Thursday, March 1, 2007
New Look
For those who were used to the mauve theme, I hope you like the new style. I wanted to make both blogs more uniform, since they are at least loosely related. I also like this style better because it allows more room for the actual posts, which will make for a bit less scrolling when you read my "epic" essays. ;-)
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Just to let you know...
I've started a new blog where we'll be talking about and examining current events and issues facing our society in a much more in-depth manner. I hope you'll check it out....
http://revmoe-views.blogspot.com/index.html
http://revmoe-views.blogspot.com/index.html
Sunday, February 25, 2007
What is Humanism (Part 3)
Okay, now that you know a bit about me and my personal journey toward being a humanist, it's time to talk about the core values of humanism, and how those values are interpreted both generally (such as in the Manifestos) and by myself as an individual humanist.
As I mentioned at the beginning of this series, Humanism, like mankind and all other life on Earth, is in a constant state of evolution. The most basic heart of humanism remains constant, just as the basic DNA of any living creature does - but various aspects and interpretations will develop and grow over time, just as living organisms adapt to changes in their environment or develop new attributes to assist their survival. So to explain Humanism, I will start with the heart of our philosophy....
Humanism reflects a core belief that humanity already possesses all the tools necessary to solve our own problems, and improve the human condition for all the people of Earth. Humanists, for the most part, believe that religion does more to hamper the growth and evolution of mankind than help it, for several reasons:
Humanists do not give up, nor do Humanists wait for a supernatural force to "fix" things. We believe that every problem facing mankind can be solved through a combination of reason, science, and cooperation. Further, we believe that, just as humankind has created most of it's own problems, it is only through our own efforts that those problems will ever be solved.
Humanists also believe that every human life has value, meaning, purpose, and immeasurable potential. We believe that each person has an inherent right to live with dignity, to be treated equally to all other humans, and to have access to the basic requirements of life - personal safety, shelter, food, medical care, and education. This not only will help end wars, crime, and suffering, but promote the development of solutions to the other problems facing our world, such as new treatments for disease, new methods for producing clean and earth-friendly energy, and more. It is not possible for someone to help advance science, medicine, technology, or any other beneficial tool of humanity if they must struggle every day to survive. Removing that struggle opens the door to creativity, ingenuity, and invention, and ensures that every person has the opportunity to reach their full potential.
Because we believe that every person has the inherent right to dignity, safety, and the ability to pursue their full potential, we believe that discrimination in all it's forms, and for all possible reasons, must end; that war, genocide, and oppression must be stopped; and that all nations must work together to ensure that no man, woman, or child is left without a home, a meal, medical care, or the opportunity to learn. We believe that a lack of financial resources should not prevent anyone from having those basic necessities of survival because such deprivation stunts the intellectual growth of the individual, promotes envy, and encourages crime and/or war.
We believe that conflicts or disagreements, whether between individuals or nations, should be resolved through communication, reason, cooperation, mediation, and compromise. As the astronauts often observe, there are no lines when one looks at the Earth from space. Therefore we must stop thinking in terms of localities, states, or nations, and begin thinking of ourselves as "Citizens of Earth" - a global community that must work together in order to ensure our survival and to find solutions for the problems that face our world.
Humanists also believe that it is vitally important to protect our natural resources, which includes promoting clean energy, fuel efficiency, waste reduction, re-forestation, preservation, conservation, and recycling. The Earth is our home, and for now at least, the only possible home for humanity. If we continue to abuse it and destroy the natural balance that allowed our species to survive thus far, we are basically committing mass suicide. Along this same line, the continued development and threat of use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons is anathema to a healthy and productive society, and must end. Anything else is a recipe for the demise of our species, and thousands of others as well. It is illogical and unreasonable to continue pursuing that course.
Naturally, in order to achieve these goals, Humanists also accept that each person has a duty to contribute to the good of mankind according to their individual abilities. Our civilization cannot survive unless we work at it - whether it be serving food, driving a bus, mediating a dispute, or finding a cure for cancer. Therefore, personal responsibility, not only for one's own actions, but for contributing to the survival of our species and the advancement of our society, is another core principle of Humanism.
In general then, the core of Humanism is about believing in the infinite potential of the human mind, and the power of the human spirit to overcome adversity. It is about cooperation, a commitment to the advancement of our species and the protection of our planet, a shared vision of a world free of war, oppression, poverty, and suffering; and a shared responsibility for helping to make those goals a reality.
Further, Humanism is the belief that ALL of that can be achieved through our own efforts (no gods needed), if we can put aside our differences and work together to solve our problems. Humanism is also about the promotion of science and reason over mythology and supernaturalism, and the protection of every human being's inherent right to live with dignity, pursue their intellectual and spiritual potential, and have their basic needs met.
As I mentioned, these are the core beliefs of Humanism, and yet they are also my interpretation of those core beliefs. That is part of humanism as well - accepting that we all have our own perceptions and interpretations of things, accepting that you "can't please all the people all the time", and working together to form those individual interpretations into a viable foundation for the future of mankind.
The way these basic tenets are interpreted or implemented by the individual humanist varies greatly. Some believe that Humanism demands a rejection of all religion and mysticism, while others believe that the two can co-exist as long as science and reason are not rejected in favor of faith alone. Some think Humanism is a religion in itself (I am part of this group, and in fact I am ordained as a Humanist Minister), while others think it is purely a philosophical or sociological view that does not contain the core components of other religions (faith, revelation, mysticism).
Similarly, many who claim to be humanists agree with only some of those core beliefs, and reject others. For instance, many American humanists find it hard to accept the idea of a "socialized" economy that promotes equal distribution of resources over the accumulation of wealth by a small segment of the population. Personally, I think this is due to an effort within our education system to indoctrinate each of us from childhood into the idea that capitalism is the only workable form of economy - but whatever the reason, many humanists struggle with the idea of guaranteeing every person shelter, food, education and medical care.
Others have difficulty accepting the opposition to war. Just as Luke thought my original post on that topic was misguided or ill-informed, so too do many humanists think that war is necessary, if only to achieve the eventual goal of a united world. To me, these humanists are still operating under the idea that the only way to achieve worldwide unity is through forced domination, which does not promote cooperation and ignores the possibility of achieving unity through the use of reason, compromise, and the promise of mutual benefit.
So as you can see, Humanism is both constant in it's core beliefs, and varied in it's interpretation - which makes it somewhat like Christianity, where hundreds of "sects" have developed throughout the last 2000 years because various aspects of Christian teachings can have many different interpretations.
Therefore, it is important to remember that when speaking to a self-professed Humanist, one should not accept that person's personal views as a strict definition of what Humanism stands for. It is as different for each of us as we are from each other. I am sure that some humanists might read my posts on this topic and disagree with some or all of what I wrote. I make no claim to special authority on Humanism, and offer these posts purely as my personal interpretation.
I do hope, however, that this will provide you, Luke, and any others who read it, with a better understanding of what Humanism is, and why humanists lobby for things like the separation of church and state, keeping "Intelligent Design" theories out of the science curriculum, promoting clean energy and alternative fuels, and lobbying for equal treatment and basic human rights/dignity for all people.
This concludes this series of posts on the basics of Humanism. There are many other aspects of Luke's original comment that I plan to address in future posts, so, as TV announcers used to say, please stay tuned....
As I mentioned at the beginning of this series, Humanism, like mankind and all other life on Earth, is in a constant state of evolution. The most basic heart of humanism remains constant, just as the basic DNA of any living creature does - but various aspects and interpretations will develop and grow over time, just as living organisms adapt to changes in their environment or develop new attributes to assist their survival. So to explain Humanism, I will start with the heart of our philosophy....
Humanism reflects a core belief that humanity already possesses all the tools necessary to solve our own problems, and improve the human condition for all the people of Earth. Humanists, for the most part, believe that religion does more to hamper the growth and evolution of mankind than help it, for several reasons:
- First, most religions focus too much on revelation and blind faith, and insist on rigid adherence to antiquated ideas and ideals that cannot (or will not) be adapted to modern knowledge, reason, or societal evolution.
- Religions often promote a certain elitism and even oppression or discrimination based on the "my god is better than your god" or "we're the chosen ones" scenarios (especially prevalent among fundamentalists of any sect).
- Religion also tends to stunt our intellectual development by discouraging open discourse and rational thought (especially if it is applied to the teachings of the religion), and often rejects scientific fact if it does not agree with the assumptions or "revelations" put forth by the religion (ex: Christians insisting that the earth is only 6000 years old, despite tons of scientific evidence to the contrary).
- Finally, belief in a supreme being that, should it be so inclined, has the power to fix everything that is wrong in the world, tends to promote laziness and a lack of ambition in the individual to solve their own problems. When, for instance, someone says "it's in God's hands", what they are actually saying is that they have given up trying to solve the problem for themselves and are basically hoping the answer they seek will somehow magically appear out of thin air.
Humanists do not give up, nor do Humanists wait for a supernatural force to "fix" things. We believe that every problem facing mankind can be solved through a combination of reason, science, and cooperation. Further, we believe that, just as humankind has created most of it's own problems, it is only through our own efforts that those problems will ever be solved.
Humanists also believe that every human life has value, meaning, purpose, and immeasurable potential. We believe that each person has an inherent right to live with dignity, to be treated equally to all other humans, and to have access to the basic requirements of life - personal safety, shelter, food, medical care, and education. This not only will help end wars, crime, and suffering, but promote the development of solutions to the other problems facing our world, such as new treatments for disease, new methods for producing clean and earth-friendly energy, and more. It is not possible for someone to help advance science, medicine, technology, or any other beneficial tool of humanity if they must struggle every day to survive. Removing that struggle opens the door to creativity, ingenuity, and invention, and ensures that every person has the opportunity to reach their full potential.
Because we believe that every person has the inherent right to dignity, safety, and the ability to pursue their full potential, we believe that discrimination in all it's forms, and for all possible reasons, must end; that war, genocide, and oppression must be stopped; and that all nations must work together to ensure that no man, woman, or child is left without a home, a meal, medical care, or the opportunity to learn. We believe that a lack of financial resources should not prevent anyone from having those basic necessities of survival because such deprivation stunts the intellectual growth of the individual, promotes envy, and encourages crime and/or war.
We believe that conflicts or disagreements, whether between individuals or nations, should be resolved through communication, reason, cooperation, mediation, and compromise. As the astronauts often observe, there are no lines when one looks at the Earth from space. Therefore we must stop thinking in terms of localities, states, or nations, and begin thinking of ourselves as "Citizens of Earth" - a global community that must work together in order to ensure our survival and to find solutions for the problems that face our world.
Humanists also believe that it is vitally important to protect our natural resources, which includes promoting clean energy, fuel efficiency, waste reduction, re-forestation, preservation, conservation, and recycling. The Earth is our home, and for now at least, the only possible home for humanity. If we continue to abuse it and destroy the natural balance that allowed our species to survive thus far, we are basically committing mass suicide. Along this same line, the continued development and threat of use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons is anathema to a healthy and productive society, and must end. Anything else is a recipe for the demise of our species, and thousands of others as well. It is illogical and unreasonable to continue pursuing that course.
Naturally, in order to achieve these goals, Humanists also accept that each person has a duty to contribute to the good of mankind according to their individual abilities. Our civilization cannot survive unless we work at it - whether it be serving food, driving a bus, mediating a dispute, or finding a cure for cancer. Therefore, personal responsibility, not only for one's own actions, but for contributing to the survival of our species and the advancement of our society, is another core principle of Humanism.
In general then, the core of Humanism is about believing in the infinite potential of the human mind, and the power of the human spirit to overcome adversity. It is about cooperation, a commitment to the advancement of our species and the protection of our planet, a shared vision of a world free of war, oppression, poverty, and suffering; and a shared responsibility for helping to make those goals a reality.
Further, Humanism is the belief that ALL of that can be achieved through our own efforts (no gods needed), if we can put aside our differences and work together to solve our problems. Humanism is also about the promotion of science and reason over mythology and supernaturalism, and the protection of every human being's inherent right to live with dignity, pursue their intellectual and spiritual potential, and have their basic needs met.
As I mentioned, these are the core beliefs of Humanism, and yet they are also my interpretation of those core beliefs. That is part of humanism as well - accepting that we all have our own perceptions and interpretations of things, accepting that you "can't please all the people all the time", and working together to form those individual interpretations into a viable foundation for the future of mankind.
The way these basic tenets are interpreted or implemented by the individual humanist varies greatly. Some believe that Humanism demands a rejection of all religion and mysticism, while others believe that the two can co-exist as long as science and reason are not rejected in favor of faith alone. Some think Humanism is a religion in itself (I am part of this group, and in fact I am ordained as a Humanist Minister), while others think it is purely a philosophical or sociological view that does not contain the core components of other religions (faith, revelation, mysticism).
Similarly, many who claim to be humanists agree with only some of those core beliefs, and reject others. For instance, many American humanists find it hard to accept the idea of a "socialized" economy that promotes equal distribution of resources over the accumulation of wealth by a small segment of the population. Personally, I think this is due to an effort within our education system to indoctrinate each of us from childhood into the idea that capitalism is the only workable form of economy - but whatever the reason, many humanists struggle with the idea of guaranteeing every person shelter, food, education and medical care.
Others have difficulty accepting the opposition to war. Just as Luke thought my original post on that topic was misguided or ill-informed, so too do many humanists think that war is necessary, if only to achieve the eventual goal of a united world. To me, these humanists are still operating under the idea that the only way to achieve worldwide unity is through forced domination, which does not promote cooperation and ignores the possibility of achieving unity through the use of reason, compromise, and the promise of mutual benefit.
So as you can see, Humanism is both constant in it's core beliefs, and varied in it's interpretation - which makes it somewhat like Christianity, where hundreds of "sects" have developed throughout the last 2000 years because various aspects of Christian teachings can have many different interpretations.
Therefore, it is important to remember that when speaking to a self-professed Humanist, one should not accept that person's personal views as a strict definition of what Humanism stands for. It is as different for each of us as we are from each other. I am sure that some humanists might read my posts on this topic and disagree with some or all of what I wrote. I make no claim to special authority on Humanism, and offer these posts purely as my personal interpretation.
I do hope, however, that this will provide you, Luke, and any others who read it, with a better understanding of what Humanism is, and why humanists lobby for things like the separation of church and state, keeping "Intelligent Design" theories out of the science curriculum, promoting clean energy and alternative fuels, and lobbying for equal treatment and basic human rights/dignity for all people.
This concludes this series of posts on the basics of Humanism. There are many other aspects of Luke's original comment that I plan to address in future posts, so, as TV announcers used to say, please stay tuned....
Saturday, February 24, 2007
What is Humanism? (Part 2)
My journey toward Humanism began when I was very young, and long before I knew what Humanism was, or even heard the word. In fact, it began when I was a very devoted Catholic who fully believed that Jesus was a real person and the "son of God" who had died for our "sins" and been resurrected. It began when I still embraced most (but not all, even then) of the RC Church's teachings. It began during the 1960's, as I watched the civil rights protests (and, as I've mentioned in a prior post, the way blacks were treated by Christian whites), and as I watched the first "living room war" - Vietnam - through nightly news clips and the rolling lists of names of soldiers lost or killed in the fighting.
I have always been a thinker. When I witnessed such things on television, I thought about the right and wrong of what I was seeing. I thought about it in terms of what I had been taught by my Catholic family and the church - what I'd been told Jesus taught and stood for. I looked at scenes of people being beaten by the police simply because they were born with a different color skin, and scenes of young men killing other young men in Vietnam (and sometimes women, children, and old people) - and I thought to myself "This is not right. This is not what Jesus would want to see happening in the world. This isn't what he died for. This goes against the Commandment not to kill, and Jesus' teaching that we should 'love thy neighbor as you love yourself' or 'turn the other cheek'".
More than that, such things made no logical sense. Beating someone with a baton just because they are different was wrong not only from a moral or ethical standpoint, but also from a logical standpoint. What did it accomplish? What did it prove? The answer to both was - nothing. So if there is no benefit to doing it, then it is not logical to do it. If anything, those who wished to keep minorities oppressed hurt their own chances for success, because anyone with an ounce of empathy would find such scenes disturbing, and find their sympathies lying with the victims.
The same was true about the war. What exactly did shooting people, or blowing them up, prove? Regardless of who "won" - which seemed to be based solely on which side accumulated the highest body count - it did not make them right, nor did it justify the suffering endured by everyone from the soldiers, to the people living there who did not choose to have a war fought in their streets, to the families back home that lost so many of their children. War served no purpose other than to indulge the barbarian side of humanity, and at the intolerable risk that it might well kill off the next Jesus, Einstein, Salk, etc., before they ever had a chance to become who they were meant to be. Therefore war was not just wrong...it was ignorant, barbaric, and detrimental to the future of mankind.
I was taught both by my religious instructors and my own family that Jesus was all about love, peace, forgiveness, generosity, and humility; and that the 10 Commandments were the most absolute rules of God - rules that could not be broken unless one were willing to risk an eternity in Hell. Yet this alleged "Christian nation" (as Pat Robertson, George Bush and Christian fundamentalists would have us believe) was not promoting peace, love, forgiveness, or generosity, and was certainly not following the 10 Commandments when it not only ordered the deaths of thousands (on all sides), but even forced people to become killers against their will (by drafting young men into service, and using threats of incarceration to force them to comply). Neither did the Catholic or Christian churches rise up in protest against such blatant disregard for the Commandment against killing. (The same holds true today, with the exception that, so far at least, the draft has not been reinstated.)
It seemed to me that both our national leaders and the various sects of Christianity itself paid lip service to such lofty ideals, but looked the other way, or even actively endorsed actions that completely contradicted the Christian values they claimed to uphold.
Needless to say, all of this made me question what I was taught at church. The seeds of doubt had been planted, not by some outside force or some "devil in disguise" trying to steal my eternal soul, but by the actions of very people who claimed to be trying to save it.
Over the course of years, more and more of what I'd been taught by the church came into question. Why were women not allowed to serve as priests, and viewed as inferior in some way? The allegation that Eve was the one who led Adam into the first "sin" just didn't cut it. Even if she had, that was on HER alone. Punishing countless generations of women for it was not the action of a loving, forgiving, kindly "god. Neither was it particularly comforting to think that this same "god" would order Abraham to kill his own son just to prove his obedience and devotion to that "god", only to turn around and say "oh, nevermind, I was just testing you". Further, such phrases from the Bible as "I am a jealous god" indicate that if this deity did exist, it was more of an insecure tyrant than a being worthy of devotion.
Such glaring contradictions fed more and more into the doubts that I had about the legitimacy of Christianity as a true religion, and later into my doubts about the existence of any kind of "god" at all.
Because of this, I determined that rather than follow someone's prescribed religion, I would simply follow my own heart. What did I, personally, think was good or bad? What did I think were the right and wrong paths for myself, and humanity, to take?
Through introspection, observation, and long thought, I determined that war, discrimination, poverty, oppression, hate, jealousy, and dishonesty were wrong. Love, peace, charity, kindness, compassion, honesty, and generosity were good and should be encouraged.
I felt that the founders of this country were eminently correct in saying that human beings had certain "inalienable rights", but far too limiting in their scope of what those rights were, or who qualified for them ("all men" should have been "all human beings", which would have included women, children, and people of all races right from the start). I believed those inalienable rights should have included the right to live in peace, the right to recieve help in times of need, and the right to personal safety (whether from a single attacker, an oppressor, or a war).
I believed that money truly is the root of all evil, because the pursuit of money leads so many to greed, jealousy, and dishonesty, the accumulation of wealth leads to selfishness, abuse of power, and elitism; and the lack of money has caused such great suffering for billions around the world. Therefore I believe that money and the accumulation of wealth should be abolished in favor of a society where all share equally in the bounty of the earth and the fruits of humanity's labor.
I also believed in personal responsibility, and that each of us has a responsibility not only to ourselves and our families, but to our fellow man, and the earth that sustains us. I believed that each of us has an obligation to contribute to the greater good of mankind in whatever way their intellect, talents, and abilities allow.
At the time, more than two decades ago, when I came to these conclusions, I still had not heard of Humanism, and had no idea that anyone else might have reached the same conclusions. That came much later...quite recently in fact.
About 4 years ago I came across a reference to humanism and found the word intriguing. I looked it up and was astonished to discover hundreds of links to it in the results. The very first one led me to the Humanist Manifesto II. When I read that document, I was torn between tears and utter elation. It said almost everything I had thought about the world, the future of humanity, and the way we should live and treat each other - but it said it better, and more importantly, it contained a clear vision for how those ideals might be achieved.
At that moment, I knew I was a Humanist, and that in fact, I had always been a Humanist, but just didn't know it. I also learned that I was not alone in my personal philosophy and beliefs, and a whole new world opened up to me. I've never looked back.
In regard to the question of "god", I have my own personal views on that as well. In purely empirical terms, I cannot say if there is any kind of deity out there or not. I simply do not know, and there is not enough scientific or historical evidence available to prove or disprove one. However, I have decided that it doesn't really matter if a god exists or not. If there is one, and if it is the kindly, loving, benevolent god that Jesus allegedly spoke of, then as long as I live my life honestly and continue to be a good person, I have nothing to fear. If there is no god of any kind, I also have nothing to fear.
And no, I do not find a life without belief in some god to be empty, unfulfilling, or without hope. In fact, I find it quite the opposite. There is not just one purpose to my life, but many. I am a parent and a wife, a clergyperson, at times a counselor or teacher, and an advocate. I stand up for what I believe in, and speak out against what I feel is wrong. I take the greatest joy and satisfaction from helping others, and appreciate the beauty of the earth on which we live. My spiritual life is also quite full, as I find inspiration in so many things - music, writing, a beautiful beach or sunrise, the wonders of nature, the vast universe that surrounds us, and so much more. I am full of hope as well - hope for the future of mankind; hope for an end to poverty, war, disease, and suffering of all kinds; and hope for reason to overcome radical fundamentalism in all it's forms.
So that is how I came to be a humanist, and I hope it also gives you some insight into what my personal understanding of Humanism is.
I have always been a thinker. When I witnessed such things on television, I thought about the right and wrong of what I was seeing. I thought about it in terms of what I had been taught by my Catholic family and the church - what I'd been told Jesus taught and stood for. I looked at scenes of people being beaten by the police simply because they were born with a different color skin, and scenes of young men killing other young men in Vietnam (and sometimes women, children, and old people) - and I thought to myself "This is not right. This is not what Jesus would want to see happening in the world. This isn't what he died for. This goes against the Commandment not to kill, and Jesus' teaching that we should 'love thy neighbor as you love yourself' or 'turn the other cheek'".
More than that, such things made no logical sense. Beating someone with a baton just because they are different was wrong not only from a moral or ethical standpoint, but also from a logical standpoint. What did it accomplish? What did it prove? The answer to both was - nothing. So if there is no benefit to doing it, then it is not logical to do it. If anything, those who wished to keep minorities oppressed hurt their own chances for success, because anyone with an ounce of empathy would find such scenes disturbing, and find their sympathies lying with the victims.
The same was true about the war. What exactly did shooting people, or blowing them up, prove? Regardless of who "won" - which seemed to be based solely on which side accumulated the highest body count - it did not make them right, nor did it justify the suffering endured by everyone from the soldiers, to the people living there who did not choose to have a war fought in their streets, to the families back home that lost so many of their children. War served no purpose other than to indulge the barbarian side of humanity, and at the intolerable risk that it might well kill off the next Jesus, Einstein, Salk, etc., before they ever had a chance to become who they were meant to be. Therefore war was not just wrong...it was ignorant, barbaric, and detrimental to the future of mankind.
I was taught both by my religious instructors and my own family that Jesus was all about love, peace, forgiveness, generosity, and humility; and that the 10 Commandments were the most absolute rules of God - rules that could not be broken unless one were willing to risk an eternity in Hell. Yet this alleged "Christian nation" (as Pat Robertson, George Bush and Christian fundamentalists would have us believe) was not promoting peace, love, forgiveness, or generosity, and was certainly not following the 10 Commandments when it not only ordered the deaths of thousands (on all sides), but even forced people to become killers against their will (by drafting young men into service, and using threats of incarceration to force them to comply). Neither did the Catholic or Christian churches rise up in protest against such blatant disregard for the Commandment against killing. (The same holds true today, with the exception that, so far at least, the draft has not been reinstated.)
It seemed to me that both our national leaders and the various sects of Christianity itself paid lip service to such lofty ideals, but looked the other way, or even actively endorsed actions that completely contradicted the Christian values they claimed to uphold.
Needless to say, all of this made me question what I was taught at church. The seeds of doubt had been planted, not by some outside force or some "devil in disguise" trying to steal my eternal soul, but by the actions of very people who claimed to be trying to save it.
Over the course of years, more and more of what I'd been taught by the church came into question. Why were women not allowed to serve as priests, and viewed as inferior in some way? The allegation that Eve was the one who led Adam into the first "sin" just didn't cut it. Even if she had, that was on HER alone. Punishing countless generations of women for it was not the action of a loving, forgiving, kindly "god. Neither was it particularly comforting to think that this same "god" would order Abraham to kill his own son just to prove his obedience and devotion to that "god", only to turn around and say "oh, nevermind, I was just testing you". Further, such phrases from the Bible as "I am a jealous god" indicate that if this deity did exist, it was more of an insecure tyrant than a being worthy of devotion.
Such glaring contradictions fed more and more into the doubts that I had about the legitimacy of Christianity as a true religion, and later into my doubts about the existence of any kind of "god" at all.
Because of this, I determined that rather than follow someone's prescribed religion, I would simply follow my own heart. What did I, personally, think was good or bad? What did I think were the right and wrong paths for myself, and humanity, to take?
Through introspection, observation, and long thought, I determined that war, discrimination, poverty, oppression, hate, jealousy, and dishonesty were wrong. Love, peace, charity, kindness, compassion, honesty, and generosity were good and should be encouraged.
I felt that the founders of this country were eminently correct in saying that human beings had certain "inalienable rights", but far too limiting in their scope of what those rights were, or who qualified for them ("all men" should have been "all human beings", which would have included women, children, and people of all races right from the start). I believed those inalienable rights should have included the right to live in peace, the right to recieve help in times of need, and the right to personal safety (whether from a single attacker, an oppressor, or a war).
I believed that money truly is the root of all evil, because the pursuit of money leads so many to greed, jealousy, and dishonesty, the accumulation of wealth leads to selfishness, abuse of power, and elitism; and the lack of money has caused such great suffering for billions around the world. Therefore I believe that money and the accumulation of wealth should be abolished in favor of a society where all share equally in the bounty of the earth and the fruits of humanity's labor.
I also believed in personal responsibility, and that each of us has a responsibility not only to ourselves and our families, but to our fellow man, and the earth that sustains us. I believed that each of us has an obligation to contribute to the greater good of mankind in whatever way their intellect, talents, and abilities allow.
At the time, more than two decades ago, when I came to these conclusions, I still had not heard of Humanism, and had no idea that anyone else might have reached the same conclusions. That came much later...quite recently in fact.
About 4 years ago I came across a reference to humanism and found the word intriguing. I looked it up and was astonished to discover hundreds of links to it in the results. The very first one led me to the Humanist Manifesto II. When I read that document, I was torn between tears and utter elation. It said almost everything I had thought about the world, the future of humanity, and the way we should live and treat each other - but it said it better, and more importantly, it contained a clear vision for how those ideals might be achieved.
At that moment, I knew I was a Humanist, and that in fact, I had always been a Humanist, but just didn't know it. I also learned that I was not alone in my personal philosophy and beliefs, and a whole new world opened up to me. I've never looked back.
In regard to the question of "god", I have my own personal views on that as well. In purely empirical terms, I cannot say if there is any kind of deity out there or not. I simply do not know, and there is not enough scientific or historical evidence available to prove or disprove one. However, I have decided that it doesn't really matter if a god exists or not. If there is one, and if it is the kindly, loving, benevolent god that Jesus allegedly spoke of, then as long as I live my life honestly and continue to be a good person, I have nothing to fear. If there is no god of any kind, I also have nothing to fear.
And no, I do not find a life without belief in some god to be empty, unfulfilling, or without hope. In fact, I find it quite the opposite. There is not just one purpose to my life, but many. I am a parent and a wife, a clergyperson, at times a counselor or teacher, and an advocate. I stand up for what I believe in, and speak out against what I feel is wrong. I take the greatest joy and satisfaction from helping others, and appreciate the beauty of the earth on which we live. My spiritual life is also quite full, as I find inspiration in so many things - music, writing, a beautiful beach or sunrise, the wonders of nature, the vast universe that surrounds us, and so much more. I am full of hope as well - hope for the future of mankind; hope for an end to poverty, war, disease, and suffering of all kinds; and hope for reason to overcome radical fundamentalism in all it's forms.
So that is how I came to be a humanist, and I hope it also gives you some insight into what my personal understanding of Humanism is.
What is Humanism? (Part 1)
On my previous post (Going to war...), a blogger named Luke commented on several things I had said. Luke is a very interesting young Navy soldier, currently serving in Kuwait (I believe). He's a thoughtful, insightful, mostly open-minded, and intelligent young man with his own blog, which can be found here. Although he is a self-proclaimed Christian, he does not appear to be enmeshed in the fundamentalist, rigid interpretations of Christianity that are espoused by people like Pat Robertson and our current President. In fact, in some ways, Luke's blog shows him to be a progressive thinker - which is quite refreshing. Therefore, I believe we can have a productive and reasonable conversation on these issues, and I hope it will interest others as well.
In reading Luke's most recent response, I noted that there were actually a couple of different issues that provided a good foundation for further discussion, but that it would require separating the different topics to keep things focused. So I'm going to use several segments of Luke's comments as starting points for new posts, which will enable us to actually have several conversations on the different aspects of the original conversation.
I'm starting with the question above because as Luke admits, he has only a generalized understanding of what Humanism is about. I think that it's important to explore this further, as many people have a general lack of knowledge about Humanism, or know it only by the definitions and labels it's been given by it's detractors.
Humanism, like so many other philosophies and religions, has many aspects to it. Furthermore, Humanism is dynamic and ever-changing - not in it's core principles, but in it's interpretation and application. This is exemplified most clearly by the fact that the Humanist Manifesto itself has changed over the course of the last 75 years (see Humanist Manifesto I published in 1933, HM II published in 1973, and the more recent HM 2000).
The fact that there are so many versions of the Manifesto speaks to the dynamic nature of Humanism, and also helps explain why Humanism is in a state of evolution (just like humanity). Put simply, as the world changes, as humanity learns and grows, so too must Humanism change, learn, and grow. As a religion or religious philosophy (and there is some debate whether or not Humanism is, or can be, a religion), I think the one thing that distinguishes Humanism most from all other traditional religions is not just that it does not rely on "revealed" truths or mysticism, but perhaps even more because it does flow and change over time.
Most traditional religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.) have been following the same tenets and core principles/values since their inception thousands of years ago. They cannot, by their very nature (based upon revelation and alleged "divine" orders) adapt to the modern world. This is primarily because accepting that the rules laid down all those millennia ago do not apply to today's society would open the door to doubt about the validity of all the claims those religions make - such as the existence of any supernatural deity at all. Doubt, of course, is the antithesis of faith, and since these religions maintain their prominence on the basis of faith - often of blind faith - they cannot afford to do anything that might foster doubt among their followers.
So what are some of the core principles of Humanism? Well, I could save myself a lot of typing and just point you to the various Manifestos, or tell you to read books by authors like Carl Sagan, Steven Hawking, and Richard Dawkins (to name just a few), or send you to read through the American Humanist Association website. But while all those resources are useful in gaining a general understanding of Humanism, it is important to remember that Humanism is as unique as the individual Humanist. Each of us has our own interpretation of the core values, and therefore when I answer that question, I must answer it from my own perspective rather than from some generic overview.
In the second part of this series on Humanism, I will talk about my journey from devout Catholic to devout Humanist. In the third part, I will talk about my personal views on Humanism - what it is, what it's core values are, why I agree with it, and how I implement it in my daily life.
In reading Luke's most recent response, I noted that there were actually a couple of different issues that provided a good foundation for further discussion, but that it would require separating the different topics to keep things focused. So I'm going to use several segments of Luke's comments as starting points for new posts, which will enable us to actually have several conversations on the different aspects of the original conversation.
I'm starting with the question above because as Luke admits, he has only a generalized understanding of what Humanism is about. I think that it's important to explore this further, as many people have a general lack of knowledge about Humanism, or know it only by the definitions and labels it's been given by it's detractors.
Humanism, like so many other philosophies and religions, has many aspects to it. Furthermore, Humanism is dynamic and ever-changing - not in it's core principles, but in it's interpretation and application. This is exemplified most clearly by the fact that the Humanist Manifesto itself has changed over the course of the last 75 years (see Humanist Manifesto I published in 1933, HM II published in 1973, and the more recent HM 2000).
The fact that there are so many versions of the Manifesto speaks to the dynamic nature of Humanism, and also helps explain why Humanism is in a state of evolution (just like humanity). Put simply, as the world changes, as humanity learns and grows, so too must Humanism change, learn, and grow. As a religion or religious philosophy (and there is some debate whether or not Humanism is, or can be, a religion), I think the one thing that distinguishes Humanism most from all other traditional religions is not just that it does not rely on "revealed" truths or mysticism, but perhaps even more because it does flow and change over time.
Most traditional religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.) have been following the same tenets and core principles/values since their inception thousands of years ago. They cannot, by their very nature (based upon revelation and alleged "divine" orders) adapt to the modern world. This is primarily because accepting that the rules laid down all those millennia ago do not apply to today's society would open the door to doubt about the validity of all the claims those religions make - such as the existence of any supernatural deity at all. Doubt, of course, is the antithesis of faith, and since these religions maintain their prominence on the basis of faith - often of blind faith - they cannot afford to do anything that might foster doubt among their followers.
So what are some of the core principles of Humanism? Well, I could save myself a lot of typing and just point you to the various Manifestos, or tell you to read books by authors like Carl Sagan, Steven Hawking, and Richard Dawkins (to name just a few), or send you to read through the American Humanist Association website. But while all those resources are useful in gaining a general understanding of Humanism, it is important to remember that Humanism is as unique as the individual Humanist. Each of us has our own interpretation of the core values, and therefore when I answer that question, I must answer it from my own perspective rather than from some generic overview.
In the second part of this series on Humanism, I will talk about my journey from devout Catholic to devout Humanist. In the third part, I will talk about my personal views on Humanism - what it is, what it's core values are, why I agree with it, and how I implement it in my daily life.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Going off to war....
A young friend of mine recently announced that he plans to join the National Guard. He made this announcement on a forum, and recieved a range of replies from encouragement and "'atta boy" comments to attempts to dissuade him, or at least get him to think about it.
This young man is 17 years old, and as far as I know, has not even finished high school yet (I believe he graduates in June). Both of his parents have serious health issues that could very well end their lives early, and long before this young man marries or has children for them to bounce on their knees.
So why would he risk losing the precious time he has left with them, not to mention risking his own life, to join the Guard during a war?
He claims it's because he loves his country, and will do "anything" to protect it, and those he loves.
That's a laudable sentiment. Unfortunately, like so many others in America, my young friend has been bamboozled by the propaganda we've all been fed. The war in Iraq is not about "protecting" America. It's not even about protecting the Iraqi's from Saddam. It certainly wasn't about all the things that were claimed in the beginning (WMD's, connections to Bin Laden, nukes, etc.).
How is it that even after all those claims were proven to be nothing more than hype, and after more than 3000 American lives have been lost, as well as countless thousands of innocent Iraqi's lives - that any of our young men and women can still think that signing up for THIS war is in any way "protecting" America, or their families?
I know, I know....we were attacked. As a New Yorker, I am reminded of that every time I see the glaring hole in our skyline, or see a cop or fireman, or travel on a street that's been renamed for one of the victims of that awful attack. I can never forget that day, or how it felt to watch those buildings come down. I can't forget the fear I felt as I rushed to my son's school to bring him home, just in case it wasn't over yet, or trying to smile and reassure him as fighter jets flew over our heads on the walk back home. Nor can I forget being invited by a relative of a lost firefighter to visit the private memorial to the victims of 9/11, and seeing the thousands of pictures and notes left by those who loved and lost someone special that day.
But that was, if you can believe what we were told, the work of Osama and his terrorist group. It had nothing to do with Iraq, and that has been proven over and over again. Yet there are still far too many people in this country who refuse to believe that our President lied to us in order to convince us that we had a "right" to invade a sovereign nation, depose it's leadership, and leave it in ruins and on the verge of civil war.
I also remember watching Colin Powell make his speech to the UN. I remember the pictures he held up - showing trucks and buildings, but nothing that proved there were nukes, WMD's, or any other types of forbidden weaponry inside. Even then I thought the so-called "evidence" was very, very thin. So I was not surprised when the UN said no to Bush's request for an offensive. Nor was I surprised that Bush defied the UN and ordered us into a war we will never win anyway. And I certainly was not surprised when we found no such weapons, no nuclear devices or parts to make them, and no hidden terrorist cells.
In fact, it has been our invasion, occupation, and total lack of a workable plan for securing Iraq once Saddam was gone that has allowed the terrorists to get INTO Iraq. Sadly, that isn't a surprise either.
I was no fan of Saddam. He was a brutal dictator with no respect for the rights of his own citizens, or for the life of anyone who disagreed with him. I am glad he is dead. But I will never feel that our actions in Iraq were justified, or that our invasion of that nation was legally or morally correct, especially when it's likely that more Iraqi's have died at OUR hands than died under Saddam's rule.
But I bristle at the suggestion that this war has anything at all to do with "protecting" America or it's people. Not when the hunt for Osama has been virtually abandoned while Bush pursued his personal vendetta against Saddam. Certainly not when everything Bush has done since 9/11 has worked against America's best interests by making us a "most-hated nation" to so many other countries and cultures. Not when we've even turned against long-time allies (like the French) simply for having the guts to tell us when we are wrong.
For my young friend, I can only hope that he will come to his senses and stay out of the military until after Bush is out of office and, hopefully, the war in Iraq - or at least our role in it - is over. But I am afraid that won't be the case, and I am even more afraid that someday I will be writing that he was killed by some roadside bomb or sniper, or so-called "friendly fire", or perhaps by his own government's failure to provide our troops with effective and sufficient armor, etc. Or he could end up coming home without an arm or leg, or severely burned and disfigured, etc. In which case he'll be sent to a VA hospital where he will be lucky to - eventually - get sub-standard care.
Why have we allowed this to continue? Why is Bush still in office rather than being impeached? Why are we even considering sending more troops to Iraq instead of just bringing them home as fast as we can without leaving the Iraqi's defenseless? Sending more young men and women over there is just providing more targets for the insurgents and terrorists. You cannot fight a war with an invisible and undectable enemy. It just makes no logical sense.
In the 1970's, a group of esteemed thinkers, philosophers, teachers, and others got together to discuss their vision for the future of humanity. From those discussions, the Humanist Manifesto II was born. One of the items in the Manifesto states "War is obsolete".
It is a simple and yet profound statement of fact. War IS obsolete. Killing another human being over a piece of land, or a religious or political ideal, is stupid, wasteful, and endangers the future of humanity. We are not barbarians any more, or at least we shouldn't be. So why do we still choose to "solve" our problems through violence and death rather than through reason and cooperation?
Might (military or otherwise) does NOT make right. It never did.
What kind of world do I want?
This young man is 17 years old, and as far as I know, has not even finished high school yet (I believe he graduates in June). Both of his parents have serious health issues that could very well end their lives early, and long before this young man marries or has children for them to bounce on their knees.
So why would he risk losing the precious time he has left with them, not to mention risking his own life, to join the Guard during a war?
He claims it's because he loves his country, and will do "anything" to protect it, and those he loves.
That's a laudable sentiment. Unfortunately, like so many others in America, my young friend has been bamboozled by the propaganda we've all been fed. The war in Iraq is not about "protecting" America. It's not even about protecting the Iraqi's from Saddam. It certainly wasn't about all the things that were claimed in the beginning (WMD's, connections to Bin Laden, nukes, etc.).
How is it that even after all those claims were proven to be nothing more than hype, and after more than 3000 American lives have been lost, as well as countless thousands of innocent Iraqi's lives - that any of our young men and women can still think that signing up for THIS war is in any way "protecting" America, or their families?
I know, I know....we were attacked. As a New Yorker, I am reminded of that every time I see the glaring hole in our skyline, or see a cop or fireman, or travel on a street that's been renamed for one of the victims of that awful attack. I can never forget that day, or how it felt to watch those buildings come down. I can't forget the fear I felt as I rushed to my son's school to bring him home, just in case it wasn't over yet, or trying to smile and reassure him as fighter jets flew over our heads on the walk back home. Nor can I forget being invited by a relative of a lost firefighter to visit the private memorial to the victims of 9/11, and seeing the thousands of pictures and notes left by those who loved and lost someone special that day.
But that was, if you can believe what we were told, the work of Osama and his terrorist group. It had nothing to do with Iraq, and that has been proven over and over again. Yet there are still far too many people in this country who refuse to believe that our President lied to us in order to convince us that we had a "right" to invade a sovereign nation, depose it's leadership, and leave it in ruins and on the verge of civil war.
I also remember watching Colin Powell make his speech to the UN. I remember the pictures he held up - showing trucks and buildings, but nothing that proved there were nukes, WMD's, or any other types of forbidden weaponry inside. Even then I thought the so-called "evidence" was very, very thin. So I was not surprised when the UN said no to Bush's request for an offensive. Nor was I surprised that Bush defied the UN and ordered us into a war we will never win anyway. And I certainly was not surprised when we found no such weapons, no nuclear devices or parts to make them, and no hidden terrorist cells.
In fact, it has been our invasion, occupation, and total lack of a workable plan for securing Iraq once Saddam was gone that has allowed the terrorists to get INTO Iraq. Sadly, that isn't a surprise either.
I was no fan of Saddam. He was a brutal dictator with no respect for the rights of his own citizens, or for the life of anyone who disagreed with him. I am glad he is dead. But I will never feel that our actions in Iraq were justified, or that our invasion of that nation was legally or morally correct, especially when it's likely that more Iraqi's have died at OUR hands than died under Saddam's rule.
But I bristle at the suggestion that this war has anything at all to do with "protecting" America or it's people. Not when the hunt for Osama has been virtually abandoned while Bush pursued his personal vendetta against Saddam. Certainly not when everything Bush has done since 9/11 has worked against America's best interests by making us a "most-hated nation" to so many other countries and cultures. Not when we've even turned against long-time allies (like the French) simply for having the guts to tell us when we are wrong.
For my young friend, I can only hope that he will come to his senses and stay out of the military until after Bush is out of office and, hopefully, the war in Iraq - or at least our role in it - is over. But I am afraid that won't be the case, and I am even more afraid that someday I will be writing that he was killed by some roadside bomb or sniper, or so-called "friendly fire", or perhaps by his own government's failure to provide our troops with effective and sufficient armor, etc. Or he could end up coming home without an arm or leg, or severely burned and disfigured, etc. In which case he'll be sent to a VA hospital where he will be lucky to - eventually - get sub-standard care.
Why have we allowed this to continue? Why is Bush still in office rather than being impeached? Why are we even considering sending more troops to Iraq instead of just bringing them home as fast as we can without leaving the Iraqi's defenseless? Sending more young men and women over there is just providing more targets for the insurgents and terrorists. You cannot fight a war with an invisible and undectable enemy. It just makes no logical sense.
In the 1970's, a group of esteemed thinkers, philosophers, teachers, and others got together to discuss their vision for the future of humanity. From those discussions, the Humanist Manifesto II was born. One of the items in the Manifesto states "War is obsolete".
It is a simple and yet profound statement of fact. War IS obsolete. Killing another human being over a piece of land, or a religious or political ideal, is stupid, wasteful, and endangers the future of humanity. We are not barbarians any more, or at least we shouldn't be. So why do we still choose to "solve" our problems through violence and death rather than through reason and cooperation?
Might (military or otherwise) does NOT make right. It never did.
What kind of world do I want?
- A world where war truly is obsolete, and no human being ever loses their life over something as worthless as a piece of land, a line on a map, a political ambition, or a religous ideology.
- A world where human beings use reason, science, logic, cooperation, and a sense of fairness to resolve their differences without violence or oppression.
- A world where our leaders can be trusted to act with integrity, to tell us the truth, and be held accountable when they fail to do the job they were entrusted with.
To be gay in America
There were two stories about the rights of gay Americans in today's news. The first was out of Rhode Island (http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/ri-may-recognize-gay-unions-from-mass/n20070221224409990002), where the state's Attorney General issued an opinion stating that Rhode Island should recognize gay marriages from Massachusettes because the RI state constitution does not specifically define marriage as between a man and woman, or forbid gay marriages.
The second article comes out of New Jersey, where the state Supreme Court has ordered that all NJ public schools must protect gay students from harassment, bullying, or any threat based on their sexual orientation. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/nyregion/22gay.html)
My initial reaction to these two stories is - well, duh! Is this really rocket science?
Of course we should protect ALL children from bullying and hateful or discriminatory behavior (regardless of the reason they are being treated badly). That is not just good common sense, but also the only moral, ethical, and logical thing to do if we want to prevent more school violence and reduce the number of teenagers filling our jails. Failing to ban sexuality-based bullying or hate crimes is tantamount to saying "It's okay to harass someone, beat them up, or even kill them - but only if they're gay".
And of course Rhode Island (and every other state in the nation) should recognize the legal validity of a marriage license issued in another US state, regardless of whether the couple is heterosexual or gay/lesbian. That is what the Full Faith and Credit clause was intended to ensure. Regardless of the wishes of our right-wing, fundamentalist President, or the former Republican Conservative Congress, or of Christian fundamentalists - gay people are still people, and if they live here, they are most likely US citizens. Therefore they are, by virtue of their very existence as human beings and Americans, entitled to EVERY right that I and all other heterosexual people are entitled to... including the right to marry the person of their choice.
If we begin to allow individual states to pick and choose which marriages they will recognize, where does that lead? Will there come a time when one or more states will not recognize my own marriage because there's an age gap of more than 10 years between myself and my husband? Will second marriages stop being recognized if the first marriage ended in divorce because some states (and their fundamentalist residents/leaders) think divorce is a "sin" or "immoral"?
As a child of the 60's, I cut my teeth on scenes of black people being hit with police batons and sprayed with fire hoses because they asked for the simple dignity of being recognized as equal to their white countrymen. Even at the tender age of 6 and 7, I could see how wrong this was, and I was ashamed of my own race for being so damn stupid and hateful. It took years of peaceful protests, marches, court battles, and even the murders of some eloquent and truly loving people who saw the illogic and backward stupidity of discrimination for what it was and chose to take a stand, before things finally began to change.
Is that what it will take for gays to be given equal protection under the law and a true equality that extends even unto the "sacred" ground of marriage? Will we have to continue reading and hearing about cases of gay bashing and loving families that are denied rights such as inheritance, custody of children, medical coverage and decision-making, etc., simply because SOME of our fellow citizens are afraid that allowing gays to marry will somehow take something away from "traditional" marriage?
What exactly are they afraid we will lose? How does allowing a gay couple to marry do any damage whatsoever to traditional marriages? As a married woman, I have no fear that allowing my gay friends and relatives to marry will somehow make my marriage less important or special. I married Ephraim because he is my true love, and I wanted to make a formal and lasting commitment to him and to the life we share as a family. Allowing a gay or lesbian couple to make that same choice and feel the same joy I felt as I said my vows can never detract from that. If anything, it would add to my joy, because I would no longer feel a certain sense of guilt for being able to enjoy a status they can never achieve.
Furthermore, why do we continue to allow our government to "authorize" marriage at all? What is the point in that?
A few hundred years ago, people in some parts of the world could not marry without the consent of the King (usually the English King). Local lords were even granted the right to force themselves on the bride before her wedding.
But this is America and it's 2007. We no longer live under the thumb of Old English law, nor are we ruled by a King. So perhaps it's time we stop allowing our government to issue "licenses" for us to marry the person of our choice, as if we do not have the right to marry without the "King's" approval. Lets get our government out of our bedrooms, and stop allowing them to dictate whom we can marry, or force us to pay them (license fees) for the right to do so.
Granted that there are legal issues involved in this, but they could easily be addressed by offering a marriage registration option instead. No more asking permission from your local or state government. Instead, you marry the person of your choice, at the time of your choice, and through the means of your choice (priest, minister, relative, paid officiant, etc). Then you and your new spouse fill out a form attesting that the marriage took place, and outlining the basic details (bride, groom, officiant, witnesses, and location). That gets filed with the state's vital records, and both spouses are then granted full spousal rights (inheritance, medical decisions, custody, property, and retirement/disability benefits). Naturally, laws against marrying close family members and protections for minors would have to be upheld, but as long as the couple are both adults, not married to anyone else, and not closely related to each other, then the government should have no role in the choice to marry other than adding the marriage to the public record.
The issue of allowing gay marriage would not be an issue at all if we did not continue to accept the idea that our own government can dictate the conditions of any marriage we choose to enter into. That is simply a false belief perpetrated by our government to maintain control over the populace. Remember that our constitution begins with the words "We the people..." WE are in charge here, and as sovereign individuals capable of running our own lives, we have no need for the permission of some clerk in our local town hall in order to marry the person of our choice.
Our government's purpose is to protect and defend us, not only from outside threats, but also from the government itself and any intrusion of government into our privacy and personal decisions. It is time we reminded our leaders that their job is not to legislate our morality, approve our marriage choices, or dictate who is and is not entitled to equal protection under the law. Their job is simply to uphold the law, and ensure that ALL Americans are allowed to live freely and in peace. That includes protecting our freedom to love who we love, and marry them (regardless of their gender).
What kind of world do I want?
The second article comes out of New Jersey, where the state Supreme Court has ordered that all NJ public schools must protect gay students from harassment, bullying, or any threat based on their sexual orientation. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/nyregion/22gay.html)
My initial reaction to these two stories is - well, duh! Is this really rocket science?
Of course we should protect ALL children from bullying and hateful or discriminatory behavior (regardless of the reason they are being treated badly). That is not just good common sense, but also the only moral, ethical, and logical thing to do if we want to prevent more school violence and reduce the number of teenagers filling our jails. Failing to ban sexuality-based bullying or hate crimes is tantamount to saying "It's okay to harass someone, beat them up, or even kill them - but only if they're gay".
And of course Rhode Island (and every other state in the nation) should recognize the legal validity of a marriage license issued in another US state, regardless of whether the couple is heterosexual or gay/lesbian. That is what the Full Faith and Credit clause was intended to ensure. Regardless of the wishes of our right-wing, fundamentalist President, or the former Republican Conservative Congress, or of Christian fundamentalists - gay people are still people, and if they live here, they are most likely US citizens. Therefore they are, by virtue of their very existence as human beings and Americans, entitled to EVERY right that I and all other heterosexual people are entitled to... including the right to marry the person of their choice.
If we begin to allow individual states to pick and choose which marriages they will recognize, where does that lead? Will there come a time when one or more states will not recognize my own marriage because there's an age gap of more than 10 years between myself and my husband? Will second marriages stop being recognized if the first marriage ended in divorce because some states (and their fundamentalist residents/leaders) think divorce is a "sin" or "immoral"?
As a child of the 60's, I cut my teeth on scenes of black people being hit with police batons and sprayed with fire hoses because they asked for the simple dignity of being recognized as equal to their white countrymen. Even at the tender age of 6 and 7, I could see how wrong this was, and I was ashamed of my own race for being so damn stupid and hateful. It took years of peaceful protests, marches, court battles, and even the murders of some eloquent and truly loving people who saw the illogic and backward stupidity of discrimination for what it was and chose to take a stand, before things finally began to change.
Is that what it will take for gays to be given equal protection under the law and a true equality that extends even unto the "sacred" ground of marriage? Will we have to continue reading and hearing about cases of gay bashing and loving families that are denied rights such as inheritance, custody of children, medical coverage and decision-making, etc., simply because SOME of our fellow citizens are afraid that allowing gays to marry will somehow take something away from "traditional" marriage?
What exactly are they afraid we will lose? How does allowing a gay couple to marry do any damage whatsoever to traditional marriages? As a married woman, I have no fear that allowing my gay friends and relatives to marry will somehow make my marriage less important or special. I married Ephraim because he is my true love, and I wanted to make a formal and lasting commitment to him and to the life we share as a family. Allowing a gay or lesbian couple to make that same choice and feel the same joy I felt as I said my vows can never detract from that. If anything, it would add to my joy, because I would no longer feel a certain sense of guilt for being able to enjoy a status they can never achieve.
Furthermore, why do we continue to allow our government to "authorize" marriage at all? What is the point in that?
A few hundred years ago, people in some parts of the world could not marry without the consent of the King (usually the English King). Local lords were even granted the right to force themselves on the bride before her wedding.
But this is America and it's 2007. We no longer live under the thumb of Old English law, nor are we ruled by a King. So perhaps it's time we stop allowing our government to issue "licenses" for us to marry the person of our choice, as if we do not have the right to marry without the "King's" approval. Lets get our government out of our bedrooms, and stop allowing them to dictate whom we can marry, or force us to pay them (license fees) for the right to do so.
Granted that there are legal issues involved in this, but they could easily be addressed by offering a marriage registration option instead. No more asking permission from your local or state government. Instead, you marry the person of your choice, at the time of your choice, and through the means of your choice (priest, minister, relative, paid officiant, etc). Then you and your new spouse fill out a form attesting that the marriage took place, and outlining the basic details (bride, groom, officiant, witnesses, and location). That gets filed with the state's vital records, and both spouses are then granted full spousal rights (inheritance, medical decisions, custody, property, and retirement/disability benefits). Naturally, laws against marrying close family members and protections for minors would have to be upheld, but as long as the couple are both adults, not married to anyone else, and not closely related to each other, then the government should have no role in the choice to marry other than adding the marriage to the public record.
The issue of allowing gay marriage would not be an issue at all if we did not continue to accept the idea that our own government can dictate the conditions of any marriage we choose to enter into. That is simply a false belief perpetrated by our government to maintain control over the populace. Remember that our constitution begins with the words "We the people..." WE are in charge here, and as sovereign individuals capable of running our own lives, we have no need for the permission of some clerk in our local town hall in order to marry the person of our choice.
Our government's purpose is to protect and defend us, not only from outside threats, but also from the government itself and any intrusion of government into our privacy and personal decisions. It is time we reminded our leaders that their job is not to legislate our morality, approve our marriage choices, or dictate who is and is not entitled to equal protection under the law. Their job is simply to uphold the law, and ensure that ALL Americans are allowed to live freely and in peace. That includes protecting our freedom to love who we love, and marry them (regardless of their gender).
What kind of world do I want?
- A world where discrimination in all it's forms does not exist.
- A world where two single, unrelated adults who love each other and want to make a lifetime commitment to each other do not need anyone's permission or approval to marry or live with dignity.
- A world where our children are not taught to hate their peers for being different (whether the difference is racial, religious, sexual, or anything else), and where such hate is not fostered and encouraged by the adults in their lives.
- A world where equality is not just an ideal, but a fact of life.
What do we teach our children?
Each day while I'm having my coffee, I read the news online. There are always things that get my attention. Usually it is coverage about the war in Iraq, or the latest idiotic thing Bush is doing, etc. But sometimes I come across a story that stands out from the rest for one reason or another.
Today was one of those days. The story was about a new "trend" that has been taking place in our country. This is not a new fashion or music genre, it's not a new diet or healthy lifestyle choice. Rather it is a frightening and damning trend of young people, mostly males between 14 and 25, attacking homeless people - in some cases beating them to death - for no reason. Well, the reason given (by some of these teenage killers) is that it was "for kicks", or "just messing around", etc. CNN labeled it "sport killings" (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/19/homeless.attacks/index.html).
According to some statistics offered in the news report, over 120 attacks against the homeless have taken place over the last year within the US, with 20 resulting in death. But while the fact that a person can be attacked and even killed for nothing more than being homeless and an "easy" target is appalling enough, what is truly chilling about it is that these attacks are being carried out by bored, middle-class teenagers.
What are we teaching our kids? Where is their respect for life? Where is their fear of the consequences of their actions? It is bad enough when a kid gets their hands on a gun and uses it. But these attacks are worse in a way, because they are personal. These kids aren't shooting their victims - they are beating them with bats and sticks, kicking them when they're down, etc.
It's difficult to watch some of the video that was offered with the story. In one, two boys are seen attacking a homeless man with some kind of stick or bat. Those same boys are accused of two other attacks that night, one of which resulted in a death. In another case, highlighted in the story, three boys are serving long prison sentences for beating a homeless man to death in Wisconsin.
Are our kids so angry that they have to express their rage through such brutality and violence? If so, why? What are they angry about?
But more than that, I have to wonder if it isn't our capitalistic culture - our admiration of monetary success over any other human value a person may have - that promotes this kind of behavior in our kids. I noticed that the article pointed out that most such attacks are carried out by middle-class teens, kids who've been raised in good homes, had all the advantages, and still became murderers.
What were they taught in those homes? Were they taught to think of anyone who was poor as a second-class human being? Were they taught that if someone is homeless it must be due to laziness, addiction, or some other "undesireable" trait? Was there an implication, however subtle, in the messages they got from parents, relatives, teachers, and others in their circle, that a homeless person would be "better off" dead, or perhaps had no right to be in their town or community?
Is it possible that we are teaching our kids to be killers simply by giving them the impression that anyone who doesn't meet some standard of wealth and success is not worthy of respect, compassion, or even life?
What kind of world do I want?
I want a world where every human being, regardless of their financial circumstance, has a warm, safe place to sleep at night, nutritious food to eat, and the ability to get the medical and psychiatric care they need.
I want a world where our children learn to love and respect their fellow wo/man, and try to help those in need, instead of ridiculing them or, in some cases, killing them.
Most of all, I want a world where every human has value and the right to exist, regardless of their finances, skin color, sexual orientation, religious views, age, gender, politics, culture, education, handicap, or any other factor.
Today was one of those days. The story was about a new "trend" that has been taking place in our country. This is not a new fashion or music genre, it's not a new diet or healthy lifestyle choice. Rather it is a frightening and damning trend of young people, mostly males between 14 and 25, attacking homeless people - in some cases beating them to death - for no reason. Well, the reason given (by some of these teenage killers) is that it was "for kicks", or "just messing around", etc. CNN labeled it "sport killings" (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/19/homeless.attacks/index.html).
According to some statistics offered in the news report, over 120 attacks against the homeless have taken place over the last year within the US, with 20 resulting in death. But while the fact that a person can be attacked and even killed for nothing more than being homeless and an "easy" target is appalling enough, what is truly chilling about it is that these attacks are being carried out by bored, middle-class teenagers.
What are we teaching our kids? Where is their respect for life? Where is their fear of the consequences of their actions? It is bad enough when a kid gets their hands on a gun and uses it. But these attacks are worse in a way, because they are personal. These kids aren't shooting their victims - they are beating them with bats and sticks, kicking them when they're down, etc.
It's difficult to watch some of the video that was offered with the story. In one, two boys are seen attacking a homeless man with some kind of stick or bat. Those same boys are accused of two other attacks that night, one of which resulted in a death. In another case, highlighted in the story, three boys are serving long prison sentences for beating a homeless man to death in Wisconsin.
Are our kids so angry that they have to express their rage through such brutality and violence? If so, why? What are they angry about?
But more than that, I have to wonder if it isn't our capitalistic culture - our admiration of monetary success over any other human value a person may have - that promotes this kind of behavior in our kids. I noticed that the article pointed out that most such attacks are carried out by middle-class teens, kids who've been raised in good homes, had all the advantages, and still became murderers.
What were they taught in those homes? Were they taught to think of anyone who was poor as a second-class human being? Were they taught that if someone is homeless it must be due to laziness, addiction, or some other "undesireable" trait? Was there an implication, however subtle, in the messages they got from parents, relatives, teachers, and others in their circle, that a homeless person would be "better off" dead, or perhaps had no right to be in their town or community?
Is it possible that we are teaching our kids to be killers simply by giving them the impression that anyone who doesn't meet some standard of wealth and success is not worthy of respect, compassion, or even life?
What kind of world do I want?
I want a world where every human being, regardless of their financial circumstance, has a warm, safe place to sleep at night, nutritious food to eat, and the ability to get the medical and psychiatric care they need.
I want a world where our children learn to love and respect their fellow wo/man, and try to help those in need, instead of ridiculing them or, in some cases, killing them.
Most of all, I want a world where every human has value and the right to exist, regardless of their finances, skin color, sexual orientation, religious views, age, gender, politics, culture, education, handicap, or any other factor.
Start Now....
So this is the beginning of what I hope will be a long and beautiful conversation. I'm looking forward to it, and I expect it may be a wild ride. Are you game?
First things first though. As some of you may know, the name of my blog comes from a song called "World" by Five For Fighting (you can hear it at the link above, as well as some of their other hits). I'd never heard the name of the band, although I discovered they have two other songs I love (100 Years and It's Not Easy from Superman).
(Okay so now you know I love music, but don't pay a lot of attention to the names of the performers.)
I discovered the song when it was used as the background theme to a montage of scenes from the new CBS drama Jericho. Jericho is an excellent new series, by the way. It's the story of a young man who returns to his small Kansas hometown just before a nuclear disaster befalls the US. Although the town itself is safe, the world they knew has irrevocably changed, and the residents of Jericho, KS must find a way to protect themselves and survive with no discernible federal government, no communications or technology, little food, and more. If you haven't watched this excellent (and perhaps very timely) series, I really recommend it. You can catch up on previous episodes online though Innertube ( http://www.cbs.com/innertube/player.php?cat=115191&vid=&format=&auto=1 ).
When the scenes from that show were combined with the song, it created a powerful set of imagery. But most of all, it asked a question, and posed a challenge that I think each of us should be asking and acting on. What kind of world DO we want, and what are we doing to make it a reality?
The lyrics remind us that what each and every one of us does matters - not only for us, but for our children and the future of our world. As the lyrics say, "history starts now". I would add that history starts with each of us, in everything we do and say, the way we cast our votes (or choose not to), the actions we take or don't take, and with every person we touch throughout our lives.
So what is this blog about? Life, love, justice, peace, politics, news, and more - but all based on that very simple and yet immensely profound question....What kind of world do YOU want?
My posts will tell you about the world I want, inspired by what I read, hear, and observe. Your responses will, I hope, tell me about the kind of world you want. Ultimately, our combined vision of the world, and the action we take as individuals to make it a reality, may be the start of something beautiful.
I hope you will come back often and see what we're talking about, and I hope you will share your own thoughts as well. Grab a keyboard and jump right in, and remember that "history starts now", with me, and with you.
First things first though. As some of you may know, the name of my blog comes from a song called "World" by Five For Fighting (you can hear it at the link above, as well as some of their other hits). I'd never heard the name of the band, although I discovered they have two other songs I love (100 Years and It's Not Easy from Superman).
(Okay so now you know I love music, but don't pay a lot of attention to the names of the performers.)
I discovered the song when it was used as the background theme to a montage of scenes from the new CBS drama Jericho. Jericho is an excellent new series, by the way. It's the story of a young man who returns to his small Kansas hometown just before a nuclear disaster befalls the US. Although the town itself is safe, the world they knew has irrevocably changed, and the residents of Jericho, KS must find a way to protect themselves and survive with no discernible federal government, no communications or technology, little food, and more. If you haven't watched this excellent (and perhaps very timely) series, I really recommend it. You can catch up on previous episodes online though Innertube ( http://www.cbs.com/innertube/player.php?cat=115191&vid=&format=&auto=1 ).
When the scenes from that show were combined with the song, it created a powerful set of imagery. But most of all, it asked a question, and posed a challenge that I think each of us should be asking and acting on. What kind of world DO we want, and what are we doing to make it a reality?
The lyrics remind us that what each and every one of us does matters - not only for us, but for our children and the future of our world. As the lyrics say, "history starts now". I would add that history starts with each of us, in everything we do and say, the way we cast our votes (or choose not to), the actions we take or don't take, and with every person we touch throughout our lives.
So what is this blog about? Life, love, justice, peace, politics, news, and more - but all based on that very simple and yet immensely profound question....What kind of world do YOU want?
My posts will tell you about the world I want, inspired by what I read, hear, and observe. Your responses will, I hope, tell me about the kind of world you want. Ultimately, our combined vision of the world, and the action we take as individuals to make it a reality, may be the start of something beautiful.
I hope you will come back often and see what we're talking about, and I hope you will share your own thoughts as well. Grab a keyboard and jump right in, and remember that "history starts now", with me, and with you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)