Humanists that want to "Cross Out" America
If I had to classify the American Humanist Association's (AHA) direction lately, I'd say it is like a kite in the wind. Their tagline reads, "Good without a God." It is a nice concept, but can't they do so without lawyers and lobbyists? Has reason failed and the art of personal persuasion been abandoned for strong armed methods?
Straying from Humanist Principles
There are lines from the Humanist Manifesto III that strongly appealed to this ex-minister upon leaving the ministry and religion; they still do! The following lines are from the Humanist Manifesto III (The Humanist Manifesto is a trademark of the AHA)
Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views.
Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.
Somehow the spirit of that great document has been lost by a number of folks representing or claiming humanism. Hypersensitivity has set in and many within the movement are looking to be offended or for a fight that they might be able use to pander for funding purposes.
Recently the movement attacked an excellent writer (Sally Quinn) because a "popular blogger" couldn't discern apparent satire before he hung the story upon the foul pole. I might add, the AHA has featured this "blogger" for many years.
Perhaps the AHA is somewhat confused about their identity. They seem to have successfully conflated two differing terms: atheism and humanism. This is the organization that awarded Humanists of the Year to two notable atheists: Richard Dawkins (1996) and Daniel Dennett (2004). But they outdid themselves with the 2009 honor, PZ Myers.
Ignorant Humanists Admit That They Want to Tear Down America
PZ Myers has different ideas about being good without God. One would think that the AHA has a hard time squaring PZ's view with their tagline. At least PZ has the integrity to be forthright about his goals. According to Will Durant, PZ's confession is what Durant identifies as what destroys society. Seems that PZ's education shorted him of Durant & Santayana. Nevertheless he and his flunkies are smugly speeding towards the cliff, defiant or unaware of what lies ahead.
The following quotes from: PZ Myers Sunday Sacrilege Bad Without God
"Announcing that atheists are "good" is a repudiation of our actual goals, which are subversive. We aim to change the culture."
"And that's really my big problem with the phrase: I don't want to be reassuring to people whose awful bogosity I oppose. I want to provoke and challenge, I want to change the status quo, I want to tear down the gooey conventionality of morality and narrow standards of public behavior. I want us all to mock and laugh at public professions of piety. I want to change how people think, and I want people to reject the absurd claim that our morality is founded on an odious holy book."
Wow, not one word of descent from a movement with leaders that cannot recognize the peril their movement yearns for. It is hard for me to fathom the lack of discernment and leadership within such a highly educated movement and those ignorantly following them. These people seem to dislike America. I'll call it for what it is: revolutionaries tear down a country. Humanists must be finding it hard to be good without God these days.
The AHA's Cross Hypersensitivity is Un-American -- Self Centered Pandering
Symbols of sacrifice seem to upset the AHA. While Myers wants to mock and laugh at public professions of piety, the AHA's Fred Edwords was offended with a Peace Cross in Bladensburg, MD (link to the story & a veterans opinion). Legally, Edwords might have a lawyer loving point. It definitely plays as a fund raising pandering item that sickos will be attracted to. This humanist understands the Peace Cross situation as a non-issue.
A cross predates Christianity by centuries. Speaking frankly, it's hard to avoid the pagan origins of a cross. Even without this knowledge, I must ask how one can object to a reminder of sacrifice in our modern day? Practically, society benefits by having a representative symbol that reminds us of the virtue of sacrifice. Christianity wisely adopted a pagan symbol to commemorate sacrifice, in their lore it cost them their founder. A cross spans secular and religious viewpoints; now a crucifix is distinctively Christian (the Peace Cross isn't a crucifix on public land). Come on Fred, I think your hypersensitivity is a bit shallow.
This all leads me to a déjà vu moment. Something good like religion and humanism get seized upon by people that blatantly misrepresent its precepts and get away with doing so. Before long, society has a difficult time distinguishing the real thing from the bastardized version, which is loathed. It happened with Christianity, its happening now with humanism. As constructed, the secular movement has nothing to contribute to society except agitation. Americans have lived in a secular society my whole life span, thus we have always had a "secular movement" (we don't live under a theocracy). That is a legitimate unintended secular movement that should be distinguished from the current band of revolutionaries on parade.
Brian Worley Ex-Minister.org October 16, 2012 All Rights Reserved