Tim LaHaye, Jerry Falwell and other fighting fundamentalists started demonizing secular humanism back in the 1980’s. They gave evangelical believers illegitimate reasons for their opposition because it was easier to kill the beast than to compete against it. What they secretly feared was that the faithful just might get a glimpse of a comprehensive package built upon such things as reason, ethics, and free inquiry. These are considered alluring building blocks to seekers whom might just get knocked off of faith’s perch if the light of reason were allowed to shine through. 

Seems that Center for Inquiry (CFI) President and CEO Ronald A. Lindsey is determined to give present day believers a legitimate reason to besmirch secular humanism and the organization that Paul Kurtz built from the ground up with Lindsey’s uncouth, saber-rattling blasphemy contest.

Paul Kurtz says that has been replaced as chairman of the Council for Secular Humanism, CSI, and the Center for Inquiry, a position he has held since their founding. The decision makers behind this move brought in someone (Lindsey) that is either unaware of what secular humanism is, or desires to redefine it. I believe Lindsey to be incompetent and frankly, I am disturbed about the silence of the lambs that follow the new tune of the piper!

Now that Ronnie has had his “training wheels” taken off, is this blasphemy contest an indication that he will take secular humanists down a “new atheism” route?  What’s next, will he follow the British Humanist Association’s contradictory example of kissing up to Dawkins? Whatever these organizations do is their business, but good businesses don’t insult their potential client base.  Good businesses treat people with respect and give people reason to become clients. Suffice to say, this is why I have long recommended the classy American Humanist Association.

A blasphemy contest isn’t a tool of reason, it is an expression of irritation disguised as an attempt to preserve freedom of expression. Premeditated gimmicks like these are what initiate legislators to examine the need for blasphemy laws!

First Issue: What is wrong with blasphemy?

My previous address on the subject of blasphemy largely addressed the usual suspects who are often guilty of the charge. CFI’s recent emergence caught me by surprise! I would like to distinguish between the Islamic and Christian “versions” of what constitutes blasphemy. Muslims get offended when you start asking questions; whereas most Christians have thicker skin but generally draw the line when the insults begin.  

The Islamic version of blasphemy is initiated upon critical inquiry (examination based.) Islamic nations protect their belief system by means of their own brand of law (Sharia law) that differs greatly with democracy. Islamic countries have the right of self-determination, but they don’t have the right to interfere with democratic societies by suggesting that the rest of the world should engage in Islamic protectionism.

 We should all understand Islamic culture and adhere to the clique  “When in Riyadh, do as the Riyadhians do” but the rules are different in Rome, London and New York!  What is so hard to understand about this? In democracies, Islam needs to fend for itself, get thicker skin, and learn how to compete to survive without legal protection.  You know, the basic survival of the fittest idea.

If the pro blasphemy crowd wants to be a hero for the cause of free expression, go and issue your contest in an Sharia environment rather than a democratic one.  You say, “That would be stupid!” I bring this up because I want to make the point that a key factor behind a proclamation of blasphemy (insult) is based upon what one thinks they can get away with expressing.  [From this point forward, I will be addressing the demeaning “insult type of blasphemy” towards “god” or his followers]

For example, let us say that a white man like Ronnie ventures into the heart of a major metropolitan downtown district at night. Ronnie would know better than to provoke by insult any non-Caucasian out of fear that he would face bodily harm. Obviously, he has the freedom to express an observation, opinion, or attributes to those men, but it wouldn’t be wise to provoke them to anger. This Ronnie would be credited for having “street smarts”; while the Ronnie that is promoting a blasphemy contest isolated from the fear of reprisal would be considered a crude, divisive coward. Insert your favorite lawyer joke here.

If it is the fear of reprisal that restrains your tongue chances are that you are suppressing negative emotions. These unchecked negative emotions often grow into hatred. The hatred is real, but it isn’t openly expressed. Whenever blasphemy (insult version) is unleashed, the irritation is transferred onto another that often is incited to retaliate. It is like a man that feels he needs to defend the honor of his lady or mother that was disrespected or violated.

The non-theist with the pent-up anger is emboldened whenever the fear of reprisal is absent. The non-theist with the pent-up anger has a personal psychological problem and gets a thrill whenever they can dump it upon a theist by way of blasphemy. Basically it is like they are transmitting an emotional virus. I think a man is twisted if they enjoy watching another man cough. The non-theist holding the psychological problem should bear responsibility for their psychological issues and lack of restraint.

I don’t want to address the “bear responsibility” question or solution here. Blasphemy legislation has no place within a democracy, but we should be searching for ways to discourage and deter those that blaspheme.

Looking at people whom blaspheme

Maniacs that employ blasphemy aren’t viewed as reasonable people in the eyes of the faithful. Their demeanor is repulsive, who wants to listen to them? Reason is the catalyst for change; everything else is a sideshow and a distraction. Non-theists whom resort to blasphemy aren’t happy with the pace of reason or are unskillful with their ability to communicate it. Reason needs time to be absorbed; anyone proclaiming reason should always keep the following in mind about the recipient and their message.

1)    Perhaps I wasn’t skillful or convincing with reason

2)    Perhaps I was but they need time to think about it  (be patient)

3)    Perhaps other factors make believers reluctant to abandon faith

After presenting reason, we need to step back and let people process what was said. We shouldn’t expect quick decisions from them; no need to be pushy, impatient or to get frustrated!

My experience in sales and management has shown me that crude salesmen often had these same traits and frequently had poor relationships. Someone should do a study upon the demographics of the crude non-theists amongst us. I’d be curious to know how many of them are lacking love in their lives? How many of them once held the faith?

Second Issue: Contradiction of Secular Humanist Values

I find it unconscionable that anyone that is considered to be a leader in a secular humanist organization could suggest something so contradictory and divisive as a blasphemy contest.  Perhaps someone should sit Ronnie down and counsel him about the meaning and direction of secular humanism. Let me say that I am a big fan of Paul Kurtz, I love what he has said here:

Excerpts of Paul Kurtz’s The Future of Secular Humanism in America      Free Inquiry  August / September 2009

What is important about secular humanism today is its positive outlook; its effort is not simply to examine critically the claims of religion but to provide affirmative alternatives to both theism and individualistic libertarianism. The latter encourages each person to do “his or her own thing” in a hollow pursuit of self-interest. I have encouraged individual autonomy in a free society, but in my view we need at the same time to raise the level of taste and appreciation of each individual, widen and deepen the capacity for creative growth, and cultivate critical thinking and wisdom. I have stated that the goal of humanism is to develop a new eupraxsophy, i.e., virtues and values drawn from the application of intelligence and the scientific perspective. This entails a recognition of the need for enlightened self-interest to be sure but also for empathy, altruism, and a good will. Last but not least, secularists have a responsibility to cultivate moral integrity and high standards of personal morality.

In my view, the tests of the validity of the concept of Centers for Inquiry is at stake—are we able to generate a new secular morality in which individual persons are transformed and the common moral decencies and moral integrity prevail? Central to the core of secular humanism is a respect for the intrinsic dignity and value of every person and an uncompromising commitment to human rights. I deplore the prospect that the Council for Secular Humanism might turn into just another combative atheist organization—or that it might focus exclusively on the separation of church and state. The core value of secular humanism is the realization and enhancement of human fulfillment, a renaissance ideal of ethical good where human enlightenment comes first—an ideal I hope the Council will continue to champion.

What I have found—much to my dismay, even at the Center for Inquiry—is that competitive battles for self-aggrandizement and personal advantage are inescapable. These tendencies, I hasten to add, exist in the broader consumer-capitalist-corporate culture in which we live, where egoistic self-interest is the norm rather than the quest for the common good or the recognition of our empathetic responsibilities to others. I recognize that all social institutions experience power plays and that not only corporations but churches and temples are affected by the competitive rat race. Hence, the frontier for the Center for Inquiry movement as I view it is whether secular humanism can achieve a new level of moral excellence. As I move on from my former role as founder and chairman of the Center for Inquiry movement, I stand on the sidelines hoping that my creation is able to mature in wisdom and develop a new eupraxsophy of quality. We must move beyond the battle with the Religious Right, important as that has been. We need a new agenda if we are to survive, and that is the development of a new morality as part of the emerging planetary community of humankind.

I have long been an admirer of Paul Kurtz. Upon actually reading some of his work for the first time, I was stunned that someone could actually find fault in his humanistic writing and demonize him. I would credit Kurtz with an assist for helping me to see the light of reason and to eventually abandon a life of faith.

I’m not certain how to react towards CFI/CSH in light of all of this. I wrote this article because Ex-Minister organization concerns itself with proper rules of engagement between non-theists and people of faith. CFI/CSH crossed the lines here!

I exhort all non-theists whom have read this article to contact the Center for Inquiry and voice your displeasure about this unfortunate case of bad judgment!

Ex-minister's Blog

 Blog page introducing this article & a place to comment upon it