It’s a commonly used term, particularly in Australia, but also in New Zealand and maybe a bit less in Great Britain.
tall poppy (NOUN, Australian, NZ, informal)
A person who is conspicuously successful and whose success frequently attracts envious hostility.
Origin
Mid 19th century: from an obsolete sense of poppy ‘a conspicuous or prominent person or thing’, probably with reference to Tarquinius Superbus, a king of ancient Rome who demonstrated how to deal with potential enemies by cutting off the heads of the tallest poppies in his garden (Livy 1.54.6).
A perceived tendency to discredit or disparage those who have achieved notable wealth or prominence in public life.
Courtesy Oxford Dictionaries.com
Tall poppy and tall poppy syndrome are well-attested Australianisms and refer to a tendency in Australian society to try and cut down people who are considered to be too successful or prominent (cutting the tall poppies down to size). Australians generally don’t like others to do too well, or (to use another popular Australian term) to ‘big-note’ themselves.
In a 2015 article titled “Crab Mentality, Cyberbullying and ‘Name and Shame’ Rankings,” Simon Spacey of the University of Waikato in New Zealand, calls it crab mentality. Spacey states,
“In modern day academia, secretly assassinating your peers is not necessarily performed the same way it was in king Tarquin’s day. The growth in importance of social media sites and the simplicity with which anyone can create an account that is not associated with their real identity makes it easier for an attacker to perform assassination through electronic rather than physical means. This form of anonymous electronic assassination is called cyberbullying (Li, 2007; NetSafe, n.d.) and like the assassinations of king Tarquin’s time, the harm caused by cyberbullying can include the death of young and old alike (e.g. Bailey, 2014; “Charlotte Dawson’s death throws spotlight on cyber bullying”, 2014; NOBullying.com, 2013) but does not need to actually kill for its perpetrators to gain advantage in their peer groups as discussed in Vance (2012).”
I have observed that ever since the Lawrence Krauss accusations of sexual misconduct, including a virtual condemnation of the entire atheist/skeptic movement as misogynistic, these social media attacks have ramped up. Some folks seemed to feel quite empowered to attack what some might consider the “old guard” of skeptics and atheists, demanding that they immediately denounce Krauss and disassociate themselves completely from him. (In fact, if they would go on YouTube and ceremoniously burn all his books, that would be even better.) I read an article which described how poor Matt Dillahunty (Atheist Experience) was relentlessly pursued and attacked on Facebook.
Similarly, people were attacking Sam Harris even though he made a statement at an event Krauss was supposed to attend and kindly said these are serious allegations and to give it some time.
These tall poppy trolls seemed to be out for blood. Nothing anyone said was to their satisfaction. Then they started attacking Krauss’s wife on Twitter. I don’t want to reveal her Twitter name here because she has been so mercilessly mistreated.
And lately people have been going after prominent skeptics like Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose and the attacks are not intellectual in nature—they are personal and nasty. Some of the attacks seem like little more than base jealousy, an attempt to attack a more prominent thinker to gain attention for themselves. But again… not in an intellectual fashion so much as in a, well… kind of creepy, kind of trash-talking, kind of overtly hostile, kind of demanding and four-letter-wordish sort of a way.
But it’s not just a single person– it’s a little online mob of like-minded “thinkers” that don’t like some of the criticisms they’re hearing from these rationalists, who, by the way, have earned their esteem through hard work, study and life experience. One fellow, for example, was blocked due to poor behavior, and kept making new Twitter accounts to harass these folks, feeling they were obligated to answer to him.
Well, I don’t know the answer here. Just an observation. I guess that old saying, “don’t feed the trolls,” fits here. The tall poppies will be fine and the block feature on social media still works.
For more about Lawrence Krauss and his personal response/statement:
“And how do I know this? I have lived it. I have an immediate family member with the same diagnosis.” Gretchen Mullen, Skeptic Review
Before I discuss the details of the case, here’s a statement from the parents of Jerry Drake Varnell, 23, of Sayre, Oklahoma. Varnell was arrested in August of 2017 for trying to detonate what he thought was a vehicle bomb at a downtown Oklahoma City bank.
Family statement, published August 16, 2017 by NewsOk.
“We as a family are extremely distraught about this situation with our son Jerry Drake Varnell, but what the public must understand is that he is a paranoid schizophrenic and is extremely susceptible to different types of ideology that normal people would deem immoral. Underneath his condition, he is a sweet-hearted person and we are extremely shocked that this event has happened. However, what truly has us flabbergasted is the fact that the FBI knew he was schizophrenic. The State of Oklahoma found him mentally incompetent and we, his parents have legal guardianship over him by the Court. These documents are sealed from the public, which is why no news media outlet has been able to obtain them. The FBI clearly knew that he was schizophrenic because they have gathered every ounce of information on him. Reading the criminal complaint against him has brought us great pause due to the numerous lies from the informant. We do not have an underground bunker! We built our home a few years ago and bought a storage container, as we use it for a storm shelter. We only recently pushed dirt up around it to make it safe. The building is used for storage and is NOT a bunker full of food and supplies, in fact the doors close from the outside. It has neither electricity nor anything that would make it habitable.
What the public should be looking at is the fact that the FBI gave our son the means to make this happen. He has no job, no money, no vehicle, and no driver’s license, due to the fact that he is schizophrenic and we; his parents do everything we can possible to keep him safe and functional. The mental health system has consistently failed us due to the lack of establishments and health care coverage for a person like him. He has attended college and just enrolled in welding school. His medications allow him to be somewhat functional but he will never be completely functional in life. His brain does not work like a normal person and never will due to the nature of his mental illness. He has suffered through countless serious full-blown schizophrenic delusional episodes and he has been put in numerous mental hospitals since he was 16 years old. The FBI came and picked him up from our home, they gave him a vehicle, gave him a fake bomb, and every means to make this happen none of which he had access to on his own. We know who their informant is and what the public should know is that he is that a drug-dealing criminal. On June 15, 2017, Jerry’s Father told the criminal informant “that he was not allowed back on our property and if he returned we would have him arrested for trespassing and drugs”. Apparently, he continued to sneak onto our residence. The FBI paid him to continue this operation and I believe they have cleared his criminal record.
The FBI should have filed conspiracy on our son and had him committed to a mental institution. They should not have aided and abetted a paranoid schizophrenic to commit this act. There are many more facts that I will not make public that will support my son and the disturbing acts made by the FBI.
I realize that many will say my son could have found another person to commit this act. Yet, any person that has access to the materials and the state of mind necessary to bomb a building would not have any need for a schizophrenic who has no resources to contribute. Schizophrenics always have conspiracy theories and feels everyone is out to get them. They trust no one and there is no doubt in my mind that this informant began this hate against the government and my son followed along because others easily influence him. There is no person in his life that has even heard anything about hatred for the government and we have all been shocked by the event.
We ask all news media outlets to please respect our privacy. Do not fly helicopters over our home and stalk us at our gates for a story, we are trying our very best to comfort each other because this is a devastating loss for our family. We do not need to be bombarded by reporters who only want to omit important facts of this event. We understand the public wants to know how this could possibly happen. We simply ask them to look at the facts of the case and ask why the FBI made this happen. He is our son and he is a brother and loved one no matter what he has done. We have unconditional love for him, we are heart broken by this event and wish we had been made aware by the FBI, and we would have committed him into a mental institution for help.”
Sincerely,
Clifford and Melonie Varnell
———————-
And here is what was released by the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Oklahoma, on Monday, August 14, 2017. Note that there is not a single reference to Varnell’s extreme mental illness nor his suggestibility or delusions about government persecution so common among paranoid schizophrenics.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma — Jerry Drake Varnell, 23, of Sayre, Oklahoma, was arrested in connection with a plot to detonate a vehicle bomb at BancFirst, 101 N. Broadway, in downtown Oklahoma City, announced Mark A. Yancey, United States Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma.
According to a criminal complaint filed in the Western District of Oklahoma, the FBI arrested Varnell at approximately 1:00 am on August 12, 2017, after he attempted to detonate what he believed to be an explosives-laden van he had parked in an alley next to BancFirst. The complaint alleges that Varnell initially wanted to blow up the Federal Reserve Building in Washington, D.C., with a device similar to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing because he was upset with the government.
The complaint explains that after Varnell’s intentions came to the attention of law enforcement, an undercover FBI agent posed as a person who could assist him. According to the complaint, Varnell took a series of actions to advance his plot. He identified BancFirst as the target, prepared a statement to be posted on social media after the explosion, helped assemble the device, helped load it into what he believed was a stolen van, drove the van by himself from El Reno to BancFirst in downtown Oklahoma City, and dialed a number on a cellular telephone that he believed would trigger the explosion.
Varnell is charged with attempting to use explosives to destroy a building in interstate commerce. If convicted, he would face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment. He is expected to make his initial appearance in federal court in Oklahoma City today at 3:00 pm.
This arrest is the culmination of a long-term domestic terrorism investigation involving an undercover operation, during which Varnell had been monitored closely for months as the alleged bomb plot developed. The device was actually inert, and the public was not in danger. “There was never a concern that our community’s safety or security was at risk during this investigation,” said Kathryn Peterson, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI in Oklahoma. “I can assure the public, without hesitation, that we had Varnell’s actions monitored every step of the way.”
U.S. Attorney Yancey said: “I commend the devoted work of the FBI and our state law enforcement partners in ensuring that violent plots of this kind never succeed.”
The investigation was conducted by the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, including members from the Oklahoma City FBI; Homeland Security Investigations, part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; the Oklahoma City Police Department; the Edmond Police Department; the Oklahoma Highway Patrol; the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs; and the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. The FBI worked in conjunction with BancFirst during the investigation. Oklahoma District Attorney Angela Marsee, of District 2, also provided assistance. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Matt Dillon, with assistance from the Justice Department’s Counterterrorism Section.
Reference is made to court records for further information. The public is reminded that this complaint is only an allegation and that Varnell is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
——-
A look at the criminal complaint tells a much different story. The FBI employed a paid confidential informant who was incarcerated and wanted to make a deal to get out of prison. The complaint conveniently skips over who actually initiated the plot, relying only on a tip from a CI wanting to get out of prison. It leaves open the question of whether the CI may have planted the idea in Varnell’s head to begin with.
In addition, the complaint shows time and time again that Varnell had to be provided with the means necessary to carry out this “plot.” He had no vehicle, he had no money to purchase explosives, no particular plan. He was spurred on by the constant contact he received from the CI and later an undercover FBI agent posing as the person who could obtain the explosives.
Paranoid schizophrenics often fear authority, particularly the government, feeling that these entities may be responsible for inserting thoughts into their heads. They are also lonely, craving friendship, which this CI certainly provided. Some suffer from a disordered pattern of thinking which makes pulling together such a complex plot almost impossible. In this case, Varnell was often contacted and had made no progress on the plot, so the CI and FBI agent would do it for him and then invite him along to “help.”
And how do I know this? I have lived it. I have an immediate family member with the same diagnosis. The toll on the family is unbelievable. To think that these parents have lived with the burden of serving as guardians, seeing to his care, involuntarily committing him if necessary… these are hard tasks. And to think that the FBI comes along and creates a scenario that was unlikely to occur without the set-up and support seems to be a criminal act in itself.
Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge, on the theory that “Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person’s mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute.” Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992). A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant’s lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988). Of the two elements, predisposition is by far the more important.
Inducement is the threshold issue in the entrapment defense. Mere solicitation to commit a crime is not inducement. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 451 (1932). Nor does the government’s use of artifice, stratagem, pretense, or deceit establish inducement. Id. at 441. Rather, inducement requires a showing of at least persuasion or mild coercion, United States v. Nations, 764 F.2d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir. 1985); pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship, ibid.; or extraordinary promises of the sort “that would blind the ordinary person to his legal duties,” United States v. Evans, 924 F.2d 714, 717 (7th Cir. 1991). See also United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691, 698 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (inducement shown only if government’s behavior was such that “a law-abiding citizen’s will to obey the law could have been overborne”); United States v. Johnson, 872 F.2d 612, 620 (5th Cir. 1989) (inducement shown if government created “a substantial risk that an offense would be committed by a person other than one ready to commit it”).
Even if inducement has been shown, a finding of predisposition is fatal to an entrapment defense. The predisposition inquiry focuses upon whether the defendant “was an unwary innocent or, instead, an unwary criminal who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime.” Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63. Thus, predisposition should not be confused with intent or mens rea: a person may have the requisite intent to commit the crime, yet be entrapped. Also, predisposition may exist even in the absence of prior criminal involvement: “the ready commission of the criminal act,” such as where a defendant promptly accepts an undercover agent’s offer of an opportunity to buy or sell drugs, may itself establish predisposition. Jacobson, 503 U.S. at 550.
Official Portrait Courtesy United States Supreme Court.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen for a wide-ranging conversation in celebration of the 25th anniversary of her appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here are some important highlights of the conversation:
Jeffrey Rosen: What are your thoughts on the #MeToo movement and will it prove lasting progress for women’s equality?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: It was a question I was asked this afternoon at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. What I wanted to convey there was that sexual harassment of women has gone on forever, but it didn’t get headlines until a woman named Catherine MacKinnon wrote a book called “Sexual Harassment of Working Women,” and that was the start of litigation under Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act]. A few cases came to the Supreme Court and they all came out right. But still, women were hesitant.
I think one of the principal reasons for it was because they feared that they would not be believed. The number of women who have come forward as a result of the #MeToo movement has been astonishing. My hope is not just that it is here to stay, but that it is as effective for the woman who works as a maid in a hotel as it is for Hollywood stars. [applause]
Rosen: Many women are wondering, will this prove a lasting advance for women or like previous discussions of sexual harassment in the 90’s will this advance pass?
Ginsburg: I think it will have staying power because people, and not only women, men as well as women, realize how wrong the behavior was and how it subordinated women. So we shall see, but my prediction is that it is here to stay.
Rosen: Why is it happening now? Is there something about what millennials are doing that has caused the #MeToo movement or is it something else?
Ginsburg: I think we can compare it to the gay-rights movement when people stepped up and said “this is who I am and I am proud of it.” They came out in numbers instead of hiding, disguising. That movement developed very rapidly, and I think we are seeing the same thing with sexual harassment.
Rosen: Did you see this one coming?
Ginsburg: No, no. And why did it happen just when it did? I’ve heard from women who told stories about Harvey Weinstein many years ago. And then the Times decided to do a big story on it. I think it was the press finally taking notice of something they knew long before that propelled it to the place it now holds in the public arena.
Rosen: What is your advice to all women, young women and to all women, about how to sustain the momentum of the movement and to make its changes lasting?
Ginsburg: I have heard from lawyers that women have come forward with stories about things that happened many years ago, and even though the statute of limitations is long past, these cases are being settled. One interesting thing is whether it will be an end to the confidentiality pledge. Women who complained and brought suit were offered settlements in which they would agree that they would never disclose what they had complained about. I suspect we will not see those agreements anymore.
Rosen: What are the legal changes necessary to make these reforms permanent?
Ginsburg: We have the legal reforms—we have had them for a long time. Title VII. It was argued early on that sexual harassment has nothing to do with gender discrimination. Everyone knows boys will be boys, and that was that. There are state and federal laws. The laws are there and the laws are in place, it takes people to step forward and use them.
Rosen: At Sundance, you told your own #MeToo story about an encounter at Cornell long ago. Tell the audience about that.
Ginsburg: I was in a chemistry class at Cornell. I was not very adept in the laboratory, so a teaching assistant decided to help me out so much that he offered to give me a practice exam the day before the actual exam. When I went into the room and looked at the exam paper, I found that it was the practice exam. Then I knew immediately what this instructor expected as a payoff. So, instead of being shy, I confronted him and said, how dare you do this? That is one of many, many stories that every woman of my vintage knows.
Rosen: What would you advise women to say in similar situation? Should they be similarly strong?
Ginsburg: Yes. Say this is bad behavior. You should not engage in it and I will not submit to it. But I think it is easier today because there are numbers to support the woman who says so. We no longer hear as often as we did in the past, she’s making it up.
Rosen: What is your advice to men in this new regime where people are trying to behave well and figure out what the new norms are?
Ginsburg: Just think how you would like the women in your family to be treated, particularly your daughters. And when you see men behaving in ways they should not, you should tell them this is improper behavior.
Rosen: There is a debate both among women and among men about what sort of behavior should be sanctionable, and one group is saying that it’s wrong to lump together violent behavior like Harvey Weinstein with less dramatic forms of sexual misconduct and others say that all misconduct is wrong and should be sanctioned.
Ginsburg: Well, there are degrees of conduct, yes. But any time a woman is put in a position where she is inferior, subordinate, there should be—she should complain, she should not be afraid.
Rosen: What about due process for the accused?
Ginsburg: Well, that must not be ignored and it goes beyond sexual harassment. The person who is accused has a right to defend herself or himself, and we certainly should not lose sight of that. Recognizing that these are complaints that should be heard. There’s been criticism of some college codes of conduct for not giving the accused person a fair opportunity to be heard, and that’s one of the basic tenants of our system, as you know, everyone deserves a fair hearing.
Rosen: Are some of those criticisms of the college codes valid?
Ginsburg: Do I think they are? Yes.
Rosen: I think people are hungry for your thoughts about how to balance the values of due process against the need for increased gender equality.
Ginsburg: It’s not one or the other. It’s both. We have a system of justice where people who are accused get due process, so it’s just applying to this field what we have applied generally.
Rosen: Some women also fear backlash. They worry that women may have less opportunity for mentorship at work because guys are afraid of interacting with them. Is this valid or not?
Ginsburg: Well, let me ask you—as a man—do you think that you will be hesitant to encourage women because of the #MeToo movement?
Rosen: On the contrary, I have felt, like many men, sensitized to the plight of women by hearing these stories and it seems like an entirely salutary thing.
Ginsburg: Yes
The full conversation was streamed live on Feb 12, 2018 and is available at
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice, was born in Brooklyn, New York, March 15, 1933. She married Martin D. Ginsburg in 1954, and has a daughter, Jane, and a son, James. She received her B.A. from Cornell University, attended Harvard Law School, and received her LL.B. from Columbia Law School. She served as a law clerk to the Honorable Edmund L. Palmieri, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, from 1959–1961. From 1961–1963, she was a research associate and then associate director of the Columbia Law School Project on International Procedure. She was a Professor of Law at Rutgers University School of Law from 1963–1972, and Columbia Law School from 1972–1980, and a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford, California from 1977–1978. In 1971, she was instrumental in launching the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, and served as the ACLU’s General Counsel from 1973–1980, and on the National Board of Directors from 1974–1980. She was appointed a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1980. President Clinton nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and she took her seat August 10, 1993.
Photo courtesy American Atheists. Hugh Laurie will provide the keynote address on Friday, March 30.
The 2018 American Atheists National Convention will begin on Friday, March 30 with additional social events on Thursday, March 29 for attendees who arrive early. All speakers and events will be held in the Century Ballroom of the Sheraton Oklahoma City Downtown Hotel unless otherwise noted.
Keynote Address: Hugh Laurie
Hugh Laurie is an actor, director, singer, comedian, and television icon. We’re honored to welcome Hugh as the keynote speaker for our 2018 National Convention.
From his work with collaborator Stephen Fry in the sketch comedy series A Bit of Fry & Laurie to his starring role as Gregory House in House, Hugh Laurie has been a fixture of television, film, and music for more than 35 years. Mr. Laurie has also made appeared on HBO’s Veep, BBC’s The Night Manager, and currently stars on the Hulu series Chance.
In addition to his acting, Mr. Laurie is a talented musician and plays piano, guitar, drums, harmonica, and saxophone. He is a vocalist and keyboard player for the charity rock group Band From TV and has released two blue albums, Let Them Talk and Didn’t It Rain.
“Our national convention is all about fun and community,” said David Silverman, president of American Atheists. “We’re all looking forward to the fantastic speakers and other programming, but we’re even more excited to welcome hundreds of atheists from all across the country and from right here in Oklahoma City to show just how vibrant the atheist community is.”
Besides Laurie, the national convention will host more than two dozen speakers including science advocate and skeptic Yvette “The Sci-Babe” d’Entremont, managing editor of Snopes.com Brooke Binkowski, founder of The Thinking Atheist Seth Andrews, comedians Leighann Lord and Andy Wood, a screening of Bill Nye: Science Guy followed by a discussion with the filmmakers, and many more.
On Sunday, American Atheists will host a volunteer service event to pack 30,000 meals for local people in need. After the service project, anyone who volunteers or donates will be invited to an exclusive after-party featuring drinks, dancing, snacks, and some special guests.
8:30pm – Cards Against Humanity and Game Night (Separately ticketed event, $20)
Anyone who has arrived Thursday is welcome to join us for the 8:30pm game night. The custom American Atheists Cards Against Humanity set will only be available to those who purchase a ticket. All proceeds from the Cards Against Humanity card sales will be donated to a local charity.
4:00pm – Bill Nye: Science Guy Movie Screening with panel discussion from director David Alvarado and social media producer Tracey Moody, moderated by Pamela Whissel
6:30pm – Evening Break
7:00pm – Saturday Dinner
9:00pm – Dance party, featuring DJ, drinks, photobooth, and more (open to all attendees!)
3:00pm – Thank You Event and Party for Project Volunteers
Note: The closing “Thank You” event will be open to anyone who donates to or volunteers at our volunteer service project. The closing party will feature musical performances, speakers, light refreshments, and a cash bar.
James Lindon, a self-described Atheist and Humanist, has filed in Civil Compaint in Ohio Courts claiming state coercion to participate in religious activities by asserting his right to be free from religious compulsion. No secular alternative to participation in the Alcoholics Anonymous 12-Step program was offered to him.
The Freedom from Religion Foundation addresses this subject in detail:
Court-Ordered Participation in A.A.
Can a court, prison, or probation officer sentence me to attend A.A., which is a religious program?
The trend of current case law shows that forcing a prisoner or probationer to attend A.A. or N.A. or other religiously centered rehabilitation program is increasingly seen as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Information for Prisoners and Probationers Required to Attend A.A., N.A., or Other Religiously Centered Drug and Alcohol Rehab Programs
Summary
The trend of current case law shows that forcing a prisoner or probationer to attend A.A. or N.A. or other religiously centered rehabilitation program is increasingly seen as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Courts from the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 11th Circuits have all explicitly or implicitly ruled that this is true. In order to establish such a claim, prisoners must generally show three things: (1) that the program is religious; (2) that if they do not attend the program they will either (a) lose some benefit they are otherwise entitled to or (b) be subject to some detriment or punishment; and (3) that there is no secular alternative available.
Argument
The fundamental rule of the Establishment Clause is this: “It is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which ‘establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so.’” Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 587 (1992).
In analyzing cases where the state requires an individual to partake in a program with a religious element, courts applied what is called the “coercion test.” Here “only three points are crucial: first, has the state acted; second, does the action amount to coercion; and third, is the object of the coercion religious or secular?” Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472, 479 (7th Cir. 1996).
There is a substantial body of case law recognizing that A.A. (and N.A.) is a religious body for purposes of 1st Amendment Analysis. See Cox v. United States, 296 F.3d 89, 108 n.11 (2nd Cir. 2002) (finding that A.A. is a religious organization under the Establishment clause and stating: “To the best of our knowledge, no court presented with an Establishment Clause claim implicating A.A. or a comparable therapy program incorporating religious concepts has reached a contrary [conclusion]”).
Recent trends make clear that the coercion test is the proper vehicle for analyzing claims by prisoners or probationers that they are being forced to attend Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings under the threat that they will be punished or that some benefit or right will be withheld if they do not participate. See Kerr, 95 F.3d at 480; Warner v. Orange County Probation Dept., 115 F.3d. 1068 (2nd Cir. 1997); Bobko v. Lavan, 157 Fed. Appx. 517, 518 (3rd Cir. 2005) (unpublished disposition) (case dismissed where secular alternative available to defendant, court said: “The government violates the First Amedment’s Establishment Clause when it requires a prisoner to participate in a drug or alcohol rehabilitation program with a religious component”); Munson v. Norris, 435 F.3d 877, 880 (8th Cir. 2006).
Using the coercion test, a number of courts have recently found that forcing prisoners or probationers to attend Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings under the threat that some benefit or right will be withheld for failing to attend is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. See Id. at 480; Warner, 115 F.3d. 1068; Turner v. Hickman, 342 F.Supp.2d 887, 893-894 (E.D. Cal. 2004); Catala v. Commissioner, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31695 (D. N.H. 2005) (unpublished disposition); Edmondson v. Curry, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45119 (D. N.H. 2006) (unpublished disposition); Rainesv. Siegelman, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15542 (M.D. Ala. 2006) (using coercion test, court found no violation where plaintiff had secular alternative); Cummings v. Darsey, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4257 (D. N.J. 2007) (unpublished disposition).
Conclusions and Recommendations
A growing body of law shows that prisoners and probationers may not be forced to attend A.A., N.A., or any other religiously based organization. Prisoners and probationers who feel they are being forced attend a religiously centered organization should request a secular alternative. If that request is denied, or if there is no secular alternative, prisoners should gather information about the program to show that it is religious in nature. Prisoners should then request that authorities not condition any benefit or threaten any punishment based on their refusal to attend the religious organization. If authorities refuse to comply, suit should be brought in Federal District Court alleging Establishment Clause violations under Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 587 (1992) and its progeny, Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472, 479 (7th Cir. 1996), Warner v. Orange County Probation Dept., 115 F.3d. 1068 (2nd Cir. 1997), Bobko v. Lavan, 157 Fed. Appx. 517, 518 (3rd Cir. 2005), and Munson v. Norris, 435 F.3d 877, 880 (8th Cir. 2006).
With warm thanks to Michael J Fellows, Esq.
Courtesy Freedom From Religion Foundation Website:
Interestingly, there are secular alternatives to Alcoholics Anonymous. In fact, Smart Recovery, a science-based, religion-free alternative was founded by humanists. To explore the Smart Recovery Program, visit https://www.smartrecovery.org/
As the students from Florida are so eager to organize in the movement they are calling #NeverAgain, I, as a former teacher, would make some suggestions as to what I would do.
First, I would guide them. They want change. They want to be heard. How can we make that happen? I would develop a curriculum suited to helping them through this time.
First, I would take them as a large group and we would view the 2015 Frontline Documentary “Gunned Down: The Power of the NRA.” Why? Because it lays out the difficulty of changing gun laws even in the wake of previous horrible mass shootings and even with President Obama in power.
Second, we would go to the website Sandyhookpromise.com. Why? Because we do not need to reinvent the wheel—some of the work is done for us.
Third, we would jointly write a mission statement. What can we all agree on that we want to see happen? This would be subject to revision.
Fourth, we would divide into small study groups each tasked with a different issue to report back to the larger group. Study groups might include:
History/timeline of school/mass shootings. Any similarities? Is it escalating?
Scientific studies about school/mass shootings. What do we know statistically? What does the science say about causes and influencers? Make sure our resources are valid and unbiased.
What about the people who say it’s not the gun, it’s the person behind the gun? Is that a valid argument? How do we answer that with science and statistics?
How are gun laws made? Are there both federal laws and state laws that we have to address? If yes, we may need two groups—one that reports back on what the federal gun laws are and one that reports back on state-specific gun laws.
What pending legislation is there right now? How can we help support it if it aligns with our goals?
What are the guns we are concerned about? Assault rifles only? Automatic vs. semi-automatic? What are we specifically asking for?
What is the FBI profile of the school shooter? Make contact with local FBI office for a face-to-face meeting and any available documents to read and report back on.
Mental health laws—what are they and are they being properly enforced? Are we at risk of a copycat?
Are we being kind to our fellow students? Is bullying playing a role? Can we improve? How do we reach out to the loner?
How do we best influence our lawmakers? Letter writing campaigns? Personal meetings? Hosting them at our school? Who are the decision makers we need to target?
What financial resources do we have and how can we best use them? Is pouring money into a March the best way to use our funds? Or should we use it for filmmaking, public service announcements, social media campaigns, travel to meet our legislators? Do a cost benefit analysis.
What are other countries doing about gun laws and gun violence? See comparative studies. If guns are removed, does another kind of violence take its place?
Do we need designated spokespeople? Some students will be more comfortable and prepared in front of a group—some will be more comfortable and prepared in a debate. Find our strengths for public relations.
Be diplomatic. Avoid hostility on social media. Constructively critique each other. For example, saying things like “I think the NRA likes these mass shootings,” or “if you don’t agree with me, then you want to murder kids”—that only alienates your audience. Don’t yell at others. Be civil and earn respect.
Prepare group reports and report back to the large group. Revise mission statement. Move ahead with a solid and workable plan and go for it.
That’s just a rough sketch–but these “kids” do need support and guidance. I hope they receive it while they have the momentum.
And also… before any of this, they need any and all available counseling and emotional support. Most of us will never see the devastation these children saw.
First off, do you know who Lawrence Krauss is? I’ve seen many comments with folks commenting that they’ve never even heard of him. His professional biography, published on Arizona State University’s website, may be found here:
Secondly, on February 22, 2018, Buzzfeed published an article by By Peter Aldhous (BuzzFeed News Reporter) Azeen Ghorayshi (BuzzFeed News Reporter) Virginia Hughes (BuzzFeed News Science Editor). The article is titled, “The Unbeliever” and subheaded with the following:
“He Became A Celebrity For Putting Science Before God. Now Lawrence Krauss Faces Allegations Of Sexual Misconduct.
Lawrence Krauss is a famous atheist and liberal crusader — and, in certain whisper networks, a well-known problem. With women coming forward alleging sexual harassment, will his “skeptic” fanbase believe the evidence?”
Third, is Buzzfeed a reliable source? I like to use Media Bias Fact Check when I look at a publication. The website says Buzzfeed is classified as having a left-center bias with a Mixed rating on factual reporting but is “generally trustworthy.”
From the Media Bias website:
LEFT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Notes: Buzzfeed is an internet media company that focuses on entertainment, but does have content for breaking news and politics. Buzzfeed occasionally uses loaded words with a left bias in headlines/articles and has failed a fact check. Buzzfeed has also been known to rush stories that are not verified and then have to retract them. For the most part, Buzzfeed is factual and very well sourced. If not for a few minor blemishes Buzzfeed would be listed as High for factual reporting. Overall, Buzzfeed is a left leaning source that is almost always accurate in reporting, however our criteria dictates that a source that fails a fact check must be rated factually mixed. Buzzfeed is generally trustworthy, but it is recommended to check other sources to verify their stories. (6/30/2016) Updated (12/22/17)
Fourth, I found it odd that Buzzfeed put “skeptic” in quotation marks.
Let’s clarify the terms skeptic and skepticism:
Merriam Webster:
Definition of skeptic
1 : an adherent or advocate of skepticism
2 : a person disposed to skepticism especially regarding religion or religious principles
Definition of skepticism
1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3 : doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation)
Skepticism also has more than one branch.
Examples of major types:
Philosophical Skepticism—final truths are unknowable. I include Moral Skepticism under this heading, although others might view it as a separate area of study.
Religious Skepticism—questioning faith-based claims. A religious skeptic is not always an atheist. The two terms are commonly misused as interchangeable.
Scientific Skepticism-applying scientific inquiry and scientific method to prove knowledge. This would include debunkers such as Martin Gardner, the Amazing Randi, Penn & Teller or the popular “Mythbusters.” It also questions pseudoscience claims such as homeopathy.
So… that said, it appears that Buzzfeed uses the terms skeptic and atheist as the same thing, and that is simply incorrect.
So, back to dissecting the article:
Skeptics want evidence. Skeptics ask, “Is it true?”
Buzzfeed’s subhead quotes “whisper networks”: “Lawrence Krauss is a famous atheist and liberal crusader — and, in certain whisper networks, a well-known problem.”
Are “whisper networks” reliable evidence? Nope.
The next line in the subhead reads, “With women coming forward alleging sexual harassment, will his ‘skeptic’ fanbase believe the evidence?”
Huh? Why wouldn’t skeptics believe reliable evidence, whether part of Krauss’s fanbase or not? But it’s got to be more than the whisper network. There is no secret oath among skeptics to deny truth or cover it up if someone is accused of sexual misconduct.
Fortunately, the Buzzfeed authors go on to present the evidence beyond just whispers and innuendo.
First up is the account of Melody Hensley. The details are in the full story so I won’t rehash them here.
Hensley: “’It was definitely predatory,’ she said. ‘I didn’t want that to happen. It wasn’t consensual.’”
Krauss: “Krauss told BuzzFeed News that what happened with Hensley in the hotel room was consensual. In that room, ‘we mutually decided, in a polite discussion in fact, that taking it any further would not be appropriate,’ he told BuzzFeed News by email.”
Now what? In the classic sense of a “he said/she said” situation, the skeptic is going to look at this situation and say truth is unknowable. Dig deeper, please. (Hence, some skeptics, male and female, have been criticized for not fully embracing the #MeToo movement that asserts we must believe everyone, regardless of the evidence. The victim is always correct and truthful. No need to look under the hood.)
Ok, so that being said, things look a little more convincing when Buzzfeed claims the following: “In response to complaints, two institutions — Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario — have quietly restricted him from their campuses. Our reporting is based on official university documents, emails, and interviews with more than 50 people.”
That sounds like pretty damning evidence. The only documentation lacking would be independent verification by these institutions, which may happen, or a look at these documents and emails. But, clearly, this is moving in the direction of reliable evidence, which is all the skeptic wants to see. Buzzfeed fairly notes, “In lengthy emails to BuzzFeed News, Krauss denied all of the accusations against him, calling them ‘false and misleading defamatory allegations.’”
But then the article seems to take a weird turn, and it feels like an attack on the skeptic community in general:
First, it defines skeptics as rejecting all forms of faith:
“Although not a household name, Lawrence Krauss is a big shot among skeptics, a community that rejects all forms of faith — from religion and the supernatural, to unproven alternative medicines, to testimonials based on memory and anecdote — in favor of hard evidence, reason, and science.”
As illustrated above, this is not true. Case in point: Martin Gardner, considered by many to be the founder of the modern scientific skeptic movement, was a believer who wrote the essay, “Why I Am Not An Atheist.” Similarly, Carl Sagan disavowed atheism.
Next, Buzzfeed claims: “The skeptics draw heavily from traditionally male groups: scientists, philosophers, and libertarians, as well as geeky subcultures like gamers and sci-fi enthusiasts.” Traditionally male groups? Skepticism, questioning, inquiry, doubt—these are not the domains of males only. The suggestion that women can’t think critically with the best of them is insulting. Gamers and sci-fi enthusiasts? I don’t even know where that idea comes from. Skepticism has nothing to do with hobbies.
Then the article proceeds to pronounce the skeptic movement to be fracturing:
“But today the movement is fracturing, with some of its most prominent members now attacking identity politics and ‘social justice warriors’ in the name of free speech.”
Doesn’t fracturing mean falling apart? As a good skeptic, I return to Merriam-Webster:
Definition of fracture
1 : the result of fracturing : break
2 a : the act or process of breaking or the state of being broken; especially : the breaking of hard tissue (such as bone)
b : the rupture (as by tearing) of soft tissue kidney fracture
3 : the general appearance of a freshly broken surface of a mineral
Huh? So the skeptic movement is being broken apart by valuing and protecting free speech? The skeptic movement is broken for believing in discourse, debate and open-mindedness?
I’ll just leave you with this 20 minute talk on the value of free speech and free exchange of ideas by Christopher Hitchens. If you have time, it is wonderful.
Next, Buzzfeed goes with the anti-Muslim allegations so often leveled against religious skeptics. Oh brother. How many times does it have to be said. I’ll just quote Richard Dawkins here: “I am known as a frequent critic of Christianity and have never been de-platformed for that. Why do you give Islam a free pass? Why is it fine to criticise Christianity but not Islam?”
Next, we get to a paragraph that levels so many accusations, I don’t know if I can handle them all in one sitting:
“Famous freethinkers have been criticized for anti-Muslim sentiment (addressed that with Dawkins), for cheering the alt-right media personality Milo Yiannopoulos (Milo does not identify as alt-right and yeah, free speech), and for lampooning feminism and gender theory (that’s the area of the evolutionary biologists and not all skeptics speak on this topic. It is extremely complex and academic in nature).”
Next: “Several women, after sharing personal accounts of misogyny and harassment by men in the skeptic community, have been subjected to Gamergate-style online attacks, including rape and death threats.” If that is true, it is not coming from decent human beings. Prominent faces in the skeptic community, male and female, black, brown and white, do not participate in name calling and certainly don’t threaten rape or death. Ridiculous. Look at Jordan Peterson’s Twitter. A British journalist recently claimed she was harassed after interviewing Peterson, and he absolutely denounced it.
And for the kicker: “As a result, some commentators have accused parts of the movement of sliding into the alt-right.” Bleh. This was recently addressed by Sam Harris, when folks who openly identified as alt-right co-opted Steven Pinker by clipping out some YouTube comment and making it seem like he was a Nazi or some other nonsense. The New York Times even ran an opinion piece called “Social Media is Making Us Dumber” about this silliness.
Clearly, sexual misconduct is everywhere, and coming from many sides. Smearing an entire community, though, is just plain—what’s the scientific word—goofy.
——
UPDATE: ASU has received no complaints from ASU students, faculty or staff related to Lawrence Krauss. The university has initiated a review in an attempt to discern the facts. We encourage anyone who has concerns about faculty, staff or students to report those concerns.
11:18 AM – 23 Feb 2018
Official statement from Lawrence Krauss published 3.7.18
Arizona State University has investigated a complaint regarding allegations that Krauss touched the breast of a woman attending a conference in Australia in 2016. ASU ruled the incident is a violation of the university’s sexual harrassment policy. On page 2 of the review, there is a note that the woman involved in the incident had not wanted to make a report and did not feel the incident merited losing one’s job. However, witnesses felt the incident was reportable. The full letter and review is here:
An update on my situation at ASU. I have chosen to retire from ASU in May, 2019, when I turn 65. Onward and hopefully upward to new and different challenges. Details below. Thanks for the support and encouragement from so many of you. pic.twitter.com/7PSh0i4NnU
PRESS RELEASE
Today 16/01/2018, at about 1620 hours, operatives of the Lagos State Police Command, led by CP Edgal Imohimi, stormed No.4 Okedumade street, off Badare street, Alakuko Lagos and arrested a self acclaimed Alfa, by name, Abdulfatai Kayode, male.
The said Abdulfatai confessed having some human parts in his divination room.
A mini paint bucket filled with assorted types of female body parts comprising of the laps, intestine and the vagina etc, was recovered from him. He confessed that the human heart seen in the bucket was that of a man.
He further named one Ifa,, male as his accomplice.
The CP immediately dispatched the Command’s underground operatives to fish out the said Ifa.
About 30 minutes after the Commissioner of Police left the crime scene, news came that Ifa has been arrested.
The CP, who was vividly happy at the arrest of the men, attributed the success to Community policing and safety partnership in existence in Lagos state. He urged Lagosians to know their neighbours and report any suspicious happenings.SP Chike Oti
Police Public Relations Officer,
Lagos State Police Command.
The human body parts were to be used for money rituals. The press release did not indicate how the body parts were obtained, but other “Alfas,” a term for a Muslim Cleric, have obtained body parts by robbing graves.
In an unrelated case, Nigerian police recently broke up a murderous group known as the Badoo Cult.
A case in Massachusetts is attracting public interest as a young girl received third degree “disfiguring” burns on her face when her mother and her aunt performed a voodoo spell on her to cleanse her of evil spirits that were causing her to behave badly. Here is the story:
While it might seem at first glance to be unimaginable, websites abound on the Internet promoting these types of rituals and providing the supplies and even prepared kits to reinforce and capitalize on this type of belief system.
Here are some typical set-ups for a cleansing ritual. Note that a candle or open flame is often recommended. The oils very likely have alcohol causing flammability. Often, the ingredients are not even fully disclosed:
The women mentioned that part of the ritual involves the burning of myhrr, also introducing a potential fire hazard into the cleansing and also freely available in voodoo supplies:
Sea salt was cited as one of the components of the ritual cleansing:
Herbal Sea Salt Bath
We offer many types of bath salts. Mixed with herbs for different uses. All rid you of negative energy. Their are ones made to match your Element (Earth, Air, Water, Fire) Healing, Love, Purification, Spirit, Prosperity & Protection. Any of these can be used in a cleansing but have the specific herbs added according to your preference. So be sure to specify on the “notes to seller” section on Paypal. As always 100% Free Shipping inside the U.S.A.
Another spiritual cleansing bath mix. No ingredients listed:
———————–
Anointing oils, possibly containing flammable ingredients making a variety of promises:
Cast Off Evil Oil 2 dram: Anoint temples during prayer or ritual to overcome evil forces. Pure anointing oil for external use only
===========
Eucalyptus oil was used by the sisters, according to the police.
Repelling–eucalyptus and devil’s shoestrings drive off people and habits that are no longer welcome
Devil’s Shoe String spiritual supplies are to tie down and restrain the devil and also human enemies. Contains genuine Devil’s Shoe String Root.
—————
BANISHING OIL, Full Line of Banishing Products
Banishing Oil–Banishing spiritual supplies are to remove unwanted people or conditions; far milder than Hot Foot. Further instructional information can be with Free Magic Spells and Prayers and How to Use Oils in Conjure, From “Hoodoo In Theory and Practice”
The Banishing Ritual kit has been created to aid you in banishing negativity and negative influences from your life, home and self. From evil spirits to curses to bad habits, it can aid you in your ritual craft.
Southern style anointing oils are made with genuine roots, herbs, and minerals. They are used to dress candles, anoint the body, and sprinkle on amulets and conjure hands. We prepare these Magical oils on the premises and package them in 1/2 ounce glass bottles, with vivid graphic labels.
————-
Frankincense & Myrrh Spiritual Oil
Frankincense: For consecration and intensification, spirit work, increase power of conjure, empower oils / perfumes / mojo bags, and peaceful sleep.
Myrrh: Traditionally blended with other herbs. Promotes peace, healing, and protection.
Suggested Use: Anoint candles, magickal tools, feed your spirit / mojo bag, use for spell / rootwork, add to your bath, add to sea salt, add to herbs on charcoal, drip a little on a light bulb, dress your chakra points / wrists / temples.
Protection Oil, no ingredients listed:
An important part of many magical practitioners kit, Protection Oil, as the name implies, is a potent anointing oil intended to fortify your protection spells and warding magic. Use it as an anointing oil to help strength the creation of magical circles for summoning and conjuration. Otherwise Protection Oil is also a powerful aid when creating magical talismans, charms, and personal spells intended to help protect you or another from curses, hexes, and the evil eye.
