Tracie Presenting in Philly – Oct 13-15, 2017

People sometimes ask me where they can find out if I’ll be presenting anywhere outside of the show, and I say “Oh, I’d probably post info like that at the blog.” Then I sometimes forget to do it. But someone involved just pinged me to remind me to do it. So, I’m going to be at the Pennsylvania Atheist/Humanist Conference, speaking on Saturday afternoon.

You can visit the conference site for more information. My presentation will use identity and social behavior models to help explain how indoctrination influences people to adopt and maintain a religious mindset.

If you’re there–come by and say “hello.”


  1. Tim Saari says

    Tracie, Hi, I have been trying to get a message to you… to strike up a general conversation, but now have an issue I would like your insight on… the “dear leader’s” decision on the birth control decision today 10/6, and say that the 1st amendment protects this decision as “freedom of religion” versus they are twisting that logic to defend “religious freedom”, which becomes a scary topic, when we get to decide which rules apply, based upon religious beliefs. I think that is the same unconstitutional fallacy. What say you??

  2. says

    Hi Tim:

    As an introvert, I do not seek out nor derive enjoyment from unfocused (“general”) conversations with strangers. I prefer there be a defined goal to the exchange, so that I have a metric that allows me to understand when a social interaction has been completed.

    These articles may help explain:

    Regarding your specific question, I have trouble understanding your question as worded. I am not familiar with the Unconstitutional Fallacy. I googled it, but can’t find a definition or reference.

    I support access to birth control across the board, as it’s a huge contributor to human welfare to be able to control reproduction.

    I don’t support our system of healthcare being employer based, because it leaves employees in a situation where they are coerced to adhere to religious restrictions of their employers, even though the employees are not adherents. If there will be conflicts of interest that put people’s lives and health at risk, then we should alter the system to remove those conflicts where possible, and it is certainly possible to have a system of healthcare where employers are not involved. I don’t believe that using my position as an employer to coerce other people to adhere to my religion’s mandates = religious freedom. Abusing my position of power, as an employer, in order to restrict access for other people to obtain medication or medical procedures, because I’m not allowed to take that medication due to my religion convictions seems like “religious freedom” over-reach. I don’t see how benefits aren’t simply another form of employee compensation. And we would not allow an employer to dock a worker’s pay if the worker bought birth control or an abortion with money they’d received as compensation at that same job.

    Added: A quick google search shows there are lawsuits gearing up to challenge this, so it seems it’s not been challenged yet. It is probably prudent to wait and see what the courts have to say about this issue, as it could be struck down. If it’s not, I can’t comment specifically without seeing the court opinion in order to understand their logic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *