She responded that she was a humanist. I was thrilled. Another one encountered in the wild. But without taking a breath she continued, “actually I do not know what a ‘humanist’ is. I do know that I don’t call myself a feminist because I believe in the equality of men and women.”

She asked me to explain what humanism is, since she calls herself one but doesn’t actually know what the term means. I started to explain about how humanism is an ethical tradition, but she interrupted me to continue: “I believe in the equality of all people. I extend that equality to plants and animals. We need to recognize the spirit of all living things and their equality.”

I was starting to like this woman, though thinking that it wouldn’t hurt her to interrupt less and listen more. I liked where she was coming from. I also believe in the equality of all people. I wouldn’t use the word “spirit,” but I also believe animals and plants need to be valued. We need to recognize our symbiotic relationship before it is too late. But I’m getting off topic. After decreeing the equality of all living things, my newly discovered humanist abruptly took us in an unexpected and unsettling direction.

“I think atheism is the biggest evil facing our society today. Atheists are grotesque.”

Where did that come from?

I am not going to relay the details of how our conversation ended. I will say I did not reveal that she was talking to an atheist. She didn’t really give me an opportunity. But there are a few aspects of this exchange worth talking about.

To begin with, this is not the first time the “humanist” label has been used by someone who doesn’t understand the history and current usage of the world. Just last week, Joseph Gordon Levitt made waves when he tweeted about how he learned about the definition of humanism. I do wonder how this woman would feel if she knew that what the label embraced describes a movement of consciousness presently chock full of self-described atheists.

I do regret not relieving her of her ignorance. But I’m not sure if, with the opportunity to do it over again, I would do anything differently.

On reflection, I believe the reason I didn’t say anything was because of her use of the words “evil” and “grotesque.” I think I was worried that someone who used such words to describe a group of people could conceivably turn violent if made aware that she was unwittingly aligning herself with such a group. Combine that with the simultaneous knowledge that she was speaking to such an evil, grotesque person, and I had no idea how extreme her reaction would be. This is a situation every atheist faces when choosing when, whether, and to whom to reveal their beliefs. And not always do you have such a clear understanding of the other’s position on atheism before opening (or not opening) your mouth.

But even that fear and misunderstanding of atheism isn’t what most concerns me about this conversation. What most concerns me, is that this is a woman who claims boldly that she believes in the inherent equality of all people—who even includes plants and animals in this equality. Yet, atheists are grotesque “things” off the equality spectrum that she assigns to the entire universe. How can these two convictions exist together in one person? How can a person who stridently advocates for recognizing the equality of all—including non-human life—viciously and categorically leave out a vast and growing group of people?

I hope this woman met the humanist contingent at the climate march, because I believe the climate march is exactly the kind of space where her hateful beliefs might begin to change. Ideally she met a humanist and commiserated about the state of environmental justice and hatched plans to make it right. Ideally they bonded over their concern for the environment (if only because of its impact on us humans). Ideally then, and only then, did she ask what humanism was. Because getting the answer then maybe startled her enough to reevaluate her beliefs even the tiniest bit.

This opportunity, albeit fantasy in this case, is why I want to talk about the climate march. Much has been said of the march itself and I don’t need to add my voice to that chorus except to say that I support its goals and hope it is the beginning of some real change in policy and attitude when it comes to making and keeping our planet healthy. I do want to talk about what the march represents beyond climate change.

At the march there were likely representatives of almost every incarnation of the human experience. 400,000people of every race, age, gender, religion, and even politics marched in NYC and thousands more marched in at least 166 parallel demonstrations around the world. Immigrant rights groups came. So did labor unions. Student groups, seniors, artists, scientists, native communities, and, yes, faith groups. Conservatives marched too, though they may have kept a low profile.

The humanists did assemble and marched among a larger group of interbelief participants. That means there were humanists marching alongside Muslims who were marching alongside Sikhs who were marching alongside Jews who were marching alongside Mennonites. And it doesn’t end there. Everyone in the interbelief contingent was marching alongside the other groups assembled because of their commitment to environmental justice.

For me, humanism is about equality. The core challenge humanists face is realizing that equality. The increasing support for the environmental justice movement, demonstrated by the turnout and coverage of the People’s Climate March excites me for that realization. Environmental justice is a worthy and important cause on its own merits and that conversation should be held loudly and with immediacy. But the conversation also provides an important opportunity for realizing human equality.

We all live on this planet together. We all experience the effects of climate change and environmental ravishing differently, unique to our own circumstances, but we all face the same problem. So we all have a role to play in the solution. The conversation we all must have about the solutions for environmental justice is an opportunity for even more. It is an opportunity for people who are different—who have different ideas, different life experiences, different beliefs—to meet each other through their similarities. When we meet because of a shared problem our differences become an afterthought. The differences are still there, and they can be discussed later, but our relationships will form before our differences have a chance to drive us apart. And with those relationships formed, we have a real chance to realize equality.

This was originally posted with State of Formation.

At Humanist Haven she discussed tips from science about how to live a better life, specifically in the face of our irrationalities. Her tips included choosing to spend time and money on experiences rather than things, giving experiences to others, and using adjectives to effect your subjective experience.

I sat down with her to discuss what science has to teach humanists.

Wendy Webber: You started your talk at Humanist Haven by stating that the fundamental question of humanism is “Why are humans so special?” Can you explain your understanding of “humanism” and then why this question is fundamental to it?

Laurie Santos: I guess I would say it is a fundamental question rather than thefundamental question. Humans are this weird species, one that thinks about our ownmortality and is meta-aware of our own existence. So while thinking about human uniqueness may not be the fundamental question of humanism, I think it relates to what we are trying to do in humanism a lot of the time, which is trying to figure out our place in the world. How can we answer who we are from a more naturalistic point-of-view? The only reason we are asking these questions is because our species is so weird

WW: What do animals have to teach us about the questions that humanism is asking?

LS: There are a couple things animals can teach us. One is that they can give us insight into what makes us special, what makes us human to ask these humanist questions in a way that no other species does

More practically, I think other species can give us a glimpse into how organisms should behave in the absence of a theistic worldview. There are lots of other species who do compassionate, nice things for one another, who care about one another, who act altruistically towards one another, not because of some belief in a god or an all-powerful being who is watching them. They do it just because they do. Greg Epstein wrote Good Without God and I think some non-human animals provide an existence proof because they probably don’t believe in God and they are nice to each other in lots of different ways.

WW: Your talk at Humanist Haven could have been titled “Scientific Tips for Happiness.” Is that a fair title?

LS: I think the caveat would be that I was giving the free, not-a-lot-of-work, everyone-could-implement-tonight sort of tips for being happier. Cognitive science would have a lot to say about richer, more nuanced things that we need to do be happier— like having fulfillment at work and achieving gratitude and those kinds of things,— but those sorts of interventions require a lot more than simply using some more adjectives.

WW: How important do you think happiness is to the human experience?

LS: I think it’s is super important. But it also depends a lot on how you define happiness. A lot of the content I was talking in my Humanist Haven talk could best be described as improving one’s hedonic happiness as opposed to one’s broader happiness, such as whether or not someone experiences her life as meaningful and fulfilled. The bigger parts of happiness are also very important for living a good life, but I didn’t have time to get into those bigger issues.

WW: At the end of your TED Talk, in which you talk about your research into how capuchin monkeys use money in ways that mirror our own rational and irrational behavior, you talk about how recognizing our limitations is the only way we can overcome them. You say, “that might be the only way that we will really be able to achieve our own human potential and really become the nobel species we hope to all be.”

My question is how do we irrationally act in ways that harm ourselves and others?

LS: There is lots of work nowadays in experimental economics tracking these kinds of situations—public goods games in which people are tempted to cheat even though they would ultimately be better off if they behaved nicely. In these situations, people have the urge to do the selfish thing that hurts everybody. Many researchers have begun studying the heuristics that people use to solve these sorts of public goods problems. The good news is that at least some of this research seems to suggest that people tend towards being nice in these situations—that our very fast or heuristic reactions are  ones that would promote kindness or compassion. David Rand, who is a faculty member here at Yale, has shown in his research that people’s fastest reaction in these games is to cooperate, to be nice to others, and to punish on behalf of others,. Our gut reaction is to do all things that reduce harm to other people. Unfortunately, we tend to switch our strategy to being selfish if given more time to think about the decision, or when we are told to act rationally. Dave’s idea is that—at least in many cultures—people developed fast instincts to do the nice thing, but that these fast instincts can be overridden. So I think the big question for researchers now is: why don’t our heuristics to lead us to behave nicely all the time. But this is a domain in which the irrational, fast thing to do is actually to be nice

There’s also work in cognitive science that people really don’t like taking physical actions that harm others, that this is another domain where our instinct is to be nice. Researchers like Fiery Cushman, who is a faculty member at Harvard, have found that people really don’t like to behave in ways that seem harmful even if rationally they know they are not. Fiery has a cute study where he ask people to smash his leg with a hammer, but he explains to people that he has replaced his real leg with a plastic replica Fiery finds that even though people rationally know that smashing the leg with a hammer will not cause harm, the fact that it seems like it is harmful is too much for people. People still don’t want to perform that action. I think that this is another example where our fast instincts make us acting nicely and stop us from engaging in harmful acts, In many situations, it takes a lot of cognitive work to get people to be jerks.

WW: The mission statement of Applied Sentience is “to find beauty in the world and explore how to live in it.” So, where do you find beauty in the world?

LS: One way I try to do it is to naturally to pay more attention to things, to be more in the moment. For me, being in the moment tends to correlate with experiencing more gratitude and noticing things more.

I personally experience a lot of happiness and get a sense of beauty from being out in nature and being around other people. So part of the way I like to structure my research and my daily life to allow for more of that. That’s were I get my awe from.

That said, I think finding awe is particularly tricky for humanists and nontheists. Folks who participate in religious traditions are part of cultural structures that allow them to experience awe all the time. They often get that sort of stuff for free. Every Sunday they participate in an experience that has been culturally shaped over many, many years to give people awe, to give people a sense of meaning and beauty. And we humanists who lack that and have to do it for ourselves. We don’t have zillions of years of religious tradition built up to help us with that. Nor do we often have that spaces where we can share that beauty with others.

I think that’s the beauty of things like Humanist Haven where people come together to try to achieve those things. Psychologically, we know that shared spaces really help to us achieve shared experiences. I think this is one strength of many religious traditions that humanist communities would be well served to take on.

This was originally posted at Applied Sentience.

It pains me that this was my answer, because it’s not true. It was a cute, snappy answer to a question that was, I felt at the time, too big to answer. I didn’t realize the implications of my words as I said them, but I see now that they reek of “voluntourism.”

It is true that it has been a dream of mine to see Angkor Wat since I heard of it’s existence from my traveling companions in India while visiting ancient cultural sites there. I was drawn to Angkor Wat because of its rich religious history. But it stuck my imagination because the jungle is retaking the area, growing around and over and even through the ruins. As it turned out, Pathfinders provided me an opportunity to visit the temples within a few weeks abroad, since our first project was at the Bridge of Life School in Cambodia. I was excited to bring a dream to fruition.

Beyond the cultural and historical sites that I anticipated visiting, I had an unstated reason that likely colored my conversation about Pathfinders in ways I wasn’t even aware of. Anyone who knows me well knows that I covet my passport for the stamps within it. And my mom and I have a friendly competition over who has visited the most countries.

I am fortunate to be affluent enough to even have such a competition with my mom. I have access to books, documentaries, and the Internet, which allow me to be familiar with distant cultures and their significant sites. I have leisure time to contemplate a voyage to the Antarctic tundra for no better reason than to see a few penguins. The very opportunity to participate in an undertaking such as Pathfinders is a privilege, and one I didn’t, and don’t, take lightly.

Pre-Pathfinders, I was aware of the concept of volunteering as an excuse to travel, even though I hadn’t heard the label “voluntourism” applied to it. The idea disgusted me. It felt exploitative. It felt hypocritical. It felt superficial. I’m embarrassed that I unwittingly associated Pathfinders with that kind of service, even if briefly.

Using the most basic definition, Pathfinders is voluntourism. We traveled to do service. But voluntourism also connotes insincerity. The reason voluntourism is a bad word is that the picture it paints is of westerners paying an organization a fee, one that, granted, helps the organization serve its community, in exchange for an “authentic” volunteering experience. The kind of projects one does on a voluntourism trip can seem invented for the purpose of giving the volunteers something to do rather than projects that grow organically out of the challenges faced by the community. It is the kind of volunteering that gets in the way as much as it helps.

Pathfinders specifically sought out organizations that were, if not founded, then run by locals. We took on projects that were community directed. Who else knows what a community needs? We offered what resources we could, but approached each community by asking, “How do you want us to help?” I can’t say we were 100% successful at avoiding the pitfalls of voluntourism, but we did all we could to avoid them.

I was excited about the sites that we would see, but more excited about the circumstances that Pathfinders would create—a neutral place where interfaith encounters could happen organically.

We didn’t announce our humanism when we started a new project, though it would come up on it’s own almost without fail. It was never right away, always happening after we’d already worked, laughed, and ate with the members of the organization and the community we served. We met as people first, and we talked about our beliefs later. It’s easier to talk to a flesh and blood person about our differing beliefs than it is to talk to a representative atheist or Christian or Jew.

Through Pathfinders, we were able to create natural conversations with people we met about the experiences we shared. Some of these people had never met an “out” atheist before, and I hope some preconceived notions about the goodness or evil of atheists were adjusted. The service itself had nothing to do with our individual beliefs, but through it we formed connections across religious differences. The director of the organization we worked with in Ghana, for example, was a devout Christian. In the office, during our down time, we talked. We talked about women’s rights and US relations with African nations and, yes, God. We didn’t agree on everything, but we departed friends each with a better understand of how and why the other lives.

In this way, traveling was only a means to important ends—people communicating with people and sharing beliefs, strangers breaking bread together and becoming friends, and human beings from diverse backgrounds exchanging ideas about cultures, beliefs, and lifestyles. That is what Pathfinders is all about.

This piece was originally published with NonProphet Status. You can read it here.

Mostly what I heard was not surprising. Most of the people present had been raised in families of various degrees of religious adherence. Several people came from extremely religious families. Their stories were of not fitting in. Their family’s religion didn’t make sense to them. They felt like frauds participating in religious rituals. Finally telling their families of their true beliefs resulted in strained relationships or, in at least one case, total abandonment by their families. Finding communities of like minded people, like this one, was life saving.

Other stories were of less religious upbringings. These were households that only went to church when the grandparents were in town. They only attended temple during the high holidays. Of course they believed in God, but that belief didn’t have much impact on day to day lives. When they realized they actually did not believe, the biggest change was their perspective on their life. How they lived it remained much the same.

There was one other person who, like me, was not raised in a religious family. Like me, this person’s extended family was religious, but their immediate family was not. There was some tension among her extended family about their beliefs, but by and large they were not an issue.

What surprised me was that when several people “came out” to their religious family members, some family members revealed their atheistic beliefs in turn. One woman discovered that her mother, father, and only sibling were all also atheists. Her entire nuclear family had all been acting for the sake of the others for decades. The parents, though atheists when their children where born, did not want to indoctrinate their children. They took their children to a church in the denomination of their extended family. They allowed, indeed encouraged, their children to attend churches of other denominations with their friends. When they wanted to go to church camp they did. The two sisters both explored several religions but ultimately decided none of them made sense for them. But they continued to feign Christianity when the family was together.

Why am I telling this story to an interfaith community? Because despite the evidence from their childhood that their parents were open to any number of religious traditions, both sisters were afraid to tell their parents that they were atheists. Atheist beliefs are viewed, even subconsciously, as something fundamentally different than theist beliefs. I don’t know how many times I have witnessed interfaith discussions that concludes with “at least we all believe in God.”

I was dismayed at this atheist meeting by how quickly my comments about my work with religious people were dismissed. I was told that the work I wanted to do was losing battle. The only worthwhile work in this area was to protect nonbeliever’s rights as religious people are constantly working to take them away. I, of course, stood my ground explaining why interbelief engagement is both necessary and worthwhile.

Not everyone spoke against my work. Some quietly applauded it. But those who spoke up spoke loudly. These were the people who had been hurt by religion and religious people. They want nothing to do with religious people. Not ever.

After the meeting I got to thinking about the presence of these two kinds of atheism: secret atheists and anti-theists. It reminded me that interbelief work is not only about the big picture, as it is most often portrayed. Usually when interbelief moments are reported it’s when rabbis are invited to the Vatican. It’s when interfaith services are held in the wake of a tragedy. It’s when a church donates it’s space to a Muslim community that does not yet have it’s own building. These are wonderful moments. I support them. It’s hard enough getting positive stories into the news.

Hearing these stories made me remember that while interbelief work at the community, national, and international level is important, it is ultimately about the personal level. It’s about keeping families together. If we can’t keep families together, what hope is there for bring communities separated by race, religion, and nationality together?

This post was originally published with State of Formation. Read it here.

Growing Up

Looking back, there were moments. At Hanukah one year the rabbi’s wife told me I was going to hell when she discovered that I didn’t know how to play dreidel. Before one meal with my stepfamily my stepcousin, who was about eight at the time, chastised me for having my eyes open during grace. I explained to her that the only way she could know that was if her eyes were also open. I was surprised at my cousin’s Bat Mitzvah when all the cousins were asked to come to the front to read a passage. I walked nervously to the front wondering if my family remembered that I had not had a Bat Mitzvah and could not read Hebrew.

San Albino Church Mesilla, a Catholic Church near my hometown of Las Cruces, New Mexico

As an adult I have learned that there was strife behind the scenes. My Catholic grandparents were worried about the influence of my Jewish mother and wanted to pay for Catholic boarding school to save my soul. I am probably responsible for shortening my grandmother’s life. When she handed me a rosary at my grandfather’s funeral when I was ten years old I asked what it was.

It is probably clear by now, one side of my family is Jewish and one side is Catholic. On both sides my relatives range from devout to high holiday adherents to atheists. My stepfamily is nondenominationally Christian. My mom would probably call herself culturally Jewish. My dad calls himself a devoutly fallen away Catholic. Religion was a nonissue in my house. God was not discussed, but the subject wasn’t avoided either. It just didn’t come up. Just like in the rest of my life.

A Different Narrative

I’m not just previewing the first chapter of my memoirs. I tell you all this to explain that I am not nor was I ever an angry atheist. I am not a recovering theist. I never had to “come out” to my family. My decision to pursue a Masters in Religion was probably a bigger shock.

Yet I have been reluctant to join the atheist community. I only recently started accepting the atheist label. And I still prefer humanist. My reluctance was not because of the stigma and prejudice, but largely because I don’t like to be defined by a negative, in this case a lack of belief. I prefer to be defined by what I do believe in: the innate equality of all humans and right to have and to pursue happiness.

Now that I have accepted the atheist label, I am still reluctant to participate in the community. Why? Because a large part of the conversation is about why or how to leave religion. I didn’t realize how deep my reluctance was until I was asked to participate in the second annual International Day of Doubt. On June 1st atheists around the world posted on Facebook an invitation to religious people who were doubting their beliefs to message them. It was an opportunity to find a community and talk to people who had gone through a similar struggle. I should explain that I am in no way knocking people and organizations that provide support and guidance for those who have realized their beliefs are different from the religious beliefs of their family, friends, or community. I have infinite sympathy for the difficulty of that situation. But I struggled with the decision to participate in Day of Doubt or not. Ultimately I decided not to. My reasoning, right or wrong, was that since I had never been religious I was not the right person to talk to about the struggle of leaving religion if someone did contact me. I am still not sure I made the right decision.

Building Bridges

I’m not just previewing the first chapter of my memoirs. I tell you all this to explain that I am not nor was I ever an angry atheist. I am not a recovering theist. I never had to “come out” to my family. My decision to pursue a Masters in Religion was probably a bigger shock.

Yet I have been reluctant to join the atheist community. I only recently started accepting the atheist label. And I still prefer humanist. My reluctance was not because of the stigma and prejudice, but largely because I don’t like to be defined by a negative, in this case a lack of belief. I prefer to be defined by what I do believe in: the innate equality of all humans and right to have and to pursue happiness.

Now that I have accepted the atheist label, I am still reluctant to participate in the community. Why? Because a large part of the conversation is about why or how to leave religion. I didn’t realize how deep my reluctance was until I was asked to participate in the second annual International Day of Doubt. On June 1st atheists around the world posted on Facebook an invitation to religious people who were doubting their beliefs to message them. It was an opportunity to find a community and talk to people who had gone through a similar struggle. I should explain that I am in no way knocking people and organizations that provide support and guidance for those who have realized their beliefs are different from the religious beliefs of their family, friends, or community. I have infinite sympathy for the difficulty of that situation. But I struggled with the decision to participate in Day of Doubt or not. Ultimately I decided not to. My reasoning, right or wrong, was that since I had never been religious I was not the right person to talk to about the struggle of leaving religion if someone did contact me. I am still not sure I made the right decision.

For those who have experienced serious problems with their families and loved ones, Recovering from Religion may be able to help.

These phrases coming from the atheist community are not nearly as bad, but they, and similar language and actions, are not helping either. There is no doubt that these kinds of phrases are helpful for those embracing atheistic beliefs, especially if doing so means breaking or straining relations with family and friends. But they also contribute to the prejudiced atmosphere between theists and atheists. They grate against the ears of those who still hold religious beliefs. To them they are attacks.

How is it possible to build a bridge when both sides are attacking each other? It’s not. Attacks on the religious community do not make it easier for atheists to leave them or remain in them but live openly. Attacks affirm some religious people’s prejudice that atheists are not worthwhile people. Theists who refuse to associate with atheists see only the label and not the person. These phrases coming from the atheist side do the same thing. One side must start building the bridge. Hopefully the other side will see construction and will be inspired to start building from their side as well.

It is, of course, unfair to lump all atheists together as attackers. Just as it is unfair to claim that all religious people think atheists are evil. But as long as atheism is strongly associated with anti-theism I will resist association myself. My resistance is not because of the prejudice atheists face from the religious, but because of the intolerance atheists aim at the religious.

This week’s blog is at Applied Sentience. You can read it here.

Traveling across town provided similar obstacles. To get anywhere Ana would hop on a bus, any bus. She couldn’t read the signs that told the routes and destinations. Her only option was to ask the driver if he was going where she was going. The driver would almost always say yes. They wanted her money. She would ride to the end of the line where she would be kicked off in a strange place. Then she would find another bus and try again. She would ride bus after bus until she recognized something from the window. Guatemala City is not a small city. This process would take hours every time she needed to go somewhere.

Ana moved to Guatemala City because her mother couldn’t adequately support Ana and her brothers after their father died. Ana could make a better living as a nanny in the city than as a farmhand in the village. She looked for work as a nanny because she had already been taking care of her younger brothers for years. Nannying was a job she could do easily. But language was a barrier so she quit when she found a job at a laundry, a job she didn’t need to speak Spanish to do.

Drying laundry in the basurero neighborhood in Guatemala city.

Ana worked there for many years. She got married and had two kids. But her husband spent all their money on alcohol. She had to leave him. She was a single mother living in one of the poorest neighborhoods in the city. A neighborhood that sprung up around the city basurero (dump) and is populated by people who make their living by gathering objects from the basurero to sell or recycle. Ana did not work in the basurero regularly, but in a pinch, when an emergency arose, she would scavenge there to supplement her laundry income.

Ana never had access to education. While she helping raise her brothers she watched them go to school every day and wished she could join them. As an adult it was very important to Ana that her kids get an education, but she simply could not afford it.

Ana was able to get by, but her income was not enough to pay for school for her kids. School is free in Guatemala, but books, uniforms, pencils, notebooks, and other school supplies are not. And if you can’t acquire them, you can’t go to school.

Some moms from the basurero community, who are part of Camino’s newest social entrepreneurship program, at their sewing machines.

So Ana turned to Camino Seguro. Camino is an after school, education support program. In addition to getting help with homework and other educational issues, the students who attend participate in art, English, sports, and health classes. Importantly for Ana, Camino provides school supplies and uniforms for its students. This was the only way her kids could possibly get an education. But when her boys were old enough to go to school there was not room for them in the program. Ana was persistent. Every year she tried, but year after year the program was full. Finally there was room and finally her kids got to go to school. They were ten and eight when they started. The younger one now graduated and was hired by Camino to be a sports coach. Her older son is still in the program but close to graduating himself. They are quite the success stories. They are why Camino Seguro exists.

But I am telling Ana’s story. When Ana first enrolled her sons at Camino she had learned to speak Spanish, but was still unable to sign her name on the forms. She did not know the letters. She signed with a finger print. The receptionist who helped Ana fill out the forms told her about Camino’s adult literacy program for Camino parents. The same year that her kids started school Ana also started school. Currently she is in third grade.

In addition to the adult literacy program, Camino has also started a social entrepreneurship program for the parents of the students at the school. Ana was one of the first moms to join the program, Creamos, which teaches the moms how make paper bead jewelry to sell. Most of the moms at Creamos used to work in the basurero. Now they, including Ana, make their money by making and selling jewelry. They don’t have to work in the basurero anymore and they make more money than when they did.

Ana spends a lot of time at Camino. She has her classes and jewelry meetings. She comes to teach interested Camino volunteers how to make the paper beads and simple K’iche’ words and phrases. But she also just likes to hang out at the project. I have never seen her without a smile on her face, which is even bigger when she talks about her boys.

Camino Seguro has transformed Ana’s life and given her sons opportunities that their circumstances wouldn’t predict. And they are just one family in this community that used to exit solely because of the basurero. Now, their community is, with Camino’s help, slowly moving beyond the necessity of living off it.

Witchcraft accusations are very real. And very destructive.

I am not alone in my ignorance. Most of the people I’ve talked to about my experience visiting Kukuo—one of several camps for alleged witches in northern Ghana—reacted just about the same as I did: “There are still witchcraft accusations? That many? In the 21st century? Accusations that are taken seriously?”

Yes. Yes. Yes. And Yes.

In Ghana, these very real witchcraft accusations are founded on, what is to me, very shaky evidence. An accuser need only say they saw the person in a dream and that is enough for an accusation to be taken seriously. Later there might be a test where a chicken is slaughtered and the position the chicken takes when it dies reveals the truth or falsity of the accusations. Such trials are not mandatory and happen infrequently.

A witch’s hut in Kukuo.

Dream evidence is especially problematic because of malaria. Malaria is a huge problem in Ghana and in northern Ghana it is largely misunderstood. Many residents only know that an illness is occurring, not the cause. The illness is not associated with mosquitos at all. The illness is often attributed to witchcraft. Witchcraft accusations increase during malaria season. It does not help that a symptom of malaria is vivid dreams.

Women—they are almost always women—are in constant danger of being accused. Especially if they don’t have a man to speak for them. Especially if they cannot produce children, due to age or biology. Especially if they have a little economic power. In other words, if they don’t conform to the gender role Ghanaian society requires they conform to.

For example, if a woman, especially a widow or single woman, runs a successful business, she might choose to help her community by giving loans. I spoke to several alleged witches in Kukuo. Most of their accusers were people who owed them money. For me the interpretation is obvious. This person did not want to pay. It is easier to accuse and have the debt wiped out than find the money to make good on it. This is a personal grudge. But there is a broader issue.

Wealthy men, even single wealthy men, who lend money to members of their community are rarely, if ever, accused of witchcraft by their debtors. Why? Why are women vulnerable when similarly situated men are not? Because these single, successful women are threats to the system. Not only does the individual accuser benefit when their debt is wiped out, but the community status quo is preserved when the woman is banished and her business redistributed.

An accusation leading to banishment means leaving with only the clothes on one’s back. But it often also means beatings—beatings in the woman’s home community and in every community she encounters on her way to one of the refugee camps for alleged witches. The camps are safe places, but not easy ones. In the camps the women still struggle to acquire basic necessities. From Kukuo, water is several miles away. Many of the women are reliant on what food is donated to them or what they can find in fields after harvest. Their roofs leak when it rains so they cannot sleep. Most of these women are in their 70s or older.

Their existence is not widely known and the fact of their existence is unbelievable to many, but these camps are real. I have seen them. These are difficult places to live, but they are, at least, places to live. Alleged witches are regularly killed in Nigeria and other west African nations that do not have camps.

I encountered these camps as part of a humanist service trip called Pathfinders Project. As humanists, from our perspective, there is no supernatural power at play. For every evidence of witchcraft we encountered we saw a natural, not supernatural, explanation. Malaria, dysentery, common childbirth complications. For every accusation of witchcraft we saw human, not spiritual, motivations. Jealousy, greed, power.

We met many alleged witches in Kukuo. I do not believe I met a single witch.

I do not believe witchcraft is real. I do believe these people do. (I should point out that while every alleged witch we talked to denied her guilt, every one affirmed the existence of witchcraft.) I also believe that witchcraft allegations are often used as a pretext to advance despicable personal agendas.

These women need help. But how? Addressing the situation in the camps themselves is easy. Okay, not easy, but easier. Easier than addressing the underlying problem. Clean water is manageable with time, money, and helping hands. So are the food, shelter, and other challenges are challenges poor communities around the globe face. But addressing these issues does not nothing toward ending the need for these camps, which must be the ultimate goal.

As a devotee of interbelief dialogue and cooperation, I do not believe it is respectful to address this situation by attacking the belief in witchcraft. Not only is it not respectful, it’s not practical.

So, how does one address this human rights abuse without attacking the core beliefs that are, if not causing, perpetuating it?

Education would help. Education, about malaria, for example. In the capital, Accra, in southern Ghana, there are very few accusations. Yet, the belief in witchcraft is still widespread. The lack of accusations cannot completely be explained by an understanding of malaria, but I believe it must be part—a large part. Why don’t the residents of Accra levy witchcraft accusations when they fall ill with malaria? It’s not because they don’t believe in witchcraft. It’s because they recognize the symptoms and causes of malaria. There is an alternative explanation that makes more sense. Witchcraft activity is delegated to another realm and Accra’s women are safe. Safer.

The hardest interbelief moments are the ones where the beliefs of each side are directly at odds. In this case there is no talking around our differences. There is little common ground to stand on together. Yet, I utterly believe that a Ghanaian alleged witch and an American humanist can work together. And not only on the common ground problems, but on the difficult, belief influenced problems too. The problems are human problems and humans can work together to solve them.

But in Kukuo it’s not just a humanist and an alleged witch who can work together beyond beliefs. The mullah in Kukuo—whose beliefs do not align with the alleged witch or the humanist—is committed to closing the camp by eradicating the need for one. Here is an opportunity for true interbelief cooperation that can make a real difference in the lives of hundreds women, if not more. I am excited to see it come to fruition.

This was originally published at State of Formation.

After all my clothes were hanging to dry, I rinsed my sweat off in the shower.  I poured myself a glass of water from a 3.5 liter bottle or water that we keep stocked in the fridge.  Then I realized, again, the miracle that drinkable water is available from almost any tap in the United States.

Clean, drinkable water is only available from bottles on Isla Puná.  Bottles that are carried by boat from the mainland.  Bottles that are too expensive for many of the residents to afford.  On Puná, if you can’t afford bottled water, you probably can’t afford the fuel to boil the water you take from the contaminated wells either.  Ailments from contaminated water is one of the most pressing healthcare issues on the island.  That is why the Pathfinders  have come to Puná, to help provide drinkable water that is purified and filtered right here on Puná.

The most well known well in Puná. But it is surrounded by poorly constructed septic tanks and animal roam freely near the open top. Testing has showed high levels of bacterial contamination.

Our goal is drinkable water.  That can only be accomplished for the community by the community.  But we can help.

Two days ago I had a conversation on the street with a local shop owner about the clean water situation on Puná and what we, working with Water Ecuador,  were doing about it.  This shop owner had stopped me on the street before asking me about the water.  Unfortunately, my Spanish is not advanced enough to tell him more than the most basic facts about our scheme.  This time was different though.  This time I had someone with me who speaks much better Spanish than I.

After we explained the water center we are constructing, he asked me why I was here.  I understood this question in two ways.  One, why am I working on water?  Two, why am I in Puná working on water?  So I had two answers.

Why am I working on water?  Because water is life.  I know that is corny, but it is true.  Where I grew up in southern New Mexico.  We have a water problem too.  We have drinkable water coming from our taps, but we don’t have enough.  We are a desert in a decades long draught.  Our river is drying up and our water table is dropping.  As different as the issues are, I believe Puná’s water problem is New Mexico’s and New Mexico’s is Puná’s.  Water is water.  And water is finite.

Water is an issue that will unite us beyond our differences–locally and internationally.  I am working on water because water is a human issue.  And I am human.

In response, the shop owner gave me an adage: “Si uno no vive para servir, no sirve para vivir.” (“If you don’t live to serve, you don’t serve to live.”)  He gets it.

Why am I in Puná working on water?  Because I was invited to.  Simple as that.  When Pathfinders Project was being organized dozens of organizations around the world were contacted to see who would be interested in our help.  It was important that the proposed relationship was clear.  We were coming to help local organizations with local problems that they’ve identified.  We are helping hands, not saviors coming in with the “answers.”

We explained, we are not here with agenda.  Not a political agenda.  Not a religious one.  We are only here to help and connect with people.

“Who, then, will run the center after you leave?” the shop owner asked.

“You,” we said.  Well, you the community.  We are helping to build the water center, but it will take the community to make it work.  His excitement was apparent.  He believes in the power of community.  Change only happens at the community level.  Any bigger and there is too much politics.  Too many egos.  Too much bureaucracy.  Ok, these last ideas are my interpretation of what he means by community being the only level that has the power to effect change.  But I agree that communities working together are powerful.

In my conversations with other Puná citizens, it is clear that clean water is exciting.  The fact that the water is coming from and purified in Puná is more exciting.

That’s why this project is going to work.

Last month in Haiti I joined a rural community coming together to build twenty latrines for twenty individual families.  All members of the community contributed to the completion of each and every latrine.

Not one latrine would have been completed without the involvement of all of us in community.  Community is essential to surviving in such remote, underdeveloped circumstances—but it didn’t feel like mere survival.  It felt like real unity.

In December I witnessed a community in northern Ghana that welcomes strangers banished from their home communities because of witchcraft accusations.  This community invites alleged witches to become part of the community even though giving refuge will be a burden.  The struggle of these individual outsiders becomes the struggle of the community as a whole.  And the solutions for the refugees become solutions for the community.

Before that I worked at a school in Uganda struggling for recognition and legitimate placement in the larger community.  Kasese Humanist Primary School is one of three humanists schools in a nation that requires students to answer questions like, “Who is your Lord and savior?” in order to graduate from school.  Yet, at our going away party, a member of the board of education told us and the gathered crowd of faculty, students, and parents that he welcomed the school and its contribution to the welfare of the community.  The chief of the village similarly thanked us for coming and supporting a school that has done so much for the children of his community.

Communities such as these are novel in my life. I have never experienced such community in the States.  That’s not to say they don’t exist in the States.  I know they exist, just not in my experience.

To me, community means something more than a group of people with common interests or goals.  Community is more even than a support system.  A healthy community supports and uplifts every member.  A sick community leaves individual members to fend for themselves.  Yes, some of the fittest individuals will survive, but no individual can thrive as an island.

Living in an authentic, healthy community means every member is equal in the community.  It means meeting each person and saying, “It’s not just your problem.  It’s our problem—my problem.  We will work on it together.”  It means asking of every person, “What do you need to be happy?”  That’s what authentic faith communities do.  In my opinion, faith communities have traditionally been the primary communities serving in this function.

So, in that sense, it is unfortunate that institutionalized religions are losing numbers. Raised in a nonreligious household—one of the growing numbers of families dropping out of institutionalized religious communities—I’m sure has contributed to why I lacked the sense of an authentic community as a child.  Maybe I’m wrong.  Maybe my experience is an anomaly.  I would like to think so.  But I don’t think so.  I think we in the States are largely losing authentic community.  And the communities we do have are often created from the inside out by a process of exclusion.  The lines of who is in are defined by who is out.  In terms of community, how authentic is that?

What we need today are not fundamentally exclusive communities, but authentic communities that participate in forging authentic community with others.  Christians with Hindus.  Jews with Muslims.  Religious with atheist. Inclusive not exclusive. I’m not suggesting that we erase the lines that makes individual communities unique.  I’m not arguing for one homogeneous community.  That is impractical and disrespectful to individual dignity.  I’m not even recommending that communities stop their private activities.  I’m suggesting that disparate communities meet each other as they meet themselves—as equals struggling in the same fight for happiness.

My point is not that we need to boost institutionalized religious numbers.  That is not my place nor prerogative.  Healthy faith communities create and grow authentic community.  But they are not the only healthy communities—and there are certainly faith communities that are anything but healthy.  Regardless of faith, healthy, authentic communities heal a violent world—especially communities that unite disparate people.  The extinction of healthy communities would entail the extinction of humanity.  Humanity might survive and thrive by expanding the scope of authentic community—from supporting and uplifting just us to supporting and uplifting all of us.

This post was originally posted on State of Formation.

A constant refrain as we visited Kukuo, a camp for alleged witches in northern Ghana, was that the accused women are part of the larger community not merely adjacent to it.  Their huts are scattered throughout the community and among the compounds of the other residents.

Kukuo from an alleged witch’s home.

Kukuo is special in this way.  The other camps for alleged witches exist next to, but separate from the community that houses them.  The alleged witches and their daughters and grandchildren who come as helpers to the camp make up about a third of Kukuo’s population.

Another constant concern relayed to us was how unsafe the women’s sending communities were for them—i.e. the communities that accused them of witchcraft, their home communities.  These sending communities are where these women raised families, businesses, and friendships.  These sending communities are where they struggled alongside their neighbors to survive.  Yet one day after decades together their communities turned on these women.  Ultimately, the communities accused the women of betraying the community itself.  They, allegedly, betrayed the community by wishing and perpetrating harm on it—by using “powers” to kill or injure their rivals.

While the sending communities banished their members on no more evidence than a dream and the happenstance of in what manner a chicken died, Kukuo was building these women huts and working to secure a safe place for them to return to.  For every woman who arrives in Kukuo the youth of the community are tapped to build them a place to live and protect her.  They protect her physically from her attackers and work to change the hearts and minds of the sending community so that she can safely return home.

The women are safe from their attackers in Kukuo, but they struggle.  They are almost all old women who cannot carry water from the well.  Their accusers usually have stolen their money and possessions so buying food is impossible.

All of an alleged witch’s possessions inside her home.

The Kukuo community provides them with a hut, but they don’t have the means to maintain it.  Many of the women cannot sleep lying down when it rains because their roof leaks too heavily.  But Kukuo is still the best option for most of the women.  Several of them told us they would not leave Kukuo even if the opportunity came.  Their home communities were too volatile—a second accusation too easy.

I am struck by the contrast.  One community beats and banishes their own.  The other welcomes strangers that will be a burden on themselves and their community without question.  In fact, when the Ghanaian government pledged to close the camps for alleged witches by 2012, the chief of Kukuo balked.  “How can we refuse those who come?” he asked us.  The government can do what it will, he will not refuse to help the women who manage to make it to his community, which is a trial itself.  The camps are not happy-go-lucky places to live.  But the camps are not the problem.

How can such contrast exist?