AP, Congressional Budget Office Director Phillip Swagel recently notified Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of the Senate Budget Committee that elements of the Big, Beautiful Bill would increase the deficit "in years after 2034." Going by this assessment, the Republican bill would violate the rule that determines what legislation can clear the Senate with a simple majority, which could force Republicans to amend significant portions of the legislation. In response to these concerns, and Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough advising that certain provisions in the bill were not budget-related and therefore in violation of Senate rules, Republicans have now argued that Trump's 2017 tax cuts should be treated as part of the fiscal "baseline" forecast, even though these have not yet been extended. Republicans have also cited Section 312 of Congressional Budget Act to argue that the final authority for determining baseline spending figures, and whether the tax portion of the bill violates Byrd, lies with Republican Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham. When approached by Newsweek for comment, a spokesperson for Senator Graham said: "Republicans do not want a $4 trillion tax hike—which is what would happen if the Democrats had their way and the 2017 tax cuts expired." They also referenced past support from Democrats for the notion that the Senate Budget Committee Chairman has the power to establish the baseline, citing former Chairman Bernie Sanders' 2022 remark that "the Budget Committee, through its Chair, makes the call on questions of numbers." Sanders is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. Experts have said that this new "Byrd Bath"—as it has been referred to by some on Capitol Hill—could establish a new precedent regarding budget reconciliation and the avoidance of filibusters by those in power in the future. "The budget process established in 1974 and reinforced by rules and precedents since then was intended to allow a simple majority to pass a budget as long as the contents of a budget measure were limited to budget-related spending and tax provisions," Steve Smith, professor of politics at Arizona State University, told Newsweek. "Playing partisan games with the budget process to set aside the 10-year budget period or use it for nonbudget purposes is contrary to the plain language of the Budget Act and the Byrd rules adopted by the Senate," he added. "It is a precedent that will get repeated over and over again." Michael Ettlinger, a political adviser who previously worked with the Biden-Harris campaign, said, "If the Republican's new accounting method becomes the norm, it will be far easier to pass deficit increasing legislation in the Senate with a simple majority vote—limiting the impact of the filibuster." Ettlinger, who is currently a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), noted that nothing would then stop Democrats from employing the same precedents to bypass the filibuster in future bills. "If the Democrats reclaim the Senate they will have the opportunity to undermine the filibuster as the Republicans have done," he told Newsweek. "It's their choice." Democratic Senator Rubén Gallego, reiterated this argument, posting to X: "There is no filibuster if the Senate [Republicans] do this and when Dems take power there is no reason why we should not use reconciliation to pass immigration reform." What People Are Saying Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, in a statement released Sunday, said: "The only way for Republicans to pass this horribly destructive bill, which is based on budget math as fake as Donald Trump's tan, was to go nuclear and hide it behind a bunch of procedural jargon. We're now operating in a world where the filibuster applies to Democrats but not to Republicans, and that's simply unsustainable given the triage that'll be required whenever the Trump era finally ends." Steve Smith, professor of politics at Arizona State University, told Newsweek: "If a small Senate majority can put anything in a budget measure or ignore the ten-year budget window, then nothing is left for regular legislation that is subject to a filibuster. It represents a "get-it-while-you-can" partisanship that Republicans have adopted since [Mitch] McConnell became leader that, step-by-step, has undermined longstanding Senate norms." Republican Senator and Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham, speaking on the Senate floor on Monday, said: "I'm not the first chairman to change a baseline for different reasons." "The budget Chairman, under [Section] 312, sets the baseline," Graham continued. "This has been acknowledged by Republicans and Democrats." What Happens Next? Debate over President Trump's megabill has now reached the final stages. A "vote-a-rama" on the bill—a marathon session during which lawmakers may introduce amendments to a reconciliation package—kicked off in the Senate on Monday morning. Should the bill pass a Senate vote, expected this week, it will then be sent back down to the House for approval. On Friday, Trump said that his preferred deadline of July 4 was not the "end all," but later said via Truth Social that the House of Representatives "must be ready" to send the bill to his desk by this date.
