Yesterday, I accompanied a friend to the weekly meeting of his humanist organization. Although I am not a member of this group (being a snowbird non-resident and all), I have been to a few of their meetings and found them to be intellectually stimulating. Yesterday's was no exception. Joanne Gillespie led a discussion on Roy Speckhardt's book Creating Change Through Humanism.
In the meetings that I have attended, there is always some introductory time devoted to the humanists' challenge of making clear their positions and purposes to the general public. Well aware that many Americans believe that we reside in "one nation under God," humanists have to advocate for the reality that not everyone agrees with that concept. (Don't forget, that phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance was added in 1954, never a part of the original pledge, created in 1892 and recognized by Congress in 1942.) Humanism is basically "the radical idea that you can be good without a belief in god."
And you might have noticed that I did not capitalize the word "god" in that last sentence. That was deliberate. Who or what is God or god? I learned a new word yesterday: ignostic. Yes, I spelled that right. Whereas an agnostic claims neither faith nor disbelief in a higher being, an ignostic demands a definition of "god" before engaging in a discussion of his/her/its existence. Now that makes sense to me. The implication in the phrase "one nation under God" is that it is the Judeo-Christian God that is being recognized. Of the 313 religions practiced in the United States, only 36 of them fall under the umbrella of "Judeo-Christian." The phrase, therefore, marginalizes a large number of people, including atheists and humanists.
Humanists are not devil-worshippers. The humanists I have met are kind, gentle, thoughtful people who spend a lot of time volunteering in acts of goodness. And yet, they have to fight to be recognized in places and events that welcome religious figures and dogma. Prayers and invocations that open secular meetings and events have long been the practice, but this preferential treatment often dismisses the humanist community from contributing in like manner. And this flies in the face of our separation of church and state, implicit in our Bill of Rights. While humanists respect the individual's right to practice a religion of choice, the same courtesy does not always seem to apply to those who choose to "be good for goodness' sake."
After the meeting, we found shelter from a brief shower in a tiki bar, enjoying a Bloody Mary and a breakfast flatbread. That was followed by an afternoon on the St. Lucie River, enjoying some incredible blues put forth by the Jeff Jensen Band, a trio from Memphis. I contemplated the amazing capabilities of humans existing on this planet. We benefitted from the skills and service of the bartender and the chef. The innate talents and dedicated practice of the musicians were manifested in a gift to the community on a Sunday afternoon. These skills and talents spoke to the mantra I wish I could recite every day: Life Is Good. We all have something to give: art, music, compassion, drama, comedy, craftsmanship, cuisine, education, parenting, kindness, service, care-taking, medical assistance, companionship, charity . . . all goodness.
The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world. ~ Tenet #14 of The Humanist Manifesto I
We're all human, with or without a god. We are all capable of goodness. It's that simple.
It has always puzzled me: the depth of suspicion (resentment?) Of religious communities towards those who choose not to be part of them. They, we, are othered, are decision to not join the club seen as both criticism and threat.
ReplyDelete