There comes a time in a persons life, where their experiences allow them to take stock about what is really important to them, what is superficial fluff and a waste of time and money.
I have said before that I never cared about someones superstitious beliefs, and I certaintly never cared to talk about my agnosticism (and now firm atheism) about those beliefs. But the times have changed. The more I hear from the right-wing Christians and their feined persecution complex, their refusal to adapt to cultural modernity, their unabashed disdain for the teaching of critical thinking skills to children, their constant shrillness about end times, their gay-hating, their lack of concern for the environmental devastation, climate change, and some of the most vocal leaders' full support to laissez-faire capitalism. In essence their worshpping of money over morality (or in their case.....god). I will empathize with them that change is hard, but it is always worth challenging oneself and one's preconceptions.
I made my first film based on the Great Agnostic Robert G. Ingersoll's essay on secularism, and the importance of the Humanist perspective. I am now working on my next project, a music number and accompanying video "Atheists. Come Out!" I need a singer! I still feel a sense of awkardness about what I do in my atheist creative projects, because I am not a 'proselytiser' by nature so I tread warily. I still don't care about someone's belief in the gods, but if I don't show what I believe then how are they going to know that I as an atheist am a good, moral person. At the same time I want to be cheeky and fun in my creative outlet (although my fun side didn't really express itself completely in my first film, having stayed verbatim to Ingersoll's words).
Atheists all around the country and even the world are creating content online, blogging, testing the constitutionality of church state issues, along with mythbusting and the love of scientific discovery. The content is increasing and starting to compete and exceed those polished Christian films in both creativity and sophistication. I want to be part of that group so I will continue to work (albeit slowly) on my creativity, my volunteerism, my outreach to the non-believer community.
So what is superficial fluff, and a waste of time and money? For me, if I go back to my former ways of non-participation in the atheist/Humanist community, and not standing up for those things I do believe in, then my one life would have been a waste of time, money and completely skin deep.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Ingersoll, Secularism and the 21st Century
This Blog first appeared in the Harvard Humanist on March 20th.
The seed for ‘Secularism – A Short Film‘ was planted when I first met Colonel Robert G. Ingersoll. Richard McNally, who plays Ingersoll in the film, gave a one-man performance dressed as the late 19th century orator at a Los Angeles chapter of the AHA back in 2010. Richard reenacted Ingersoll’s gift for speech writing with an engaging show, and then followed with a Q&A in character. Since that day I have read as much as I can of Ingersoll’s work. The ‘great agnostic’s’ writing is long and florid compared to our contemporary succinctness, so when I came across this particular essay (a slender 528 words), written for the Freethought periodical The Independent Pulpit in Waco, Texas in 1887, I knew I had to make it into a film.
The piece is not without its controversy: calling secularism a ‘religion’ has certainly made the hair stand up on the necks of many atheists, some of whom disregard the humanistic component of the speech’s message. One comment said that my film sounded like a Christian recruitment piece. Several people suggested editing the uncomfortable, unfashionable words out of the essay in order to accommodate a modern audience. But that would be unconscionable: after all, don’t many of the religious pick and choose passages of the bible that speak to them, while disregarding others they find awkward? That is not intellectual honesty.
It was a sign of the Victorian era that Ingersoll couched his rhetoric in religious metaphor, as the United States was a deeply devout nation, even more so than now. He showed the tens of thousands who came to listen to him an alternative to religious superstition and dogma. He talked about the “grand temple of the future” made to house the “religion of Humanity”, where we cease to accept “truth in rags, and superstition robed and crowned” (from his speech ‘The Gods’ 1872). Those are words I can believe in. Those are words that ring out loud and clear in our current climate of religious bigotry and anti-secularism.
In my opinion secularism is not a religion, but a radically enlightened idea to keep the peace between opposing forces of humanity. It is not a message of salvation and redemption, but of independence and compassion. It is not a platform for extremism and bigotry, but of moderation and tolerance. It is not telling you how to think, but instead conveys the importance of independent thought, free from orthodoxy and those who claim the mantle of moral authority. It is interested in new ideas, and protects the progression of humanity. Ultimately for secularism to work, it requires an educated, engaged and vigilant population that desires not to discriminate against others for their beliefs.
I hope in some small way that my film helps to propel the discussion of our secular nation forward, and how important it is to protect minorities, whoever they are, from the persecution by the perceived majority, whoever they are. I also hope this film brings a renewed interest in Ingersoll’s writing and his brave offensive against those who used fear as a means to control. We must remind our fellow Americans that our Founding Fathers saw fit to separate Church and State, despite what the revisionist historians say, for when both powers intertwine the result has never been anything but terrible for humanity.
As for secularism: it has its own public relations issues to deal with. Many Conservative Christians have been told that secularism and communism go hand in hand, and that it is hostile to religious belief. As we non-believers flex our newly found muscle and increase in numbers, we will have to show why a secular government has all of our best interests at heart. We must willing to defend the free speech rights of others who have a different point of view, but be ready to challenge those ideas without the terse name calling and demonization that can emanate from certain atheist circles – a characteristic Ingersoll called “intellectual hospitality”.
On a personal note, I have only recently decided to identify as a Humanist and it has been somewhat of a hard decision. I don’t tend to join groups, and although I am very social, I like being independent. Ultimately I needed to find the antithesis of social-conservatism, of superstition, of political religiosity. Because of the religious right I started to dislike everything about religion, which I never did before. I don’t believe that religion poisons everything, but I know that excessive power cloaked in religion does, as would a dogmatically-enforced atheism.
The fact that I am an atheist should be of no concern to the religious, especially religious progressives. I may be a Secular Humanist, but I want to show a message of unity to secularists (including those who are religious) that we have to stand up to the narcissism and intellectual dishonesty of those who believe that they alone own this country over everyone else.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Is Secularism really a religion?
In my newly released short film, I had the wonderful actor Richard McNally reenact this relatively unknown Ingersoll essay written in 1887. The 'great agnostic,' as Ingersoll has come to be known, suggested that 'secularism is the religion of humanity'. That phrase, and the final words of the piece 'Secularism is a religion, a religion that is understood,' has made some atheists neck hair go up on end; they do not like that word in any form, not even taking into consideration the historical context of when it was written. It has also had some religious people react and comment "Ha! I told you so! Theirs is a theology too!" For both atheist and religious groups it seems that my film has blown a dog whistle and now they are barking.
To be honest I am also uncomfortable with the 'R' word to describe our secular system of government, but it would have been unconscionable to edit it from the piece (as at one point I almost did); that is tantamount to censorship. The rest of the piece is so eloquent, so profound and so humanistic that I couldn't just discard it in its entirety just because of a controversial word. I figured this would be a sticking point for some; but I am not embarrassed by it. On the contrary, I embrace the controversy as it looks like it is getting people to talk about what secularism is, and is not. Secularism has been demonised by the hard right for the last 40 years, with the likes of Gingrich shouting that there is a "crisis of secularism""a government-favored culture to replace Christianity." It's time to bring back the idea of the secular as a positive for all people, religious or not.
As a side note, in my opinion secularism can only be a religion if corresponds to a sub-meaning of that word, "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance." (attributed to dictionary.com). In that case, music is my religion.
It is of supreme importance to keep religion out of government. I do not want one groups interpretation of Biblical law used to create laws for our country any more than I want Sharia law. Also, government should have little interest in the personal beliefs of individuals or groups as long as those beliefs do not interfere with another groups beliefs. A secular government is a government that does not side with Christians, Muslims or even atheists. It should have no doctrine or dogma; it should only take the facts, the evidence, and experiences as we have observed and make policy accordingly. Although it would be naive to think that our government is a rational and reasonable entity; after all, it is run by human beings for goodness sake. As Thomas Jefferson said "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
To be honest I am also uncomfortable with the 'R' word to describe our secular system of government, but it would have been unconscionable to edit it from the piece (as at one point I almost did); that is tantamount to censorship. The rest of the piece is so eloquent, so profound and so humanistic that I couldn't just discard it in its entirety just because of a controversial word. I figured this would be a sticking point for some; but I am not embarrassed by it. On the contrary, I embrace the controversy as it looks like it is getting people to talk about what secularism is, and is not. Secularism has been demonised by the hard right for the last 40 years, with the likes of Gingrich shouting that there is a "crisis of secularism""a government-favored culture to replace Christianity." It's time to bring back the idea of the secular as a positive for all people, religious or not.
As a side note, in my opinion secularism can only be a religion if corresponds to a sub-meaning of that word, "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance." (attributed to dictionary.com). In that case, music is my religion.
It is of supreme importance to keep religion out of government. I do not want one groups interpretation of Biblical law used to create laws for our country any more than I want Sharia law. Also, government should have little interest in the personal beliefs of individuals or groups as long as those beliefs do not interfere with another groups beliefs. A secular government is a government that does not side with Christians, Muslims or even atheists. It should have no doctrine or dogma; it should only take the facts, the evidence, and experiences as we have observed and make policy accordingly. Although it would be naive to think that our government is a rational and reasonable entity; after all, it is run by human beings for goodness sake. As Thomas Jefferson said "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Atheist Temples???
I am not sure what to think of this idea (my first response was revulsion) An atheist temple? The instigator of this idea is an British atheist and philosopher Alain de Botton.
Botton says '"Why should religious people have the most beautiful buildings in the land? It's time atheists had their own versions of the great churches and cathedrals. A beautiful building is an indispensable part of getting your message across. Books alone won't do it." (from the wired Magazine interview).
Forgive me, but building a temple for non-believers is redundant? Aren't science and natural history museums the place to go to appreciate the wonders of the natural world and our Universe. Isn't the vast majority of the greatest and most beautiful modern architecture a testament to our knowledge of science, engineering and a showcase of the secular world over the last 150 years? Who needs a temple? Botton seems like he is a worshiper without a religion; a seeker of a new dogma.
Botton says '"Why should religious people have the most beautiful buildings in the land? It's time atheists had their own versions of the great churches and cathedrals. A beautiful building is an indispensable part of getting your message across. Books alone won't do it." (from the wired Magazine interview).
Forgive me, but building a temple for non-believers is redundant? Aren't science and natural history museums the place to go to appreciate the wonders of the natural world and our Universe. Isn't the vast majority of the greatest and most beautiful modern architecture a testament to our knowledge of science, engineering and a showcase of the secular world over the last 150 years? Who needs a temple? Botton seems like he is a worshiper without a religion; a seeker of a new dogma.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
The Gap of the Gods and the Godless
Free•think•er~ a person who forms opinions on the basis of reason, independent of authority or tradition, especially a person whose religious opinions differ from established belief (ref: Dictionary.com)
Is it a fallacy, or even arrogant to think that we atheists are truly Freethinkers? If, as the definition suggests, it is mostly about decoupling oneself from superstition and a belief in a god, then we are Freethinkers. But we can also have a dogmatic side. Is an out and out rejection of anything religious just because we refuse to accept someones religious belief, a form of Freethinking? Couldn't the scope of Freethinking be used to describe those religious people who have taken off the shackles of dogma and doctrine, but still have a belief in a higher power? Perhaps the beauty of Freethought is that when new evidence manifests itself, we make an adjustment in our intellectual course. I feel that way about my religious friends. The evidence suggests that we cannot politically fight the religious right-wing by ourselves, and that we need to ask our progressive religious friends to join us. Maybe Freethought and Humanism are not necessarily overlapping. In that case I would rather be a Humanist than a Freethinker, though I strongly suspect that both of those terms really do overlap. I am uncomfortable calling myself a Freethinker if it discards those who have a religious belief but are yet based otherwise in the emperical and compassionate world. After all, there are self-professed Freethinkers who have little compassion at all.
Should Humanist/atheist groups work alongside religious groups for the common good? Should we pool our money and resources to serve the needy, the environment, education etc? Or do we go it alone and discard those who share over 90% of our values but pray to a higher power? The atheist (Humanist) non-profit, Foundation Beyond Belief is bravely challenging the gap between non-believers and the religious. "Different beliefs, common goals" is the phrase Dale McGowan uses to address this issue. James Croft from the Harvard Humanist Communtiy wrote an eloquent essay on Humanist priorities, stating "Often, if Humanism is to be “Good Without God”, we seem to be more concerned with “Without God” than with being “Good”.
I agree with their sentiment and they are putting it into action, despite criticism from some within the atheist community.
Do we need to even contemplate an alliance with the progressively religious, both politically and socially? Sean Faircloth of the Richard Dawkins Foundation (formerly at the Secular Coalition of America) says that the non-religious or religiously affiliated are a formidable power, the third largest 'religious' demographic in the USA. It would be wishful thinking to try to galvanize that 17% in the form of political action. First of all, many of them are probably just not that interested in the battle between 'reason' and religion. It is an easier thing to imagine us working with actively progressive religious groups to thwart the conservative religious right-wing's socially backward agenda, that seeks to push out gays from their hard-earned fight to be an accepted part of the mainstream and given equal rights under the law; to cut off the conservative Christians' attempt to pull back women from the right to be in charge of their own bodies and destinies; to block the Fundamentalists who seek to depose scientific inquiry that uncomfortably clashes with their literalistic and non-scientific interpretations of a book of mythological and allegorical stories.
The religious who display Humanism in their deeds are our allies, and we cannot put up a wall of separation between us and them. We need their passion for progressive change, for we cannot do it all alone.
As a parting note on this entry, my daughter had a Humanist Bat Mitzvah last year. A traditionally religious coming-of-age ceremony that Humanist Jews have secularized, removing all reference to a higher power and instead celebrating the child and life itself. At the end of the ceremony my God believing Rabbi friend, from a reconstructionist temple, made a blessing in Yahweh's name. It was a beautiful sign of a friendship between a Humanist family and their religious friends.
Is it a fallacy, or even arrogant to think that we atheists are truly Freethinkers? If, as the definition suggests, it is mostly about decoupling oneself from superstition and a belief in a god, then we are Freethinkers. But we can also have a dogmatic side. Is an out and out rejection of anything religious just because we refuse to accept someones religious belief, a form of Freethinking? Couldn't the scope of Freethinking be used to describe those religious people who have taken off the shackles of dogma and doctrine, but still have a belief in a higher power? Perhaps the beauty of Freethought is that when new evidence manifests itself, we make an adjustment in our intellectual course. I feel that way about my religious friends. The evidence suggests that we cannot politically fight the religious right-wing by ourselves, and that we need to ask our progressive religious friends to join us. Maybe Freethought and Humanism are not necessarily overlapping. In that case I would rather be a Humanist than a Freethinker, though I strongly suspect that both of those terms really do overlap. I am uncomfortable calling myself a Freethinker if it discards those who have a religious belief but are yet based otherwise in the emperical and compassionate world. After all, there are self-professed Freethinkers who have little compassion at all.
Should Humanist/atheist groups work alongside religious groups for the common good? Should we pool our money and resources to serve the needy, the environment, education etc? Or do we go it alone and discard those who share over 90% of our values but pray to a higher power? The atheist (Humanist) non-profit, Foundation Beyond Belief is bravely challenging the gap between non-believers and the religious. "Different beliefs, common goals" is the phrase Dale McGowan uses to address this issue. James Croft from the Harvard Humanist Communtiy wrote an eloquent essay on Humanist priorities, stating "Often, if Humanism is to be “Good Without God”, we seem to be more concerned with “Without God” than with being “Good”.
I agree with their sentiment and they are putting it into action, despite criticism from some within the atheist community.
Do we need to even contemplate an alliance with the progressively religious, both politically and socially? Sean Faircloth of the Richard Dawkins Foundation (formerly at the Secular Coalition of America) says that the non-religious or religiously affiliated are a formidable power, the third largest 'religious' demographic in the USA. It would be wishful thinking to try to galvanize that 17% in the form of political action. First of all, many of them are probably just not that interested in the battle between 'reason' and religion. It is an easier thing to imagine us working with actively progressive religious groups to thwart the conservative religious right-wing's socially backward agenda, that seeks to push out gays from their hard-earned fight to be an accepted part of the mainstream and given equal rights under the law; to cut off the conservative Christians' attempt to pull back women from the right to be in charge of their own bodies and destinies; to block the Fundamentalists who seek to depose scientific inquiry that uncomfortably clashes with their literalistic and non-scientific interpretations of a book of mythological and allegorical stories.
The religious who display Humanism in their deeds are our allies, and we cannot put up a wall of separation between us and them. We need their passion for progressive change, for we cannot do it all alone.
As a parting note on this entry, my daughter had a Humanist Bat Mitzvah last year. A traditionally religious coming-of-age ceremony that Humanist Jews have secularized, removing all reference to a higher power and instead celebrating the child and life itself. At the end of the ceremony my God believing Rabbi friend, from a reconstructionist temple, made a blessing in Yahweh's name. It was a beautiful sign of a friendship between a Humanist family and their religious friends.
Monday, January 9, 2012
What is the Secular Human?
The word 'secular' simply means 'of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred (ref dictionary.com). Of late this adjective is being used by the pious to mean something ominous, and even evil. Secularism means atheism, godless, socialist, communist and anything else that the most religious among us fear.
But we secular human's can be good with the need for the supernatural, or the fear of hell. Though I am a non-believer, I think that a secular human can be religious, but understands the need for a government that is neutral when it comes to religion. I wonder if Barry W. Lynn would agree with me, that he is one such person. Rev Lynn is an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ but he is also the Executive Director of American's United for Separation of Church and State since 1992. This organization has worked tirelessly to preserve the constitutional principle of church-state separation. Atheists must realize that there are many religious people like Lynn who want to keep religion out of the government, and we need to support their cause.
But we secular human's can be good with the need for the supernatural, or the fear of hell. Though I am a non-believer, I think that a secular human can be religious, but understands the need for a government that is neutral when it comes to religion. I wonder if Barry W. Lynn would agree with me, that he is one such person. Rev Lynn is an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ but he is also the Executive Director of American's United for Separation of Church and State since 1992. This organization has worked tirelessly to preserve the constitutional principle of church-state separation. Atheists must realize that there are many religious people like Lynn who want to keep religion out of the government, and we need to support their cause.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)