Now, more than ever, America needs a Day of Reason.

With the religious right’s influence in Congress, and with the threat to our Judiciary looming large, there has never been as important a moment in which to affirm our commitment to the Constitutional separation of religion and government, and to celebrate Reason as the guiding principle of our secular democracy.

During the past year we have witnessed the intrusion of religious ideology into all spheres of our government, with such assaults on the wall separating church and state as:

Faith-based initiatives in federal agencies that give preferential treatment to religious organizations which proselytize and employ discriminatory hiring practices;
Restrictions on important scientific research on the basis of religious objections;
Attempts to introduce biblical creationism and its alter-ego “Intelligent Design” into our public school science curricula;
The appointment of judges who willingly place their religious beliefs above our laws;
Battles over the display of the Ten Commandments and other overtly religious icons in schools and on courthouses;
Religiously motivated restrictions on access to reproductive services and information;

As in previous years, this year’s National Day of Reason is scheduled to coincide with the Congressionally-mandated and federally-supported National Day of Prayer on Thursday, May 5, 2011. We invite all who value the separation of religion and government to join us in commemorating the Day of Reason, and in building awareness for this important cause.

Why National Day of Reason?

Rep. Pete Stark – only openly atheist member of Congress

Rep. Pete Stark (D – CA), the only openly atheist member of Congress, issued a proclamation Recognizing the National Day of Reason on the House floor on April 27th:

The National Day of Reason celebrates the application of reason and the positive impact it has had on humanity. It is also an opportunity to reaffirm the Constitutional separation of religion and government.

. . .

Our nation faces many problems—bringing our troops home from Afghanistan, creating jobs, educating our children, and protecting our safety net from irresponsible cuts. We will solve these issues through the application of reason. We must also protect women’s reproductive choices, the integrity of scientific research, and our public education system from those who would hide behind religious dogma to undermine them.

FLOOR STATEMENT: Recognizing the National Day of Reason

There is a need to back off the intrusion of religion into government. For example, in Ohio, the GOP controlled legislature passed 5 different anti-abortion laws since 2011 while state and local governments have had to make severe cuts to services and education.

The priorities of the religious conservatives are out of balance.

The National Day of Reason in 2013 is on May 2nd.

No related posts.

Margaret Sanger (1879 – 1966) is a controversial figure in history both for what she accomplished, distributing contraception information and the founding of Planned Parenthood, and for other views she held, such as support for the now discredited theory of Eugenics. It’s her effort to fight against religious and social conservatives for the right of women to have control over their own bodies that she is a Humanist you should know.

It is generally conceded by sociologists and scientists that a nation cannot go on indefinitely multiplying without eventually reaching the point when population presses upon means of subsistence. While in this country there is perhaps no need for immediate alarm on this account, there are many other reasons for demanding birth control. At present, for the poor mother, there is only one alternative to the necessity of bearing children year after year, regardless of her health, of the welfare of the children she already has, and of the income of the family. This alternative is abortion, which is so common as to be almost universal, especially where there are rigid laws against imparting information for the prevention of conception. It has been estimated that there are about one million abortions in the United States each year.

To force poor mothers to resort to this dangerous and health destroying method of curtailing their families is cruel, wicked, and heartless, and it is often the mothers who care most about the welfare of their children who are willing to undergo any pain or risk to prevent the coming of infants for whom they cannot properly care.

The Case for Birth Control
(first published in the Woman Citizen, Vol. 8, February 23, 1924, pages 17-18.)

In her fight to legalize contraception, Sanger spent time in jail, wrote thousands of words, and spoke to hundreds of groups across the country. She also helped in the effort to develop the first FDA approved oral contraceptive pill, Enovid, starting in 1960. She also lived long enough to see the Comstock laws ruled unconstitutional.

Margaret Sanger was awarded the 1957 Humanist of the Year by the American Humanist Association.

Margaret Sanger views on sin, marriage, and planned parenthood (1957)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J4cTGZ1Pdw

No related posts.

Guest Post by Derrick S.

As Humanists, we may think of ourselves as “good without God,” but the expression “evil little thing” captures what many people in the United States think of someone supporting Humanism. Humanists face potentially serious consequences from prejudice and discrimination. At the Reason Rally, Humanists helped make a safe space where people could be honest about their Humanism and enjoy the company of others. Now, many of us want to find and create more safe spaces.

A safe space for Humanists is one that encourages respectful relationships and critical thinking. So our question becomes how do we create spaces where people would be welcomed and ideas considered?

Social psychology research by Robert Cialdini has many helpful ideas. For example, it helps to generate liking by saying kind things, listening, finding things in common, giving gifts, and exchanging favors. Barbara Fredrickson found that people who feel secure and happy welcome diversity.

Robert Cialdini’s research offers other suggestions. It helps to notice things people already do to support us. We can ask in what ways is someone already thinking reasonably or supporting “liberty and justice for all”? We can point out things people already do that fit with a Humanist world view or show support for Humanists.

Other people or authorities may also support Humanism. Many Europeans, actors, scientists, authors, musicians, artists, political activists, and leaders are Humanists. It helps to mention those people and show that we’re not alone.

Generally, putting these strategies to work takes a commitment to careful thinking and thoughtful caring. The word “because” needs to be one of our most important words. When we put reason and compassion in action, we wisely lead by example and make room for life based on facts and love.

Fortunately, Humanists in central Ohio who participate in and support the Humanist Community already have some safe space. Letting others know that we have a group helps make it all right to be a Humanist. At our April Humanist program, we will be discussing our experiences of coming out as Humanists and talking about the challenges that people may have faced.

Strategies for opening minds:

Dr. Robert Cialdini

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQp0mT0yrSU

Dr. Barbara Fredrickson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7dFDHzV36g

[This message was originally presented by Derrick S. for the Humanist Community of Central Ohio's "Dial-A-Humanist" service. For more information checkout HCCO's Official Website]

No related posts.

Robert Green Ingersoll (1833 – 1899) was, in his time, the greatest orator in the United States. He was also known as the “The Great Agnostic”. Yes, Ingersoll wasn’t a religious preacher, he was a preacher for freethought. Although he was popular with the public he also had to deal with criticism from the establishment which also included preventing him from trying for elective office. He is one Humanist you should know.

He was the son of a abolitionist-leaning Presbyterian preacher, whose liberal views forced the family to move many times. It was the bad treatment of his father by members of the various churches he preached at, including full blown church trials, that lead Robert to agnosticism.

Ingersoll was also a strong supporter of the separation of church and state. In 1876 he said:

So our fathers said: “We will form a secular government, and under the flag with which we are going to enrich the air, we will allow every man to worship God as he thinks best.” They said: “Religion is an individual thing between each man and his creator, and he can worship as he pleases and as he desires.” And why did they do this? The history of the world warned them that the liberty of man was not safe in the clutch and grasp of any church. They had read of and seen the thumb-screws, the racks, and the dungeons of the Inquisition. They knew all about the hypocrisy of the olden time. They knew that the church had stood side by side with the throne; that the high priests were hypocrites, and that the kings were robbers. They also knew that if they gave power to any church, it would corrupt the best church in the world. And so they said that power must not reside in a church, or in a sect, but power must be wherever humanity is — in the great body of the people. And the officers and servants of the people must be responsible to them. And so I say again, as I said in the commencement, this [The Declaration of Independence] is the wisest, the profoundest, the bravest political document that ever was written and signed by man.

Centennial Oration (1876)

He was also a strong Humanist even if that term didn’t exist in his days. Also in 1876 he wrote:

Reason, Observation and Experience – the Holy Trinity of Science – have taught us that happiness is the only good; that the time to be happy is now, and the way to be happy is to make others so. This is enough for us. In this belief we are content to live and die. If by any possibility the existence of a power superior to, and independent of, nature shall be demonstrated, there will then be time enough to kneel. Until then, let us stand erect.

from “The Gods” (1876)

His writings and speeches have been preserved and available in various online sites.

Robert Green Ingersoll Official Website

No related posts.

As I looked out at all the young people cheering for Richard Dawkins and Tim Minchin, however, I also realized how important it is that humanism, and not just atheism, be part of this revolution. Indeed, for humanists, the success of the secular movement is only half the battle. After all, humanism is not just an arm of secularism, but a hybrid of the secular movement and the progressive movement.

If this seems difficult to understand, bear in mind that Karl Rove is reportedly an atheist, but he certainly would not find the American Humanist Association to be a comfortable fit for his worldview. Atheism, which addresses only the issue of the existence of gods, has no social, political, or economic philosophy, nor must an atheist reject all supernaturalism. An atheist might believe in astrology, ESP, magic, and of course, even worse, the conservative politics of Karl Rove (though thankfully most don’t).

For Humanists, the Secular Movement Is Only Half the Battle

I agree with Niose that Humanism is the better way to achieve progressive policy goals but I didn’t appreciate the painting of atheism as only having people like Karl Rove. I personally know some Humanists who are anti-abortion and anti-gay rights for example.

Humanism has many aspects that are progressive like having humans solve human problems and supporting economic justice but Humanism isn’t automatically progressive – it still takes progressively minded people to move it that way.

I also feel that one of the primary principles of Humanism is non-theism. You can be a believer and be a humanitarian but you can’t be a Humanist.

With that said I don’t see why there has to be any family conflict. I never look to see how my Humanism is better than my atheism or anyone’s non-belief. We only make up about 20% of the population so we need to work together on common goals and not let differences get in the way – like writing an essay on a public website saying how much better your philosophy is than your brother’s.

Here are 5 points I use to maximize my relationships in the freethought community (note I didn’t create these but I agree with the intent):

Don’t assume everyone shares my principles – Principles are facts that are known to be true and thus are non-negotiable

Don’t expect that everyone knows my convictions – Convictions are the unspoken statements we make by living our lives derived from principles.

Don’t force others to conform to your standards – Standards are the practical day-to-day living out of my convictions. It is at this level that tolerance of another’s views is introduced to the matter. Tolerance means simply accepting or allowing something NOT requiring approval and/or promotion of it.

Know the difference between your standards and your preferences – The end result of the same specific task given to two different people may look very much the same. However, the route taken to arrive at that end result may have been worlds apart. (Example: Two co-workers drive entirely different roads to arrive at the same restaurant after work.)

Keep your hangups to yourself – We all have them and we all need to get over them. This is where “you’re a big boy… deal with it comes into play. (Example: Genuinely arguing with the aforementioned co-worker that your route is by far the better way and “here are the 11 reasons why.”) Seriously… who really cares?

Adapted from: 5 Keys To Making Molehills Out of Mountains

The last 3 points are the most important to me. I wish more people in the freethought community would adopt them so we would have less family squabbles.

No related posts.

Principle (6) urges us to avoid tribal and ideological loyalties, and consistency requires that we apply this stricture to ourselves. The world does not need another ideological sorting mechanism—something that divides humanity into an in-group and an out-group, an “us” and a “them.” As its name suggests, humanism means to be inclusive. (The term’s main weakness is that it appears to exclude other species from the expanding circle of moral concern. Eventually, this weakness will have to be addressed.)

Framing Humanism, or How to Win the Culture War

I am very familiar with this line of thinking from my days debating a member of a local UU church. This is what he use to call having “Big Tent Humanism”. He wanted to open up the tent to any and all who call themselves Humanists except if you were also an atheist.

Norman, in his essay, lists six principles as a test for Humanism yet rails against excluding people. How can you have a test for something and not exclude people? This isn’t Tee Ball. You can’t have a test and everyone passes. Of course Norman knows that too. Just like my friend’s Big Tent, Norman’s “Framing Humanism” excludes people – specifically Atheists:

I don’t believe in God, but I think it’s a tactical mistake to, by definition, exclude theists from our ranks. What do we want to say to the billions of people who subscribe to humanist principles (like 1-6 above), but still cling to belief in God? ‘Sorry, but you must ditch your imaginary friend before you can join us?’ What do we accomplish by such exclusion? The first thing we do, whether we intend to or not, is erect a barrier to constructive dialogue. But humanism is, above all, a commitment to such dialogue. Real dialogue works a kind of magic, but only when participants set aside tribal loyalties and reason together openly, honestly and, dare I say it, in good faith. We want reason-giving dialogue to work its magic on them, of course, but the price is openness to the possibility that the exchange might change us as well. That’s the way dialogue works; it’s a two-way street. Framing humanism in a way that excludes theists in advance comes across as fearful of what they might teach us. Here’s an idea: let’s embrace our commitment to fearless inquiry and truly ‘walk the talk.’ In this context, that means avoiding a self-conception that creates artificial barriers to collaborative inquiry.

And let’s face it: our qualms about supernaturalism are hardly first principles of humanism. We don’t embrace atheism prior to investigative inquiry; our doubts emerge from investigative inquiry. Sure, many of us have traveled that investigative path, and we’re eager to broadcast our findings. It doesn’t follow, though, that it is wise to present our atheism up front. In fact, doing so is often unwise, for it suggests—falsely—that our skepticism about gods is a presupposition rather than an outcome of our inquiries. When we reinforce the impression that rejection of god is one of our axioms, we appear dogmatic, and afford others ready grounds for dismissing what we have to say. Our atheism is derivative—a conclusion, not a premise, of the arguments we need to share with believers.

Norman wants a Big Tent with a sign that reads “Atheists Need Not Apply”.

He falls into the same trap that gets believers and others opposed to atheists. Atheism is about the God question and nothing more. If you look closer, Atheism can’t be separated from Humanism.

Here is the AHA’s own definition of Humanism:

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

“[W]ithout theism and other supernatural beliefs” is part of the definition of atheism too. An Atheist has a FAR shorter path to Humanism (and less need for redefining one’s beliefs) than a theist or other believer. Take out the atheism inherent in Humanism and what you have is generic humanitarianism.

I get that we shouldn’t lead with our atheism but I disagree that we should hide it or minimize it. That would be dishonest. One sure way to block a discussion is to be dishonest about your arguments.

Besides why is it my job to make discussions “easier” by hiding my atheism? I’m not the one who gets the vapors about my non-belief. It isn’t my job to humor the believer or protect their sensibilities.

To win any war, a force has to overwhelm their opponents with firepower. You don’t win a war by hiding your any of your weapons.

No related posts.