For Humanist Network News
Sept. 1, 2010
The following is adapted from a statement delivered by Anne Klaeysen, the new co-dean of The Humanist Institute and Leader of the New York Society for Ethical Culture, at an Aug. 22, 2010 platform at the end of The Humanist Institute session.
Language, for humanists, is extremely important. I dare say that words are "sacred" to us. (Take note that I enclose the word sacred in quotation marks.) We like to talk almost as much as we like to read, and are acutely aware of the different meanings words have in different contexts. So let me be clear: I am speaking now as an Ethical Culture leader about an issue that began quietly and locally in downtown Manhattan and has "gone viral," as the media put it, over the last week.
People are demonstrating right now in front of a former retail store, Burlington Coat Factory, against a proposed Islamic community center. They say it is a "mosque at Ground Zero" that desecrates holy ground.
First of all, no New Yorker calls the site of the Sept. 11 attack "ground zero." It is -- and always will be -- the World Trade Center. To verify this, take any subway downtown and listen to the name of the stop. "Ground Zero" implies war and retaliation for an act of war, what President Bush chose to call a "war on terror." The World Trade Center is where 19 terrorists chose to fly two planes into two towers filled with people, killing 3,000 of them. We mourn them -- all of them. They were our family, friends and neighbors, and we remember them dearly every time we pass that site.
Secondly, Cordoba House (aka Park51 Community Center) will be two blocks north of WTC in a bustling neighborhood of retail stores, schools, churches and a well-established mosque, bars and strip clubs. Community Board No. 1 reviewed its proposal for a center with interfaith spaces, reading rooms, a restaurant, gymnasium and swimming pool, and approved it in a 29-1 vote. The NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission unanimously approved it.
Now let's consider the people who will run Cordoba House, named for the flourishing of Islamic culture in Spain hundreds of years ago. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Daisy Khan, a married couple, are leading figures in the interfaith community of NYC. Rauf has been imam of a mosque in Tribeca for almost 30 years, and Khan is head of the American Muslim Association. Both are strong advocates for women within Islam. They are also Sufis, a branch of Islam at the opposite end of the religious spectrum from the Taliban, Wahhabis and jihadis.
Those of you who have studied with The Humanist Institute are familiar with Vartan Gregorian's book, "Islam: A Mosaic, Not a Monolith." It is essential reading for everyone, not just humanists. Those cynical politicians and pundits who are exploiting this situation probably recognize the diversity within Christianity, but choose to conflate all Muslims. We humanists have also been conflated, and I don't just mean the differences between religious and secular humanists. (Years ago in Seattle during the G8 Summit, a group of self-proclaimed "humanists" joined the riots that rocked that city. A photo of them appeared in the New York Times, and I remember exclaiming, "They aren't humanists! No humanist would do that!") This profound -- and, I believe, willful -- ignorance incites action on the part of people who need a target for their fear and anger, strong emotions indeed.
And this is an emotional issue. Even a cognitive understanding of the facts cannot overcome the deep feelings we harbor. Nor should it: Human beings employ an emotional intelligence. I understand and empathize with those who feel that the Islamic community center should be moved farther away out of sensitivity to the families of 9/11 victims. But how far is far enough? What distance in terms of geography and theology would be deemed sensitive?
I wholeheartedly support my interfaith colleagues Imam Rauf and Daisy Khan in their Cordoba House venture, which began in the spirit of community and continues in a spirit of courage. To do otherwise would violate my principles as a New Yorker and an Ethical Humanist. New York City, with its roots in a tolerant New Amsterdam, is a cosmopolitan city that celebrates diversity and understanding. Humanism has a long tradition of enlightened reason and compassion. My religious faith is in human beings who find common ground with one another and build a better world upon it for everyone.
Anne Klaeysen is the co-dean of The Humanist Institute and Leader of the New York Society for Ethical Culture.
STAFF REPORT
Humanist Charities, the charitable arm of the American Humanist Association, is accepting donations for victims of the recent Pakistan flood. Following heavy monsoon rains in various regions of Pakistan this past July, over 2,000 have died and over 20 million have been affected by washed away homes, crops and farm animals.
Humanist Charities has selected the International Rescue Committee (IRC) to redirect donations toward flood relief in Pakistan. The IRC has been a major presence in Pakistan since 1980 and is working to deliver blankets and other urgently needed items to flood victims in order to thwart outbreaks of waterborne disease. The IRC is also named as one of ten Gold Star charities by the Forbes Investment Guide and a four-star charity by Charity Navigator.
To donate through Humanist Charities, visit our website at www.humanistcharities.org. Earmark your gift toward "Pakistan Flood Relief."
Humanist Charities specializes in benevolent aid and action to further the health and welfare of humankind, providing urgent financial need through the generous contributions of American humanists. In past years, Humanist Charities donated thousands of dollars to help flood relief efforts in India and New Orleans, build a library in the Dominican Republic, and deliver food and medicine to earthquake victims in Haiti.
Humanist Charities is also seeking members to join its advisory committee. Members currently serving on this committee are Robert Finch (chair), Arthur Jackson and Howard Katz. If you are looking to get involved and help with our charitable efforts, contact Maggie Ardiente, director of development, at maggie@americanhumanist.org.
STAFF REPORT
Reprinted from an American Humanist Association Aug. 18, 2010 press release .
The American Humanist Association (AHA) expressed enthusiastic approval today of the U.S. Court of Appeal's ruling that a series of crosses memorializing fallen officers along a Utah highway is a constitutional violation, a ruling that is consistent with a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the AHA in the case in 2008. Said the court of the crosses, "We hold that these memorials have the impermissible effect of conveying to the reasonable observer the message that the State prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion. They therefore violate the Establishment Clause of the federal constitution."
"This is an important victory in the continued fight for the separation of church and state," said David Niose, president of the American Humanist Association. "Governmental endorsement of Christianity, even in the form of an officer's memorial, isn't appropriate on our public highways. There are other ways to honor fallen officers, and the court's recognition of this clearly strengthens secular government."
In the friend-of-the-court-brief, the AHA informed the court that "while government should honor law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty, the government must do so in ways that do not promote religion." The brief argued that even "assuming that these crosses were erected for the secular purpose of memorializing fallen UHP officers, the crosses nonetheless primarily convey the Christian message of Jesus' death and resurrection."
"The American Humanist Association is very gratified by the decision of the Tenth Circuit holding that Utah's permitting the display of Christian crosses on public property constituted an endorsement of religion in violation of the First Amendment," said Bob Ritter, staff attorney of the Appignani Humanist Legal Center, the legal arm of the American Humanist Association. "Secular memorials would have effectively conveyed the message of remembrance and gratitude for the fallen UHP officers and would have avoided the risk of religious controversy overshadowing the memorials' message."
Sept. 1, 2010
American Atheists Decry Quran Burning
American Atheists spoke out against the Dove World Outreach Center, the Christian group in Gainesville, Fla., publicizing the "International Burn a Quran Day." Though denied a permit, the group still intends to burn Qurans on Sept. 11 to commemorate the World Trade Center attacks.
Dr. Ed Buckner, president of American Atheists, has encouraged pursuit of cultural knowledge in place of discrimination. "In addition to studying the Bible, the Quran and other ‘holy books,' we're recommending a brief reading list people may want to delve into," said Buckner. "And when you finish those, we can recommend many more. Read, don't burn. Think, don't swallow what anyone else is telling you."
Military Freedom From Religion Foundation Investigates Christian Army Concerts
In May, a number of U.S. soldiers were reportedly punished for refusing to attend a Spiritual Fitness Concert while completing a training course. After further research, the Military Freedom From Religion Foundation discovered that these concerts, headlined by largely Evangelical bands, are sponsored by the commanding general and are often expensive to fund. The MFFRF announced the launch of an investigation into how much the military is spending to promote religion. Shortly after, the Army launched their own investigation.
Center For Inquiry Clarifies Islamic Center Statement
The Center For Inquiry has released a statement clarifying their position on the Islamic center located near Ground Zero. The original statement, released last week, was misinterpreted by some as an attack on freedom of religion.
"CFI fully supports the free exercise of religion; protecting the rights of believers and nonbelievers is central to CFI's mission," the statement read. It further explained, "CFI's unequivocal support for the legal right of Muslims to place a community center near Ground Zero does not imply that CFI views the new center as an event to be celebrated. To the contrary, CFI is committed to the position that reason and science, not faith, are needed to address and resolve humanity's problems. All religions share a fundamental flaw: they reflect a mistaken understanding of reality. On balance, CFI does not consider houses of worship to be beneficial to humanity, whether they are built at Ground Zero or elsewhere."
Arkansas Freethinkers Reach Agreement with State
The Arkansas Society of Freethinkers and Arkansas Secretary of State Charlie Daniels have reportedly reached a proposed settlement after the state refused to allow the group to place a secular winter solstice display alongside Christmas displays at the Capitol. In the settlement, the state agreed to grant the group equal access to put up their display, as well as to pay more than $25,000 of the group's legal fees.
For Humanist Network News
Sept. 1, 2010
A CNN article about how more teens are becoming "fake" Christians is making the rounds. It discusses Professor Kenda Creasy Dean and her work on the National Study of Youth and Religion:
The study included Christians of all stripes -- from Catholics to Protestants of both conservative and liberal denominations. Though three out of four American teenagers claim to be Christian, fewer than half practice their faith, only half deem it important, and most can't talk coherently about their beliefs, the study found.
Many teenagers thought that God simply wanted them to feel good and do good -- what the study's researchers called "moralistic therapeutic deism."
It sounds like a positive thing... The teenagers might believe in a god (for whatever reason), but it doesn't mean they're following the awful dogma of the Christian church. Maybe it's because they understand how silly it is to believe that every Muslim, gay person, Hindu, atheist and liberal Christian is living a wicked life and must be eternally condemned. Or that gay marriage is something wrong. Or that atheists are evil. Or that they have to fall in line with Republican Party ideals.
I don't know why they bother to call themselves Christians at all. I wasn't happy when Anne Rice said good riddance to all those negative aspects of Christianity, but stopped short of dismissing faith altogether. But it does seem like this is better than the alternative, right?
[Director of the Youth Theological Initiative at Emory University Elizabeth] Corrie says she sees no shortage of teenagers who want to be inspired and make the world better. But the Christianity some are taught doesn't inspire them "to change anything that's broken in the world."
Teens want to be challenged; they want their tough questions taken on, she says.
Considering that Christianity has some of the problems in the first place, that's not surprising.
And isn't it sad that their church doesn't challenge them? Or answer their tough questions? So many pastors are so used to spoon-feeding lies about the "truth" of the Bible, or why abortion can never be a viable option, or that morality and faith are somehow intertwined... teenagers see right through the bullshit. They constantly come across people who aren't Christians, but manage to live wonderful, productive, happy lives. There's a disconnect. And the church hasn't done a good job addressing it.
One other note: The article is all about "fake" Christians. Which means there's some "True" Christianity that's not being followed.
We've heard this all before. Is Fred Phelps a True Christian? Ted Haggard? Joel Osteen? Benny Hinn? At some point doesn't it just seem like Christians say that everyone who doesn't practice Christianity like they do must not be doing it right?
If the takeaway from this article is that a lot of younger "Christians" now believe in the gospel of "doing good," then we're moving in the right direction. The next step is for them to dismiss the notion that they have to believe in Jesus or go to church or pray to a god to be a good person.
Hemant Mehta is the Chair of the Secular Student Alliance (SSA) Board of Directors. He has worked with the Center for Inquiry and also is an SSA representative to the Secular Coalition for America. Hemant received national attention, including being featured on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, for his work as the "eBay Atheist." Hemant's blog can be read at FriendlyAtheist.com, and his book, I Sold My Soul on eBay, (WaterBrook Press) is now available on Amazon.com. He currently works as a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago.
For Humanist Network News
Sept. 1, 2010
You may send your questions for Richard to AskRichard@ca.rr.com. (Questions may be edited.) All questions will eventually be answered, but not all can be published. There are a large number of requests; please be patient.
Names are randomly changed for added anonymity.
Dear Richard,
I have been an atheist for most if not all of my life. My little sister is one, my mother is probably one, and my father, if religious, has never said a word to me about religion. I grew up in a secular humanist Jewish community, too. The idea of a "god" just never made sense to me, and I don't think I could believe even if I wanted to.
But here is my problem: I am afraid of dying. I am so afraid of dying that if I think about what it would mean, even for a second, I become fixated on the thought and have a panic attack. It only happens every once in a while, and I am a fully functioning person, but if I do think about it, I can't function.
Religion, I understand, is a fix for people with a similar fear. They do not have to fear death because death for them is not the end-all, be-all. I try to calm down by telling myself that if I make a difference in the world, my contribution will outlast me -- but then I think of the nothingness and my heart starts to beat a mile a minute. It is at those times that I wish I was not a realistic person, that I had grown up with a love for a god and a belief that I would live on in eternal happiness. Deep down I wish I could believe in a god just to make the fear go away.
My question is this: My fear has never gotten in the way of living normally, but I hate it. I thought about therapy, but therapy would mean confronting it, and I don't think I could because what's the end result? Either I fool myself into thinking that there is paradise or another life waiting for me, or I keep this knowledge hidden from myself, always waiting to reemerge.
Am I alone in this fear? Should I seek help? What is a godless person who is afraid of death and is incapable of believing in a god supposed to do? I know it's a big question and you certainly don't have all the answers, but I just want the pain to go away. (Not suicide of course. Don't worry about that. That would be like having a crippling fear of dogs so you go out to buy a viscous dog. I'm afraid, not irrational.)
--Anxious Anne
Dear Anne,
Your letter is very courageous. Courage is not the absence of fear, it is doing what must be done in spite of your fear.
You're right, I don't have all the answers, and I don't think there are any standard "atheist" ways of dealing with this. So please forgive me for drawing heavily upon my own personal experience.
The first time I deeply realized my own annihilation I was about 17 years old. The thought of my consciousness ending just popped up and really got my visceral attention. I felt like ice water was creeping up the back of my neck, my stomach felt turned upside down, and my heart was pounding. I sat back, took some deep, slow breaths, and I talked to myself. I reminded myself that I was young, healthy and not in danger. I also thought about how this fear is a natural instinct that helps all animals to survive. The adrenaline helps them run faster or fight harder. It's just that humans know hypothetically ahead of time, rather than just when predators are approaching. After a short time the sensations went away, but I remembered the experience.
The vague, maybe-I-guess-so beliefs in an afterlife that I had at the time were not of any comfort, and I doubt that even a strong faith would have softened it much because this was a very primal, very organic experience. It was a reflex, a built-in instinct as automatic as blinking when someone pokes their fingers toward my eyes, and as independent of intellect as pulling my hand off the stove before the sensation of heat reaches my brain.
Time passed, and on rare occasions that triple sensation would bubble up, but I quickly distracted myself with some of the things you have probably done, such as thinking about something else or getting really busy. It was a strategy of evasion, but the feeling was becoming more familiar and it was finding me more often.
Then when I was about 23, it came on me again in the middle of the night while I was lying in bed. I felt the same three sensations: ice water up the back of my neck, my stomach upside down, and my heart pounding. There was nothing likely that would cause my death that night, but the conviction of imminent mortal threat was still very powerful. In a completely irrational way, I was convinced that if I did not somehow escape, I would die then and there.
But this time something in me changed. I was sick of running. I was sick of hiding. I thought, okay, come on. Bring it on. Whatever this is, I'd rather get it over. I turned and faced it.
For the next few minutes those three sensations built and built, stronger than I had ever felt before, but I just lay there and felt them vividly. Then they crested and broke like a wave, and quickly faded away. I was still there, looking up at the dark ceiling.
I realized that it had been nothing more than those three sensations. Any more "meaning" to it was merely my own commentary, my labeling it with a scary significance. It no longer intimidated me, and it eventually stopped coming around.
Since then I have had four close calls where I actually could have died. A faulty wire nearly electrocuted me, a machine part flew just past my ear like a bullet, a speeding car missed me by 6 inches as I walked across the street, and if the 1994 Northridge earthquake had occurred just a few hours later, I would have been crushed in this building:
Each of those near-misses has left me with a stronger sensation of windfall, of having an extra chance, and a stronger interest in staying positive. Life is just too short and too subject to randomness for me to waste even a moment on a crappy mood, or an attitude of resentment, or focusing on what I don't have. Screw that. There are so many opportunities for me to enjoy giving, encouraging, celebrating and loving -- and I'm not going to pass up a single one. Each of those close calls has added to my attitude that my life now is all gravy, it's all extra. I get to go on the ride again for free.
And now I've been riding for 60 years. My body is beginning to show a little wear and tear, and statistically my time is shortening.
Meh.
My legacy is already complete. My life is already filled with meaning. I've made a positive difference by being here, and I'm looking forward to making even more. In one of my careers, I've had the amazing privilege of actually saving lives. If it's over today or another 60 years from now, that's fine -- as long as I can keep making some kind of positive difference, even little ones.
I'm not trying to portray myself as heroic. My healthy, natural fear of death keeps me interested in simple safety. I make sure that wires are unplugged when I handle them, and I look both ways when I cross the street. But that's about as far as it goes. I concentrate on life.
Anne, you have described what would probably be called anxiety attacks or panic attacks. Any number of things can trigger them. Your trigger happens to be the thought of your mortality. Trying to always avoid the thought means you're actually always thinking about it in the periphery of your mind.
I think your predicament can be readily helped by working with a competent secular counselor who will neither offer you religious hocus pocus, nor other futile ways to distract yourself. A good counselor will stay by your side as you walk all the way through your Valley of Shadow. He or she will teach you to breathe deeply and slowly, and help you to turn and face your fear, completely experience it, realize that you have survived it, and no longer be intimidated by it. You will have seen that it is nothing but a couple of thoughts and a few bodily sensations. Meh.
As you get older, I think that the positive difference that you make in the world will become a much stronger compensation, comfort and satisfaction for you. Rather than hiding from death, you will be spending your days embracing life.
Richard
Richard Wade identifies as both a humanist and an atheist. He has worked as an artist and as a marriage and family therapist with many years in the specialization of addiction. Now retired, he has counseled more than ten thousand patients. Questions to this advice column are welcome from any perspective or belief, not just that of humanism or atheism. Richard Wade's column can also be read on a regular basis at The Friendly Atheist blog.
HumanistNetworkNews.org
[August 25, 2010]
It's official! We've changed our name to The Humanist Hour!
A new installment of the AHA's Audio Podcast is available for listening. Keep reading to find out about the guests on this month's show.
You can listen to the show using the podcast player in the player below, or download the show here.
For a complete list of The Humanist Hour Audio Podcast episode details and transcripts of our show, visit: AmericanHumanist.org/hnn/podcast.
In this month's audio podcast, Jes Constantine and guest co-host Jennifer Bardi introduce and discuss clips from AHA's 69th Annual Conference, which took place earlier this summer in San Jose, CA. Listen to Bill Nye the Science Guy accepting our Humanist of the Year award.
The Humanist of the Year (HoTY) award was established in 1953 to recognize a person of national or international reputation who, through the application of humanist values, has made a significant contribution to the improvement of the human condition.
So typically the HoTY isn't being honored for his or her work in the previous year, as with Time magazine's Person of the Year. Instead, the HoTY is someone whose career and contributions to society are being lauded at the same time that their humanist credentials are being brought to the fore.
These folks aren't known as humanists, per se, and they often resist identifying themselves as such even after accepting the award. But the point is they are ambassadors for humanism. They are popular figures in science, politics, business, philosophy, and the arts. Did you know that Ted Turner was Humanist of the Year? Alice Walker? R. Buckminster Fuller? Joyce Carol Oates? Apparently, Turner was one of those who flew in, accepted the award, and promptly left the conference. Others like Asimov, Vonnegut, and the 2009 HoTY PZ Myers hung around all weekend. (Vonnegut's acceptance speech, by the way, was titled, "Why my dog is not a humanist.")
So when AHA card-carrying humanists wonder why we don't bestow the HoTY award upon "real" humanists who've been involved with the movement for years we must explain this idea of ambassadorship by the famous. Bill Nye didn't shy away from it, and as you'll hear, he embraced the organization, its members, and its values quite demonstrably.
Images from this month's episode:
 |  |
| The first episode of "The Humanist Hour" podcast was recorded at what the Albany Humanist community refers to as "The Castle". | The Humanist Hour co-host, Jennifer Bardi, at recording room in "The Castle" |
Links from this month's episode:
The Humanist Magazine: thehumanist.org
Bill Nye the Science Guy: BillNye.com
Podcast RSS Feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HNN_Podcast
Music from this month's episode:
"Sound Scientist" by Bill
Editor's Note: Though we recommend subscribing to our podcast using a program like iTunes, you can start listening right now by downloading audio file directly:
For Humanist Network News
Aug. 18, 2010
Leon Seltzer wants you to think, reflect and be more compassionate.
Dr. Seltzer, a clinical psychologist and longtime humanist, has tackled a range of issues in his popular articles for the online Psychology Today, from the connection between anxiety and depression to analyzing the narcissism of basketball player Lebron James. His posts have collectively received over 665,000 views.
His latest post, co-authored with American Humanist Association President David Niose, was titled "Teen Sex: The ‘Holy' vs. Humanistic Approach." It was the most read article on Psychology Today in early August. The article asserted the need for comprehensive sex education over failed "abstinence-only" programs that are commonly rooted in religion.
Dr. Seltzer holds doctorates in both English and psychology and taught at Queens College (CUNY) and Cleveland State University. Today he lives in Del Mar, Calif., where he has maintained a general private practice since 1986. He is the author of "The Vision of Melville and Conrad" and "Paradoxical Strategies in Psychotherapy," and has written his blog Evolution of the Self for Psychology Today since June of 2008.
The AHA's Maggie Ardiente interviewed Dr. Seltzer by email for the second installment of "Profiles of Virtue," a new series profiling the good works of everyday humanists.
What religion were you raised in, if any?
I was raised Jewish, but although I've always been proud of my Jewish heritage (because so many eminent people in the arts and sciences have also been Jewish), from very early on I saw myself as a citizen of the world -- not accurately defined by any particular religion.
How did you discover humanism?
I think I've always been a humanist without ever being quite being conscious of it. When, all the way back in 1981, I published as an English professor an article on Kurt Vonnegut and alluded, sympathetically, to his humanism, I remember somehow feeling a spiritual link to him and his non-religious ethical tenets (particularly that pivotal line from "God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater": "God damn it. You've got to be kind."). But I still continued to see myself as agnostic (clearly leaning in the direction of atheism). That is, I didn't feel I could say definitively that there was no God. That seemed somehow arrogant to me. Yet traditional concepts of God made little sense to me, didn't "speak" to me, and -- practically -- I'd never had any direct experience of such a superhuman being.
It was only when somebody showed me a copy of the Humanist magazine a few years ago that I fully realized that this was who I was and immediately felt a strong responsibility to become a member of the American Humanist Association to take "ownership" of this. Inasmuch as over the years I'd come to recognize the many ills of traditional religion -- especially in its most fundamentalist, belligerent forms -- I felt ethically obliged to more formally take a stand against such, to me, ultimately inhumane forces.
How does your humanist outlook shape your work?
As a practicing psychologist, my humanistic outlook enables me to be more tolerant of, and empathic toward, client beliefs that personally I don't espouse. Without religious dogma or appeal to a higher being I yet adhere "religiously" to the Golden Rule. And although I'd never "preach" to clients, I trust that my abiding ethical commitments will somewhat be contagious -- especially with those clients who are still in the process of evolving moral standards by which to regulate themselves. Although as a therapist I simply don't have the luxury of being a moralist (but must, pragmatically, help clients find solutions within their own value framework), I do endeavor to encourage them to look more deeply into the moral ramifications of their behavior and to explore how becoming more sensitive to others' needs ultimately serves their own. If I can "grow" a client's conscience, if only by an inch, I feel richly rewarded.
Donning my other hat, as an author I've written about such morally-infused topics as passive-aggression, pathological narcissism and the age-old problem of evil (e.g., I did a piece on the Virginia Tech massacre shortly after it occurred). And my perspective is at once psychological and ethical -- regularly emphasizing the centrality of compassion in humanely understanding that which would be much easier simply to disapprove of, be indignant toward or condemn. I'd like to think that all my writings stress the importance of dealing with others humanely (again, "God damn it. You've got to be kind."). And, finally, to me the core principles of humanism are virtually synonymous with a humanitarian ethic (i.e., humanism = humanitarianism).
What topics do you cover on Psychology Today, and what do you hope to achieve?
As a blogger for Psychology Today who has now completed some 90 articles, I've written on a wide variety of topics. To give a broad sampling, here's a synopsis: the myth of laziness, self-indulgence vs. self-nurturing, the origins of passive-aggressive behavior, the dynamics of anger, the dysfunctional pattern of people-pleasing, trusting -- or not trusting -- your emotions, the path to unconditional self-acceptance, the power of vulnerability, ego strengthening (and shrinking), confronting others to confront themselves, attachment vs. detachment, giving -- and responding to -- criticism, the "I feel like a child" syndrome, psychological bonding vs. bondage, and mastering failure and rejection. Whew!
The title of my blog, Evolution of the Self, should also be suggestive. I'd like to think that the implicit -- though totally secular -- morality that informs each of my posts will, at least indirectly, prompt some individuals to become more interested in humanism. Additionally, I'd hope that my writings will serve to make my readers more sensitive and empathic toward one another -- as well as more compassionate and understanding toward themselves. And to the degree I can help readers "evolve" their humanity, I think my endeavors will have been successful.
I'm also on Twitter (drlee1) with the key purpose of sending messages not to tell anyone what I'm up to at the moment (hardly of compelling interest!), but rather to let them in on my not-very-conventional ponderings -- so as to get them to think, reflect and maybe even move to a somewhat higher level of consciousness (in 140 characters or less).
What was your favorite article written for Psychology Today?
Very hard question to respond to. It would be much easier to tell you which "comments" I've received (and I've received many hundreds of them) are my favorites. Fairly regularly, a reader will offers thanks for how much I've illuminated a difficult issue for them and offered them practical ideas for better dealing with it. Inasmuch as I've always had an intense sense of purpose in life, I find responses like this particularly gratifying.
As regards the articles I've written that I feel might be of greatest practical value to readers, I'd single out "From Self-Indulgence to Self-Nurturing," "The Path to Unconditional Self-Acceptance," "The 'I Feel Like a Child' Syndrome," "The Power to Be Vulnerable," and "Disarming Your Buttons: How Not to Get Provoked." But, frankly, they're all my babies -- and I have a certain "family attachment" to each one -- though my greatest joy is the act of sending them out into the limitless world of cyberspace, to do whatever good they may be capable of.
What do you like best about the American Humanist Association?
Given the many inadequacies and injustices of traditional religion, I think AHA is invaluable in offering people the option to identify with a rock-solid ethical system that has nothing to do with established and frequently misguided dogma. I see AHA as not only providing an exceptionally liberating belief system but as being a powerful ethical force against age-old and narrow-minded prejudices, hatred and bigotry. And its political involvement in such issues as separation between church and state and gay rights make today's AHA truly a positive force in contemporary society -- more relevant than ever before. AHA isn't simply self-righteous armchair philosophizing but a dynamic movement extremely well designed to address the many wrongs that exist in our country right now.
If you could have dinner with any three people (alive or dead), who would you pick?
Forget personalities here. How about dinner (or better, a picnic!) with the world's three greatest, and most convincing, optimists -- and I really can't say who'd they be either (we'd have to ask them, in all modesty, to please step forward!). When I read such alternative news sources on the Web as Truthout, or investigative journalism in such superb magazines as Mother Jones (not to mention our own excellent the Humanist), it's hard for me to be as optimistic as I wish I could be about our country's (actually, about the world's) future. Sadly, politicians -- in league with the big bad wolf of the indomitable military-industrial complex -- seem to have ultimate power in determining policy (and therefore the direction) of our country today. And, just in general, we seem to lack the collective will to actually do anything significant about such enormous problems as global warming and unsustainable growth on planet earth. So at times I have a very hard time being optimistic about humanity's future, and I could use all the help I could get here.
Maggie Ardiente is the development director of the American Humanist Association and editor of the AHA's membership newsletter, Free Mind.
STAFF REPORT
Reprinted from an American Humanist Association Aug. 5, 2010 press release.
The American Humanist Association (AHA) expressed enthusiastic approval with yesterday's ruling by a federal judge that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote of the California ban on gay marriage, "Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage."
"This is a triumph for the LGBT community and humanists alike," said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. "Human rights cannot be denied under the pretense of religious belief. This ruling is a reminder that equality prevails over prejudice within our justice system."
The ruling, met with great elation from Prop 8 protestors across the country, is a landmark decision in the fight for gay marriage. If appealed, the case will move to the 9th Circuit Court followed by the U.S. Supreme Court if chosen for review. The ruling also serves as a setback for the religious right battling gay marriage, who are expected to fight the decision.
"As a gay man and a wedding officiate," said Jason Frye, coordinator of the LGBT Humanist Council, an adjunct of the AHA, "I see this as a hard-earned victory. We have to keep in mind that there are two courts superior, and you better believe with the amount of money and emotional investment already dished out by both sides, that this monumental struggle has just begun."
STAFF REPORT
Reprinted from an American Humanist Association Aug. 4, 2010 press release.
Leaders of the American Humanist Association (AHA) expressed approval of President Obama's signing the Fair Sentencing Act into law, significantly reducing the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine.
"This corrects a historical injustice within our legal system," said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. "The previous laws were racially biased and perpetuated the social and economic hardships already plaguing many disadvantaged members of our community."
The Fair Sentencing Act, which was signed by President Obama on Tuesday, is expected to diminish disproportionate racial divide within prisons, reduce prison over-population, and save millions in tax-payer dollars. The act will target high-level dealers and traffickers while limiting the excessive penalties for low-level crack offenders. The AHA supported the bill, lobbying members of Congress for their votes.
"Justice shouldn't be dependent upon class or race," said Speckhardt. "Correcting such flawed legal processes is a win for our society. This is a step forward for all of us, though there is still a long way to go."
The AHA's 2005 resolution on drug policy advocates "a world of mutual care and concern." It reads, "Current drug laws, including mandatory minimum sentences, tend to disproportionately affect people with few financial resources, leading to selective enforcement and disparities in sentencing." And concludes that, "What's needed are rational and pragmatic solutions that focus on harm reduction as a means to resolve the negative consequences of drug use."
