Do you want to know how optimistic I am? When I first saw the headlines that the American Humanist Association (AHA) was doing an ad campaign that involved Biblical passages, I thought..."Hey, that's great! That's what I did in the class I taught last spring. They'll find passages in the Bible that speak to the humanistic impulse, like love your neighbor, and talk about how humanism and traditional religion share so many of the same ideas and values. I love it!"
I was wrong. I do not love the new AHA ad campaign, which actually juxtaposes negative passages from the Bible and the Koran with positive things that famous humanists have said, in an effort to prove that humanism has the real moral high ground over traditional religion.
The ad campaign was intended, I suppose, to be sensationalistic, and it's succeeded. People are certainly talking about humanism, and especially about the AHA. But I so wish the conversation could be different.
It's easy enough to find less-than-wonderful passages in any religious tradition, including humanism. Holy texts are created over hundreds and sometimes thousands of years, and one of the interesting things about them is that they display the range of human behavior. I love the Bible's psalms of lament, even some which are pretty violent, because they are essentially poems of mourning--and they truly do speak to the depths of grief that we sometimes experience. The Bible also has prophetic passages that are inspiring, poetry that is just beautiful and life-affirming, and plenty of humanistic ideas about our connection to each other and our care for the world.
But more importantly, I'm just not that interested in talking about all the ways humanism is different from traditional religions, all the things we are not. I'm so much more interested in talking about what we share in common, and about what we are. To me, humanism is about the dignity of the human spirit, the preciousness of life and the world we live in, our deep connection to each other. There are Jewish humanists and Christian humanists, Buddhist humanists and all kinds of other people who find the ideas of humanism to resonate for them.
I don't know that what I think about the new ad campaign matters much. I'm not a member of the AHA, and neither is my congregation. The American Ethical Union, of which my congregation is a part, has a national relationship with the AHA, but no control over what they do. But when I see those ads, I know I want to raise my hand and say they don't speak for me!
I'm not willing to cede the idea of humanism, though. It's too beautiful, too deep. It's about human dignity and cherishing a faith in human goodness, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. So I suppose what I want to say to the AHA marketing experts is: despite what you've created in this ad campaign, I'll keep the faith.
4 comments:
I am sorry to read your comment critical of the AHA campaign. It make me think twice before approaching your Society. I had the impression that the Ethical Cultural movement was focused on Humanism of the Secular kind. The one not mixed with superstitions, dogmas, unscientific views, exclusion of human for any reason, and other principles central to the religious groups.
I think that it is important to present and contrast what the different communities believe. I don't think it serves any purpose to ignore those differences or to hide them under the justification that we can work together or that we share SOME principles. With that attitude you could end working together with very nasty people only because they, sometime, do something good.
I think that it is in the DIFFERENCES where you can see who is really focusing on the Human Being as center of our ethical concerns, and who is focusing on the commandments of a Divine Entity defined as the creator/owner of the Human Beings who demand from them irrational obedience and eternal adoration.
In my opinion, nothing short of Clean (rational, non-dogmatic) Humanism can be considered ethical.
well said.
I want to thank both commenters for their thoughts (and clarify that based on the order I posted the comments, Peter was responding to the original post, not the comment).
People have often wondered with Ethical Culture is secular or religious humanism...and there is certainly some debate within the movement. For me, the answer is clear: we were founded as a religious movement, and a religious movement we remain. There are other outlets for secular humanism, and some of them are wonderful. But our emphasis on community, on living our values, and on what I can only call a faith statement (the belief in the inherent worth of every person) feels pretty religious to me.
That's why, I suppose, I'm so interested in interfaith work, and eager to find the similarities rather than the differences. That doesn't mean there are no distinctions--and obviously we shouldn't partner with members of other faiths who disagree with us on issues. But there are so many things we do agree on, that missing our chance for connection feels like a real shame to me.
This was especially true for me last year, when I worked with DC Clergy United, an interfaith group comprised of Christian ministers, rabbis, Unitarian Universalist ministers, Ethical Culture Leaders, and an imam...all working to support marriage equality in the District of Columbia. I didn't agree with all the theological points of my colleagues, but our ability to create change together--because of our shared belief in the worth of every person--was powerful to witness.
Thanks for your answer.
I still think that an ethical group should keep high the flag of its principles, even more than the list of actions performed. I think principles are the engine and the heart of any action.
I see no problem in joining other ethical people in doing ethical actions, but at the same time I expect humanists to clearly and forcefully declare WHY they do it. And that they do it for different reasons that a religious group does it.
It confuses me when -living in community and in accordance to ethical values- is called something religious and -to respect the value of every human- being is called a faith position. Normally, I associate faith with non-rational believes and most religions with some form of theism, afterlife, obedience to revealed texts and attempts to connect with the Divinity.
For a political civil human rights issue like marriage equality, why do you value so high to join efforts with religious groups (that do not consider the human being and this life as the central points of their action, and not with any other secular humanists, atheists, agnostic, anarchists, liberals or any other political group who do focus on human rights and civil matters?
Please help me to understand why a movement that sound like focused in a philosophical subject as ethics, value actions above ideas, and in the process it walks away from other humanist groups in order to defend non human centered groups like some of the abrahamic religions.
Don't you find many or even more thing to agree on in the secular humanist movement?
All the best.
A very confused old one.
Post a Comment