A Nontheistic Humanist Just Won a Religious Exemption From AI at Work

A University of Kentucky administrator who does not believe in a god has secured a religious exemption from using AI at work — believed to be the first such accommodation won by a nontheistic Humanist in the United States.

David Durman, whose role involves supporting researchers applying for grants, obtained the workplace accommodations through a process facilitated by the American Humanist Association (AHA), a nonprofit that advances secular humanism. Pope Leo XIV has decried AI as a threat to human dignity, and the AHA argues that legal protection against forced AI use extends well beyond traditional religious groups — to nonbelievers with deeply held ethical frameworks.

What are Humanism's beliefs, and why do they clash with AI?

"Humanism is a collection of beliefs about the human experience and how humans interact with the world," Durman told TechCrunch. Humanism, he explained, centers on "human well-being and flourishing, both individually and collectively […] and implores a person to try to improve both their well-being and their flourishing as well as the others around them."

Humanism is not anti-religious, but it tends to appeal to people who are skeptical of a god or other supernatural power yet still seek a scientific and moral framework to ground themselves in. That framing matters legally: in the United States, workplace religious accommodations have historically been associated with traditional faiths, and Durman's case tests whether a secular ethical system qualifies for the same protections.

Durman's objection to AI is specifically about moral reasoning. "The way we become moral actors for ourselves and for others is through the active application of our minds, and the diminishing of that [through AI use] is going to necessarily have a negative impact on our ability to do so," he said, reflecting on how overreliance on AI might erode critical thinking.

In a statement published by the AHA earlier this week, Durman laid out a broader critique: "AI is interfering with people's ability to earn a living, the environmental costs spell disaster for humanity and our planet, and its supplanting and theft of human creativity threaten elements of our culture like art and literature that make society flourish."

In plain words: Durman argues that offloading thought to machines undermines the very human faculties Humanism exists to cultivate.

Does the law protect nonbelievers the same way as the devout?

The AHA says yes, and it is making that argument explicitly. "Concern about AI and human dignity can run through several different faiths and traditions, whether that's Catholic teachings, or Universalism, or Humanism, and we want Humanists or nontheists to know that they fall into these categories — that they are also protected by the law at work," Alexandria Huiskens, Staff Attorney at the AHA, told TechCrunch.

The claim rests on the principle that workplace religious-accommodation law protects sincerely held ethical and moral beliefs, not only belief in a deity. That interpretation has precedent in broader equal-treatment doctrines, though the AHA did not detail in its statement which specific statutes or cases underpin Durman's accommodation.

Durman is the first Humanist to secure workplace accommodations allowing him to abstain from AI use, and one of the first people to publicly discuss pursuing these protections. He was inspired to seek them after reading that Erin Maus, a Unitarian Universalist and software engineer, secured similar protections for herself.

Maus' situation is especially unusual: it has become rare for software engineers to write code without any AI assistance. Durman's administrative role has not required him to use AI so far, which likely made the accommodation easier to grant. The hard cases — engineers, writers, and analysts whose employers mandate AI tooling — remain untested.

Why did Durman act now, before any mandate?

Like many workers across fields, Durman has watched colleagues and leadership recommend that employees try out AI tools. He sought to secure his exemption now, in case the suggestion becomes a mandate in the future — a preemptive legal move rather than a reactive one.

"For me, this was about me and my convictions," Durman said. "I'm obviously not trying to tell people how to think or feel… But I do hope that it encourages people who have similar concerns to pursue not necessarily religious exemption, but pursue their concerns to the best of their ability where they feel is the most appropriate."

That distinction is deliberate. Durman frames his accommodation as a personal conviction, not a template for an anti-AI movement, though he explicitly hopes others with similar concerns will seek resolutions of their own.

"I hope that if [others] have similar feelings, that they feel encouraged to pursue some kind of resolution," Durman said.

What did the University of Kentucky decide?

University of Kentucky spokesperson Jay Blanton confirmed the accommodation and described the institution's process. The university reviews requests for religious accommodations on an individual basis, considering the employee's job responsibilities and the circumstances of the request.

"In this case, the university determined that an accommodation could be provided while allowing the employee to continue performing the essential functions of his position," Blanton said in a statement. "As technology and job responsibilities evolve, accommodations may be reviewed to ensure they remain reasonable and workable."

That final clause carries weight. The university reserved the right to revisit the arrangement as AI tools spread deeper into administrative and research workflows — meaning the exemption is conditional, not permanent.

The takeaway: the accommodation was granted because it currently costs the employer nothing, and the university has signaled it may withdraw if that changes.

Why does one administrator's paperwork matter?

The stakes extend beyond a single grants administrator in Kentucky. As employers race to embed AI into job descriptions, workers with ethical objections — whether grounded in Catholic teaching, Unitarian Universalism, or secular Humanism — are looking for legal levers to opt out. Durman's case, following Maus', establishes a small but visible precedent that nontheistic belief systems can qualify for the same religious-accommodation framework long associated with conventional faiths.

The open question is durability. An accommodation that works when AI use is optional may collapse when it becomes a documented, essential job function — exactly the scenario Blanton's statement anticipates. If AI mandates spread and exemptions multiply, employers will face a collision between accommodation law and productivity expectations that no court has yet resolved.