Take an Utterly Religulous Stand for Free Speech!

September 25, 2008

The American Humanist Association, in partnership with Lions Gate Entertainment, is getting the word out about the forthcoming release of Bill Maher's provocative comedy documentary, Religulous. We are organizing group viewings and hosting discussions after advance screenings to talk about the compelling issues raised by the film and to let people know that if they like Religulous they should take the next step and explore humanism.

Efforts are afoot worldwide to limit the right of people to publicly criticize religion. Laws exist and are being proposed to prohibit "religious defamation." Can it happen here?

Not if we stand up right now for the freedom of speech. And that includes going to see Bill Maher's Religulous. It is set to hit theaters October 3rd in "limited release." This means only major cities and cineplexes will get it right now. But it may come to a theater near you--if not immediately then in a number of weeks. 

An extension of Maher's irreverent humor, the film ridicules some of the extremes and some of the absurd sideshows of organized religion. Although a backlash is anticipated, we see the value and importance of the freedom of expression and social satire. We want to encourage a current American trend toward greater questioning of dogmas and superstitions in the face of those who want to close the lid on rational inquiry. 

So we encourage you to not only see the film but be willing to counter those in your area who might promote censorship. You may also want to organize group activities around the film, perhaps in connection with a local chapter or affiliate of the American Humanist Association. A complete list of local groups is available online at http://www.americanhumanist.org/chapters/.

Your activities could include any of the following:

1. Attend a viewing as a group.

2. Build a local meeting around discussing the film.

3. If there is a picket against the film, launch a pro-free speech counter picket.

Please share information about the film with your friends, allies, local group members, and others so that more people become interested and perhaps involved. Also, as part of this partnership with Lions Gate Entertainment, many local AHA groups are receiving free tickets to distribute to their members to generate interest and word-of-mouth promotion. We encourage you to contact your local chapter or AHA affiliate for more information on how you can get involved in neighborhood efforts.

To learn more about the film, go to the Religulous website to watch a preview and get updates: http://www.lionsgate.com/religulous/ . Then check your local theater listings to see when and where it is showing in your area!

The American Humanist Association (www.americanhumanist.org) advocates for the rights and viewpoints of humanists. Founded in 1941 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., its work is extended through more than 100 local chapters and affiliates across America.

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism, affirms our responsibility to lead ethical lives of value to self and humanity.

Churches Aren't Political Parties, Say Humanists

September 23, 2008

For Immediate Release - Contact Fred Edwords at (202) 238-9088 fedwords@americanhumanist.org - www.americanhumanist.org

(Washington, D.C., September 23, 2008) Today the American Humanist Association denounced the Alliance Defense Fund's so-called Pulpit Initiative, where the ADF is asking churches to break the law this coming Sunday by deliberately violating the Internal Revenue Service's rule against endorsing candidates for political office.

"If churches can remain tax exempt while endorsing political candidates, what's to prevent political parties from becoming churches in order to give their donors a tax break and keep their donations secret?" asked Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association.

The no-electioneering rule prohibits houses of worship from endorsing political candidates for office. While churches have this limitation, they receive a number of special privileges from the government in return. These include relief from income and property taxes, exceptions from certain laws, and their donations don't need to be reported to the government. But if churches could campaign for candidates, the normal campaign contribution reporting requirements wouldn't apply to them.

The Alliance Defense Fund hopes to overturn the IRS rule by generating an IRS investigation of at least one church. In that event, the ADF would sue, claiming that the tax provision is an unconstitutional violation of free speech and freedom of religion. About 80 ministers have expressed interest in participating on Sunday by endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

"Tax-exempt status isn't a right; it's a privilege," said Mel Lipman, president of the American Humanist Association and a civil liberties attorney. "And that's what this is about: the tax-exempt privilege. If Churches wish to endorse candidates, they only have to give up that tax-exemption. They still have the freedom of speech and religious expression to say what they want--they just can't expect taxpayers to cover the church's fair share of the tax burden."

Clergy have been barred from backing political candidates from the pulpit since federal legislation was passed in 1954 that carved out the no-electioneering rule for all non-profits. Legal arguments that circumvent this legislation are considered by many to be weak at best. Moreover, some religious leaders are concerned that religious and government entanglement could result in future regulation of churches and thus a loss of religious liberty and autonomy.

"If churches really want to endorse candidates that badly, they'll get no argument from humanists if they also start paying taxes on the billions they collect in donations each year," added Speckhardt. "But before ministers are coerced by ADF into jeopardizing their tax status, we encourage any democratically-run congregations to weigh this matter and ask their ministers not to take the ADF's advice."

The American Humanist Association (www.americanhumanist.org) advocates for the rights and viewpoints of humanists. Founded in 1941 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., its work is extended through more than 100 local chapters and affiliates across America.

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism, affirms our responsibility to lead ethical lives of value to self and humanity.

10 Myths About Secular Humanism

by Matt Cherry & Molleen Matsumura

The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 18, Number 1.

Have you heard that "secular humanists are molesting your children"? According to one pamphlet they are. Have you been told secular humanism is a conspiracy by the filthy rich to pervert American life? That's what some religious leaders claim. They portray secular humanism as an insidious cancer eating away at everything good and decent. Think this "secular humanism" sounds too bad to be true? You're right.

These claims and many others are part of a mythology about secular humanism that bears no relation to reality. Yet they are all that many people ever hear about secular humanism. It's time to respond to the lies and myths. Let's set the record straight.

First, though, we have an admission to make. Some of the charges against secular humanism are true! Yes, it's true that "secular humanists don't believe in a God or an afterlife." It's true that "secular humanism encourages people to think for themselves and question authority." It's true that "secular humanism says the morality of actions should be judged by their consequences in this world."

Secular humanists plead guilty as charged to these and many other claims that show the genuine and radical differences between humanism and revealed religion. In fact, we are proud of these differences, and want to see them publicized and debated. But in addition to legitimate discussion and disagreement, there is often an attempt to demonize secular humanists. As Eric Hoffer said, in The True Believer, "Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil." For many religious conservatives, secular humanism is that devil.

Even the most outrageous falsehoods can be sincerely believed. The person demonizing you may be misinformed, not malicious. They may even be willing to learn. Liberal religionists might come to realize they often have more in common with secular humanism than with traditional religion. It is therefore important to respond to false claims and show what secular humanism really means.

One myth about secular humanism that we should deal with straight away is that it is a monolithic dogma. It isn't. There is no central authority and no process for indoctrinating or converting people to secular humanism. People come to secular humanism by following their own curiosity and reasoning.

In fact secular humanism is not so much a body of beliefs as a method for reaching understanding. It is an approach to life that tries to be positive, rational, realistic, and open-minded. A common approach to issues often leads to common answers. Where we describe what humanists believe, we are not expressing a doctrine or view from on high, but doing our best to state the consensus shared by our fellow secular humanists.

1. Secular humanists have no morals.

If you believe the myth that you cannot have morality without religion and God, then you are forced to one of two conclusions. Either you can say humanists have no morals, or you can concede that they have a moral code but insist they must have gotten it from religion. We'll deal with these positions in turn. Let's start by explaining humanist ethics.

Secular humanists believe morality and meaning come from humanity and the natural world, not from God or the supernatural. It is our human values that give us rights, responsibilities, and dignity. We believe that morality should aim to bring out the best in people, so that all people can have the best in life. And morality must be based on our knowledge of human nature and the real world.

Humanist and religious morality share many basic principles because in fact both are underpinned by the fundamental human moral sense summarized in the Golden Rule: treat others with the same consideration as you would have them treat you. Humanists recognize that the common moral decencies - for example, people should not lie, steal, or kill; and they should be honest, generous, and cooperative - really are conducive to human welfare.

However, there are differences between humanist and religious moralities. Humanists realize that individuals alone cannot solve all our problems, but instead of turning to the supernatural, we believe that problems are solved by people working together, relying on understanding and creativity. That is why humanists are committed to promoting human values, human understanding, and human development. Humanists also emphasize the importance of self-determination - the right of individuals to control their own lives, so long as they do not harm others. Secular humanists, therefore, often promote causes where traditional religion obstructs the right to self-determination, for example, freedom of choice regarding sexual relationships, reproduction, and voluntary euthanasia.

Secular humanists disagree that, without God, life can have no meaning or purpose. We believe that people create their own meaning and purpose in life. The value and significance of life comes from how we live life, not from some supposed transcendent realm. Humanists believe the meaning of life is to live a life of meaning.

The moral differences between secular humanism and religion do not justify the allegation that secular humanist have no morals. This claim is not an argument, just an insult. It merely represents the human tendency to see one's opponents as amoral.

2. Secular humanism derives its ethics from Christianity.

Some knowledge of philosophy, world history, or comparative religion should dispel this myth.

Nonreligious, humanistic moral systems existed before Christianity and independently of any monotheistic traditions. For example, consider India's materialist philosophers of 3,000 years ago (the Lokayata), the Confucians in ancient China, and the Epicureans, Skeptics, and Stoics of classical Greece and Rome.

Furthermore, the common moral decencies are found throughout the cultures of the world. Similar moral codes have evolved irrespective of religious belief or nonbelief, and Judeo-Christian morality is not unique. Scholars have found little if any original moral thinking in the Bible - the Ten Commandments were laid down by Hammurabi before Moses, just as Confucius stated the Golden Rule more than 500 years before it was attributed to Jesus.

On the other hand, liberal Christianity has been deeply influenced by humanism. The most important moral and political concepts of the modern era have developed out of humanistic thinking. You will search the Bible in vain for opposition to slavery or support for democracy and equality of the sexes!

3. The Supreme Court ruled that secular humanism is a religion.

This myth is based on a misunderstanding about how Supreme Court decisions are written, and was finally laid to rest by a Federal Circuit Court ruling issued in 1994.

In the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins decision, Justice Hugo Black commented in a footnote, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others." Such footnotes, known as "dicta," are written to provide factual background to the legal principles in a decision. These dicta never have the force of law. They are merely comments.

The claim that secular humanism can be considered a religion for legal purposes was finally considered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Peloza v. Capistrano School District. In this 1994 case, a science teacher argued that, by requiring him to teach evolution, his school district was forcing him to teach the "religion" of secular humanism. The Court responded, "We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are ..religions' for Establishment Clause purposes." The Supreme Court refused to review the case; they refused to reverse a ruling that secular humanism is not a religion.

"But," you might ask, "even if secular humanism isn't a religion for legal purposes, isn't it really a religion in practical terms?" No. Look at it this way: Suppose Justice Black had been writing about an issue of interstate commerce in agricultural products, and in a footnote he included "apples" in a list of root crops. He would be wrong. It wouldn't matter what laws were involved-apples are fruits, not roots! As a factual matter, he was partly wrong about Buddhism because some branches of Buddhism do worship the Buddha as a deity. And he was wrong about secular humanism.

Secular humanism is not a religion by any definition: There are no supernatural beliefs, no creeds that all humanists are required to accept, no sacred texts or required rituals. Humanists are not expected or required to have "faith" in what is said by any authority, living or dead, human or "supernatural."

People may find values and meaning in life through either humanistic or religious worldviews. But religions claim that meaning is based on a god or the supernatural, while humanists derive their meaning and values from the natural world. Secular humanism is a naturalistic, nonreligious worldview.

4. Secular humanism worships humankind.

The idea that "humanists replace God with Man" seems to arise from a tendency among many Christians to assume that other religions and worldviews have a structure and content that parallels Christianity. So, since "Christians" worship Christ, humanists must worship humans.

But secular humanism is not a religion and humanists don't worship anything. We are far too realistic to worship humanity. While we recognize that all human beings have the potential to do good, we also realize that the potential exists for acts of great evil. Humanity's constant challenge is to understand itself and improve itself.

5. Secular humanists believe all of nature should be subjugated to human desires and interests.

This myth is more likely to worry progressive thinkers than religious conservatives. Perhaps it arises from taking the name "humanist" too literally. The point is that humanism is a naturalistic philosophy, not supernaturalistic. We don't pretend that our ethics and values are divine: we recognize that they are human, and therefore part of nature.

While individual secular humanists differ in how much value they place on the welfare of other species, we all accept that the human species has evolved by the same natural processes as every other species. We understand that some of our most treasured traits, such as language and the ability to understand and care for others, are on an evolutionary continuum with communicative and cooperative behaviors of other animals. We do not think humans are the result of a special creation, separate from the rest of the animal world. The naturalistic humanist approach is a much better basis for understanding that humans have a moral responsibility towards the rest of the natural world, than the biblical view that humans "have dominion over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

6. Secular humanism is the same as communism.

To which we can add the allegations that "secular humanism is a socialist political movement" and - brace yourself - "the Nazis were humanists."

Believe it or not, sometimes people make all these claims at once! Perhaps that should not be surprising when dealing with wild smear tactics.

Secular humanism is not a political movement, and secular humanists cover a wide spectrum of political views. In America, some secular humanists are active in the Democratic Party, many others are staunch Republicans, Libertarians, Socialists, Greens, etc. One political view that secular humanists do share is unswerving support for democracy, freedom, and human rights. All secular humanists are utterly opposed to totalitarian systems like communism and fascism.

7. Secular humanists are unpatriotic.

The accusation that secular humanists are unpatriotic or unAmerican is often combined with the myth that "the United States was created as a Christian Nation." So let's start by dismantling that claim.

The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights contain no references to God or Christianity. Their only references to religion establish freedom of religion and separation of church and state: Article VI of the Constitution says there may be no religious tests for office, and the First Amendment stipulates that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. ..." The motto on the Great Seal of the United States, unchanged since its adoption in 1782, is E Pluribus Unum ("From Many, One"). The Pledge of Allegiance did not contain an oath to God, until it was added in the 1950s McCarthyite era. It was also at that time that the motto "In God We Trust" was first printed on U.S. dollars. The myth that the United States of America was founded as a Christian nation is perhaps best refuted by the words of the U.S. Senate itself. In 1797 the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the Treaty of Tripoli which stated that "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

In fact the remarkable thing about the United States is precisely that it was created as a secular republic organized around the rights and freedoms of its citizens. It was founded not on links of ethnicity or religion, but on the basis of shared philosophical principles and ideals. Derived from the eighteenth-century Age of Enlightenment, these principles are essentially secular and humanist.

The United States is based on values dear to the hearts of secular humanists, who have sacrificed, fought, and died beside their fellow Americans in defense of these great principles. The myth that secular humanists are unAmerican is an insult to the patriotism and distinguished service of millions of people.

8. Secular humanists want to outlaw religion.

Secular humanists don't believe the one, final, absolute truth has been revealed to them. On the contrary, we believe that all beliefs are fallible and provisional, and that diversity and dialogue are essential to the process of learning and developing. Thus we value tolerance, pluralism, and open-mindedness as positive and beneficial qualities in society. Humanists are staunch supporters of freedom of religion, belief, and conscience, as laid out in both the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These rights protect the freedom of religious belief equally with the freedom of nonreligious belief, the freedom of religion equally with the freedom from religion.

Secular humanists would actually oppose advocacy of their worldview by schools or the government because that would violate the neutrality of a secular society, and the rights of religious believers. Secular humanists believe that a healthy society supports a variety of worldviews, just as it supports a variety of political parties. We also believe that religious and philosophical views should be every bit as open to debate and discussion as political beliefs.

9. Secular humanism is the official religion of the public education system.

In some ways this myth is rather flattering! Secular humanists would surely be proud to accept sole credit for schools teaching, say, science, sex education, and objective history. But we must share the credit with millions of Christians, Jews, and others who value good education.

The truth is, it's much easier for the far Religious Right to scare the faithful into making financial contributions by blaming secular humanists for the "evils" of sex education or education about evolution than by blaming their fellow Christians. Related myths are that secular humanism is the official religion of the government, the media, the universities, and anyone else who refuses to support a favorite dogma. All these claims make the same mistake: they confuse neutrality with hostility. That's a good tactic if you want to create a persecution complex, but it disregards the fact that neutrality toward different worldviews is the best protection from persecution in our democratic society. Separating church and state doesn't mean that the state promotes atheism and humanism, but that it provides equal protection to all beliefs, as people of many religions who are at the forefront of the battle to defend the "Wall of Separation" will be the first to tell you.

10. Secular humanists don't exist. They are a bogeyman made up by religious conservatives.

Maybe this myth is a reaction to the tendency of some religious conservatives to label everything they dislike as "secular humanism." In that sense it's true! The amoral, power-hungry "secular humanist" conspiracy described by some religious conservatives is a myth. But the vibrant movement that champions a moral approach to living based on reason and happiness is alive and growing.

So our response to this myth is twofold. Yes Virginia, there are secular humanists. But no, there is no bogeyman.

The Council for Secular Humanism is considering producing a pamphlet on "Ten Myths About Secular Humanism." We would welcome feedback, especially specific quotes and examples of any of the myths above or of others we did not mention.

Matt Cherry is Executive Director of the Council for Secular Humanism and Molleeen Matsumura is an Associate Editor of Free Inquiry.

...At The Roots Of Religion?

Nearly all religions have their origins in Secular Humanism. They may not know it, and they probably wouldn't much like the idea either.

When I first read The Humanist Manifesto II, I thought it was all quite laudable.[1] However, like many others, I couldn't help thinking that all of the Christians I know would also agree with the bulk of the Manifesto were they to read it. All the major religions have various values in common with each other and also with Humanism. Many of the ideals of Humanism can be found somewhere in most religions. [2]

Upon reading the Manifesto, it is easy to see that not only would most theists agree with the major part of such Humanist documents (apart from the items dealing with the supernatural), they would probably go so far as to say that their religion teaches similar values.

Could this be mere co-incidence?

Possibly not. When the first human societies formed, from small tribes to large communities, the ability to simply get on with each other would obviously be advantageous to survival. Co-operation is essential for a society that relies on hunting, farming or any other activity that is too much for one or two individuals to undertake. A community that learns to work together for the benefit of all will do much better in the face of drought, disaster, predation or attack. Natural selection (in this case, angry mobs would be quite likely) would quickly weed out anti-social individuals whose behavior was detrimental to the society. The basic humanistic ideals would fall into place quite quickly in any developing society. After co-operative intelligence evolves, Humanism is not very far behind.

So how does this lead to religion? Religions seem to serve several purposes for a society.

• They help to bond the community together in ceremonies, rituals, grief, celebrations and so on.
• They attempt to explain the workings of the natural world (Why does the sun rise? Why does that mountain spew fire and smoke? Where did the world come from?).
• They give a divine stamp of authority to the humanist ideals.
• They keep the population subdued (sometimes through encouraging fear and enforcing ignorance; sometimes more positively by encouraging peace and non-violence), and at the same time lend power to priests and monarchs.

( Warning : Wild Speculation ahead! )

As early societies grew, people would have grown curious about the world around them. In the days long before computers, telescopes and microscopes, there was no good way of learning about bacteria, weather patterns, earthquakes and so on. People who appeared to have supernatural insight into such things (i.e. imaginative guesswork) would quickly have gained a reputation as Wise Ones, and from there it is a short step to religion. Stories get passed down and embellished with each telling; co-incidences are noted and attributed to the supernatural; miracles, visions and revelations seem to occur (or appear as the oral history passes from one generation to the next - the supernatural is great for spicing up dull stories).

In order to keep the society together, it becomes necessary to say that the original humanist notions are handed down from a deity. God doesn't want people to fight, steal, lie or do other disruptive things. It has more authority if a God says it than if a witch-doctor in a feathery hat says it. These are the beginnings of the pollution of humanism. Once you start saying "God doesn't want us to be anti-social", it becomes easy to have God saying other things, many of which serve to reinforce the both belief in that God, and the power that the church holds over the people.

The Biblical Ten Commandments are a good example of this.

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.... Thou shalt not bow down thyself nor serve them...
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work
5. Honour thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the land...
6. Thou shalt not kill
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery
8. Thou shalt not steal
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house/wife/manservant/maidservant/ox/ass etc.

The first four commandments are purely to do with maintaining support for the deity and church. The remaining six, or at least the sentiment behind them, would not look terribly out of place in some sort of Humanist Manifesto [3], and many other religions no doubt have comparable guidelines. Is this evidence that some Divine Law-giver handed down these of rules thousands of years ago? Possibly, but it seems much more likely that they evolved out of the basic need of people to get along with each other, and over the years have been reinforced by attributing them to various caring-but-vengeful supernatural entities. As time goes by, the religions fade and their Gods are forgotten - the values of Humanism are taken up by the next generation of religions, each claiming it as Revelation from their God, who naturally thought of it first.

It seems, therefore, that religion can be viewed as a sort of crust of pollution on top of the Humanist values common to us all. The further you get into religion and the more fundamental your belief becomes, the less you can see of the underlying Humanism. In the worst cases, you end up with a religion that cares more about worship of the Deity and the acceptance of the doctrines than the quality of life of the people (the current situation with the Taliban in Afghanistan seems to be a good example of this). Extreme religious fundamentalism is very far removed from Humanism.

This is why religions cause so much division between societies - a religious society may (unwittingly) value the Humanist ideals, but the overlying religion claims priority. The followers feel they should work towards a better world and help the needy, but the belief in their particular deity has overriding importance. If someone believes in a different God, then they are misguided at best, and downright evil at worst, no matter how virtuous a life they may lead. Communities fight amongst themselves until the followers of the different religions or sects break apart to form new nations (i.e. the split between Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India). They still want to work towards a better world for all, but only under the specific conditions laid down by their own religions.

As the years go by, more and more layers of doctrine, dogma and superstition build up, burying the Humanism deeper and deeper. The various religions split and divide, forming new sects that go on to add their own residue to the layers. The occasional sprouts of reason, rationality and independent thought poke up through the crust, but are quickly stamped down by the ever-vigilant religious leaders above. (Oops. My Analogy Strain-Gauge is flashing red...)

We can survive without all the mystical, superstitious and ceremonial trappings of religion, but I don't think we can survive without the simple belief that humans have the potential and the duty to make the world a better place for all. Remove all the magic, miracles, heaven, hell, salvation, punishment, angels and devils from any faith and what has it got to offer the world that Humanism hasn't been saying all along? [4]

Humanism is entirely independent of all religions. It needs no ceremonies, Holy Books or incantations - it only needs a reasoning human mind. Humanism, no matter how old it may be, is a product of living humans and will therefore always be modern, vibrant and up-to-date. Nobody is advocating a return to the humanism of six thousand years ago (even if it were somehow possible to determine what that was). Religions rely on ancient history and are often reluctant to change - Humanism is what happens right now when reasonable people interact with one another, trying to help and not harm. It stands on its own.

Religions inexorably push us further and further away from the service of humanity, towards the service of those fictional entities that were originally (and unnecessarily?) created to lend support to the values that we now call Secular Humanism.

© Adrian Barnett 1998. Last updated July 20th 1998

[1] The Humanist Manifesto II was written in 1973 as an attempt to sum up the main points of Secular Humanism. It does not exist to tell Humanists what to think; rather, it tries to reflect some of the thinking of Humanists in general at the time of writing. It is not any sort of Holy Book or definition of doctrine, and the majority of Humanists have probably never even seen it. It should not be considered representative of the views of any individual Humanist - we don't believe in it, although we may well agree with some bits of it. Humanism is an individual thing, and it may well be a mistake to attempt to write down on paper what it is or is not - no two Humanists are alike. Humanism is not a creed or religion of any sort, but writing some sort of scholarly declaration may give ammunition to those who like to think that it is.

[2] It should be noted that there are several religions which are almost entirely humanist, such as the Quakers (Society Of Friends) and Unitarian Universalists - there is even a Humanist Society Of Friends, partly inspired by the original Humanist Manifesto.

[3] At face value, the commandments are fairly non-humanistic. For a start, "Thou Shalt Not" is hardly a good example of reasoning, and the things thou shouldst not doeth are quite black-and-white (if nobody everanything, we'd all immediately starve to death). Also (as has been pointed out to me), the tenth commandment (Thou shalt not covet) is pretty lame for several reasons. Apart from being misogynistic (what about coveting thy neighbor's husband? The Old Testament is unlikely to ever appear in a Feminist Bestsellers chart), there are bigger problems in the world than envy and covetousness. The commandments say nothing against rape, slavery, child abuse, torture, human rights abuses, racism, sexism, destruction of the environment and a host of others. (In fact, it appears to condone slavery - "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, just as you would obey Christ.", Ephesians 6:5)
Are we then to believe that God is really more concerned with envy than with actual crimes against humanity? The commandments would need a lot of support from other statements before they started to sort out our problems. Surely God could have come up with something a bit snappier and less ambiguous, but designed to improve the quality of life? You know, something like "Be excellent to each other. And party on, dudes!"
Oh wait, that's already taken. I guess Bill & Ted could have taught Jehovah a few things...

If you squint, hold your head at the right angle and use your imagination, you can juuuust about make out some Humanist values hidden away in there...

[4] This is one of the reasons that secular Humanism should be taught in schools (Shock! Horror!). It can lay down a solid foundation for reasonable, ethical thinking and behavior which can be neutral towards all religions, while at the same time teaching the values that are common to most of them. If parents feel the need to add the teachings of their own religion on top of this (which may possibly detract from the humanist values instead of enhancing them), then that is their decision and they are free (as they always have been) to do it at home or in church. It would certainly be valuable to teach the children about their history, family background and culture, but whether or not it would contribute a great deal more towards the development of morality and ethical behavior is debatable. Humanism appears to take care of that aspect quite adequately.

The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life

Humanist,  May-June, 2008 

The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life

By Austin Dacey

(Prometheus, 2008)

Surely, secularists must realize that in a wild, standard-free struggle between emotionally charged sound bites, "pro-choice" can never triumph over "pro-life." Indeed, were the issues that uncomplicated, it should not. But the technical and societal details of these matters easily favor both legal abortion and generous public support for embryonic stem cell research. So why do most secularists refuse to argue the salient facts to the common American voter?

Throughout the world, Islamist terrorists issue death sentences to authors and apostates, support so-called "honor-killings" and bomb innocent civilians consistent with their perceived duties to God. Although secular world leaders and news organizations rightly condemn the perpetrators as individual fanatics, they seldom dare to so much as question the religious motivations behind such fanaticism. Instead, Islam is ever so diplomatically dubbed "a religion of peace." Why not at least acknowledge the apparent correlations between religious conviction and senseless violence?

Because secularism has "lost its soul" replies Austin Dacey, professor of humanities and United Nations representative for the Center for Inquiry Transnational. In his new book, The Secular Conscience, Dacey asserts that in the modern, post-Enlightenment era secularism has, ironically, been undermined primarily from within. Although the American model of secular government was premised on open and vigorous competition between numerous philosophies and religious sects in the free marketplace of moral visions, American citizens of all persuasions have since deeply internalized at least two logical fallacies that have prevented them from achieving that ideal.

The Privacy Fallacy, Dacey instructs, decrees that all matters of conscience--secular or religious--are utterly personal and, hence, forbidden subjects for public discourse. So long as beliefs are not "imposed" on others, this hopelessly regressive mantra goes, every person has a "right" to believe as she will without interference of any kind. Enter the Liberty Fallacy, which mistakenly concludes that because conscience must not be coerced, it is equally immune to reasoned critique and objective intellectual and moral standards.

But unlimited deference to others' beliefs, consistent with the Privacy and Liberty Fallacies, does not constitute respect for those beliefs, but instead only blind, blanket acceptance of or careless indifference to them. Respect for truth and decency, by contrast, necessarily entails serious consideration, scrutiny, and when appropriate, direct public criticism. Despite prevailing opinion, anything less would be both undemocratic and uncivilized insofar as a given society values moral progress.

History assures us, however, that the ascendancy of these modern fallacies was anything but inevitable. Indeed, Dacey argues, the architects of secular liberalism would scarcely recognize their descendants today because they would never have tolerated, much less recommended, political neutrality regarding matters of conscience. When in 1670 Baruch Spinoza identified the most tyrannical government as "one where the individual is denied the freedom to express and to communicate to others what he thinks," he by no means proposed to deny the state its right--indeed, its responsibility--to enforce a non-denominational civic religion upon its citizens.

Although Spinoza's ideal government would never impose sectarian dogma or ritual, Dacey continues, it was nonetheless obliged to ensure obedience to an undeniably rational and universal set of principles consisting of justice and charity toward others. Spinoza's mix of theological skepticism and catholic piety was undoubtedly reflected in the American founders' deism, as well as their First Amendment to the United States Constitution that was at once both strictly prohibitive and unconventionally liberal.

But Enlightenment thinkers never envisioned the public square as an exclusive, conscience-free zone. In distinguishing a Liberty Principle from the Liberty Fallacy, Dacey invokes the much-celebrated writings of utilitarian John Stuart Mill, who in his 1859 essay, On Liberty, observed of government, "It is not by wearing down into uniformity all that is individual in themselves, but by cultivating it and calling it forth ... that human beings become a noble and beautiful object of contemplation" Thus, only specific compulsion from above is prohibited by the Liberty Principle; lateral persuasion among peers, by contrast, is encouraged. Freedom of conscience, Dacey adds, was not intended as an end in itself, but only as a means of achieving a more elevated existence for all.

Equally instructive for the author is ethicist Adam Smith's 1759 Theory of Moral Sentiments, which appealed to every man's "impartial and well-informed spectator" as "the great judge and arbiter of their conduct." The moral point of view, according to Smith, is anything but subjective. Rather, it transcends the individual and is, at least in theory, accessible to every citizen. In the larger societal context, Dacey concurs, accessibility necessarily depends on a permissive public attitude. Freedom of conscience, in other words, is inherently social because it loses all meaning if it fails to include the liberty to speak publicly as conscience compels.

So, if secularists are committed to morality's rational foundation, they shouldn't object to open political religious expression on any grounds, less said on the basis of personal autonomy or subjectivity. In so doing, they would forfeit precious opportunities to confront religious extremism and expose it as the institutionalized fear and bigotry that it plainly is. Nor should religious speech be barred for its proven divisiveness. All moral questions are intrinsically provocative. If secularists wish to publicly reclaim the ethical high ground, they ought not to exclude certain ideas arbitrarily.

Religion must be freed from its rhetorical and ideological closets before it can be fully exposed to the light of reason. For perhaps the first time in history, faith must be held to the same practical standards routinely applied to other claims of both fact and conscience. For Dacey, these include honesty, rationality, consistency, evidence, feasibility, legality, morality, and revisabllity. Although the author admits there can exist no concrete and all-encompassing Theory of Everyone (which the Golden Rule and Kant's Categorical Imperatives attempt, but fail, to accomplish), he insists that ethical objectivity and universality can nonetheless be achieved with a method--a shared language of public examination.

Even if we can't assent to a sufficient number of values and principles, we should be able to agree on the means by which we converse about and distinguish them. Such, in general terms, is the objective, transparent, and merit-based method of science. When all beliefs are liberated for (but not from) inspection, Dacey concludes, they will necessarily be forced to stand trial in the common and supreme court of reason.

Dacey's philosophy, as such, is both hopeful and theoretically sound. The problem, however, is that from the philosopher's ivory tower, the cruel and cluttered scientific facts--especially those describing the ordinary person's evolved psychology and tribal character--are nearly imperceptible. What the author fails to recognize, or at least to account for, is that both reason and morality have always taken a distant backseat--not so much to religion specifically-but to humanity's innate tendency to fracture into mutually sanctimonious and ultimately antagonistic in-and out-groups. Nature has never selected for completely independent, much less impartial human spectators.

Religion continues to hold popular sway, in other words, not merely because people don't know that other options exist--although that might be true in many unfortunate cases--but rather because group constituents don't really care to know about other groups' ways of life. Secularists can invite anti-intellectuals to a candid, open, and rational debate until their tongues seize, but rarely will they succeed in extricating a person from the tribe with which she has long enjoyed comfort, safety, and reinforcement. Arguably, Dacey assumes too much of people too quickly.

That said, maybe it's worth a shot anyway. Secularists have much or very little to lose, depending on one's perspective, but any argument calling for a more sincere and inclusive discussion can't be all that bad. And certainly Dacey is correct that, once achieved, an empirico-rational moral system would prove far superior to one based on religious dogma (he notes, for example, that although secular Americans are significantly less likely to give to the poor than their religious counterparts, the second most generous nation, Denmark, also claims one of the lowest rates of church attendance and, not so incidentally, the highest rate of self-reported life fulfillment).

People do change at both the individual and species levels, if ever so methodically. A new Pew Forum survey of the American religious landscape

reveals that 28 percent of adults have fled their childhood faith to another religion or to no religion whatsoever; that Protestants now comprise only 51 percent of the population compared to two-thirds in 1980; and that 16.1 percent of Americans are not religiously affiliated--twice the rate as when they were children. One can only hope, of course, that these apostates have managed to supplant religion with something much better.

Regardless, perhaps Dacey's secularism can reclaim its common democratic sense and, thus, its soul. And given ample time or, alternatively, an emergent mass rebellion against humanity's selfish genes and memes, maybe secularists can achieve their ultimate goal of cultivating among all persons a truly thoughtful, empathetic, and responsive secular conscience.

Review by Kenneth W. Krause

Kenneth W. Krause is books editor for both Tapestry and Secular Nation magazines. He has recently contributed to various periodicals including Skeptical Inquirer, the Humanist, Free Inquiry, Skeptic, Truth Seeker, and Freethought Today, and to local publications including Wisconsin Lawyer and Wisconsin Political Scientist. He may be contacted at krausekc@msn. com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 American Humanist Association
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning

A Humanist Manifesto

Humanist,  May-June, 2008 

by Raymond B. Bragg

THE TIME has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience. In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we. the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.

There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of the word religion with doctrines and methods which have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problem of human living in the Twentieth Century. Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life. Their end has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors results in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact explains the changefulness of religions through the centuries. But through all changes religion itself remains constant in its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life.

Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religious, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:

First: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

Second: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

Third: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

Fourth: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.

Fifth: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

Sixth: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought."

Seventh: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation--all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.

Eighth: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion.

Ninth: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.

Tenth: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.

Eleventh: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.

Twelfth: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.

Thirteenth: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.

Fourteenth: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

Fifteenth and last: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not free from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.

So stand the theses of religious humanism. Though we consider the religious forms and ideas of our fathers no longer adequate, the quest for the good life is still the central task for mankind. Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, that he has within himself the power for its achievement. He must set intelligence and will to the task.

(Signed)

SIGNATORY JOHN DEWEY

SIGNATORY JOHN H. DIETRICH

SIGNATORY EDWIN H. WILSON

NOTE

The Manifesto is a product of many minds. It was designed to represent a developing point of view, not a new creed. The individuals whose signatures appear would, had they been writing individual statements, have stated the propositions in differing terms. The importance of the document is that more than thirty men have come to general agreement on matters of final concern and that these men are undoubtedly representative of a large number who are forging a new philosophy out of the materials of the modern world.

It is obvious that many others might have been asked to sign the Manifesto had not the lack of time and the shortage of clerical assistance limited our ability to communicate with them. The names of several who were asked do not appear. Reasons for their absence appear elsewhere in this issue of "The New Humanist." Further criticisms that we have been unable to publish have reached us: all of them we value. We invite an expression of opinion from others. To the extent possible "'The New Humanist" will publish such materials.

COPYRIGHT 2008 American Humanist Association
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning

Objectivity

Humanist,  May-June, 2008 

by Kenneth E. Nahigian

YOU'VE HEARD the old joke--the world has two kinds of people: those who divide things into two groups, and those who don't. Well, that's how this starts.

The world has two kinds of things: those that exist because we think them or talk of them, and those that would exist anyway. Rocks and trees would still be if we ignored them, or even if all humans died (solipsists may please now exit quietly). We call such things objective, that is, being like an object. But marriage, greed, comfort, debt and credit, mortgages, political disputes, social castes, national boundaries, and philosophical distinctions such as this one--all these exist only because conscious observers have developed the word or concept, and talk about them in various ways. They are subjective.

One truly interesting question of philosophy is whether these two groups are completely distinct, with a sharp line between, or if they blend into each other. In the philosophy biz, that's to ask if it is a dichotomy or a continuum. I used to think of it as a dichotomy. Now I regard it as more of a continuum. For example, one may well argue that "five" (the abstract quantity, fiveness) exists apart from us--even if humans had never evolved, you could still have five rocks in a field--and perhaps this extends to fractions and even irrational numbers; but when you start to talk about negative numbers, complex numbers, hypercomplex numbers, infinitesimals, transfinites, matrices, vectors, multi-variable functions, tensors, fields, Galois groups, and the Mandelbrot set the compulsion to regard these as purely mental constructs is overwhelming. ("God made the integers" said old Leopold Kronecker, "all else is the work of man.") Yet study math and you'll find that the stretch between such highly abstract things and the simple notion of five is quite continuous. You don't get from one to the other in a big jump. You get there in gradations, by nudges, by shades-each step building inexorably on the previous. (And at least one good mathematician, Roger Penrose, does believe that the Mandelbrot set exists "all on its own")

A clever person could easily argue that debt and credit are also objective. Certainly an atom can become ionized, lose an electron, and thereby accrue an electrochemical debt; and certainly this can have serious physical consequences, which would exist even if humans had never evolved. This brings us to the threshold of another philosophical dispute, nominalism vs. realism; but for now, I don't want to go there.

So for sake of argument, it's a continuum, not a dichotomy. And the degree of objectivity we assign to something much depends on how we think of it. (Somebody call the solipsists back into the room.)

People have spilled much ink over how much objectivity we "should" assign to this concept or that. Where do we put God, for example--on the near end of the objectivity spectrum, along with rocks and trees, or further along, next to Nature, or the far end, with Mother Goose? And what about values such as beautiful, ugly, tasty, contemptible? To Platonists, Objectivists such as Ayn Rand, and some Christian thinkers like C.S. Lewis, these are objective qualifications, while most philosophers would insist they are only in our minds. Outside of us, in the world of whiling atoms and twinkling stars, the universe just doesn't care about such things.

Closely tied in to this is the question of moral objectivity. Are good vs. evil or right vs. wrong objective distinctions, or more subjective? I happen to believe they are objective, or at least they have a certain objective footing, regardless of what we think. And yet I also believe values are subjective. How do I manage that? By recognizing moral principles not as simple values, but meta-values--statements about values, and about relationships between them. For example: If you wish to live in a social context with other autonomous individuals, do thus-and-so, else your presence in that social context is likely to be cut short. That's not to say moral precepts don't often include conventions that are partly subjective--matters of fashion and culture, like dress codes or the rule about driving on the left side in England; but at their core is bedrock that stands on its own--abstract rules emerging from the interaction of individuals, much as Bernoulli's laws emerge from the interaction of molecules in a fluid or a gas--and are therefore quite as objective.

And so we can have objective statements about subjective things; the statement "John is angry" can be objectively true, though anger itself is subjective. (Have a headache yet? If not, you're a trooper.)

Another fascinating tie-in is the question of whether primary sensations, such as warmth or redness, are objective or subjective. If an object looks red, is it red in and of itself, or do our eyes or mind just see it that way? I am inclined to slide warmth or redness down toward the subjective end of the scale, simply because things change color in different kinds of light, some folks are colorblind, and different people can feel chilly or too warm in the same room (if you're married, you know just what I mean). But if, for example, you define redness as the tendency to absorb or reflect certain specific electromagnetic spectra, then yes, it is objective, or more so. Believe it or not, this was a highly vociferous debate in circles of philosophy just recently. (Now you know why philosophers are wet blankets at parties.)

What is objective? Abstruse conditions like rest mass, structure, moment of spin, chemical composition, electrical charge, position relative to other objects--aspects fairly difficult to determine. And at the cutting edge of science, where quantum physics starts to grade into metaphysics, you will even find scientists who argue that conditions such as time and position (locality) are also illusions, that is, subjective masks for deeper, more objective attributes it might take years of study to understand.

Face it: in our daily lives, we float in a sea of subjectivity. We must dive deep, deep below the surface to find the objective heart of things. And equipped with reasonable scuba gear, we may even get to see some of it bubble back up.

-Kenneth E. Nahigian has been a freethinker, humanist, and Bright for about thirty of his fifty-five years. He lives and works in Sacramento as a software developer and also serves as treasurer for Atheists and Other Freethinkers, the local AAI affiliate. Beyond that, he is part of a philosophical think-tank consisting of himself, four cats, and some shrubbery.

COPYRIGHT 2008 American Humanist Association
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning

This Blog is re-post from Richie MacCool's Blog!

Richie MacCool

If you want to get involved and spread this message too- visit the blogs listed below or better yet- do one of your OWN!

And...banners are on the way!

Thank you Richie and all the great people taking part in this project!!

Humanism

Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality. (Taken from www.iheu.org)

Hey Everyone,

I made this slideshow a couple of months back on kind of a whim but with World Humanist Day approaching it gave me an idea…….. Now hold that thought while you watch the slide show and then I'll tell you how you can help.

So here is my idea: maybe we can make a change by making a statement this World Humanist Day. I am hoping to do this by posting videos, slide shows and blogs that promote Humanism, Fair and ethical treatment for all and World peace. Would you consider doing one of the following between now and June 21^st (World Humanist Day)

1. Post this slide show as a blog ( I made it and I give you permission).
2. Post another video, slideshow or blog that promotes the cause. If you do, please let me know so I can promote yours also.

Over the next 2 weeks we have the opportunity to change the way people perceive humanism and bring awareness to a world wide cause.

Will you consider helping me?

**6/6/08 Update** We have the following bloggers that have joined the campaign. Please visit their blogs and comment . Should you decide to join us please leave a comment and link so we can add your blog below. Please post in the "Life" category. We would love to have at least one blog a day up until the 20th and then repost all of them on the 20th so they can be up for World Humanist Day. Thanks again Everyone.

Richie MacCool

HUMANIST as a Myspace Religion Choice

This site is dedicated to the promoting the rights of humans and all living things in this universe.

GOAL 1: To petition MYSPACE to allow the option in the RELIGION category of the Basic Info on your profile to include "HUMANIST" as a choice.

We must have an online petition effort to this affect this change, as this identity is somewhat of an umbrella to those who: don't accept a specified category of religion; are non-theists; are not sure of what's out there, or are the ones that have gotten just sick of the whole thing and are trying to be realistic about life. One thing is for sure, if you read about what Humanism stands for and you think it should be on there, well make your choice known. Send your message today!