Humanist Network News Podcast #52: Humanist Heroines

Remembering Lloyd Morain

By BETTE CHAMBERS

For Humanist Network News
July 21, 2010

I met Lloyd and Mary Morain in the late '60s and have enjoyed a mutual friendship with them ever since. And while it's hard to separate them when writing about only one half of this extraordinary pair, I must note that Mary died several years ago. The American Humanist Association's national office building in Washington, DC is named in their joint honor: the Lloyd and Mary Morain Humanist Center.

Lloyd served as president of the American Humanist Association on two separate occasions: the late ‘60s and early '70s. And for all of his adult life, Lloyd was a generous benefactor of the AHA. When Paul Kurtz elected not to continue as editor of the Humanist magazine in 1978, Lloyd stepped in and served for many years--often contributing extra funds to add exceptional art work for its covers. Another of Lloyd's main and ongoing projects was to provide free Humanist magazine subscriptions for numerous public libraries throughout the country, many of them then subsequently subscribing on their own.

Lloyd and Mary both also founded the International Humanist and Ethical Union in 1952 along with Harold Blackham and James van Praag.* Now with a worldwide membership of over 100 humanist, rationalist, secular, ethical culture, atheist and freethought organizations in more than 40 countries, the IHEU represents world humanist interests as an international NGO with special consultative status with the United Nations.

Lloyd's practice of his humanism was widely eclectic. It would be trite to call him a "Renaissance Humanist;" he was a renaissance in himself. He collected aboriginal art from many continents and he and Mary in recent years had built a free museum to contain his collection in Bend, Oregon. Earlier, the two bought an old hotel in Salinas, CA to house itinerant farm workers and laborers, which the residents operated themselves. Lloyd's book, The Human Cougar, chronicles the lives of this "endangered species" of fiercely independent drifters.

Yet perhaps Lloyd and Mary's most significant book, Humanism as the Next Step, now in a revised edition, still speaks plainly to a wide spectrum of people no longer satisfied with traditional religions and creeds. Without including tedious "high-order abstractions," this vital little book invites readers to examine the life-affirming philosophy of humanism and to take that next step toward a more fulfilling and joyous life.

For more information about Lloyd Morain and his remarkable life, you can read AHA Executive Director Roy Speckhardt's speech presenting Morain with the 2007 Humanist Heritage Award. The AHA also issued a press release last week mourning the loss of this great man.

Bette Chambers is a past president of the American Humanist Association.

* Correction: The original version of this article incorrectly listed Lloyd and Mary Morain as the only founders of IHEU. 

Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix to Complete its Humanist Community Center

By SUSAN SACKETT

For Humanist Network News
July 21, 2010

Humanism on the Move

STAFF REPORT

Constance McMillen's School to Pay Damages and Instate Anti-Discrimination Policy

Constance McMillen, the Mississippi teen whose high school cancelled prom rather than allow her to attend with her girlfriend, has been awarded $35,000 in damages, says the ACLU. The Fulton Mississippi School Board responsible for the civil rights violation has also been ordered to adopt a sexual orientation anti-discrimination policy.   

"We're in a conservative area of the country, where people tend to think we can do what we like," lead ACLU counsel Christine Sun told CNN. "This case sends a strong message that that's not going to fly anymore."

The European Union to Hold Summit with Atheists and Freemasons

Brussels will hold an EU summit with atheists and freemasons this October, opening a political dialogue similar to the annual summit held with Europe's religious leaders. Belgium, which financially supports both churches and humanist organizations, was the driving force behind the move.

Reza Aslan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Article

For Humanist Network News
July 21, 2010

Reza Aslan--a guy I normally liked watching when he appeared on The Daily Show and The Rachel Maddow Show--has a horrible piece up at the Washington Post website regurgitating every nasty atheist stereotype you can think of.

He starts off with a plain old mistake when he explains the London Atheist Bus Campaign:

... a friend informed me that the driving force behind the London bus ads was none other than the dean of the so-called "new atheists"--Darwin's Rottweiler, himself--Richard Dawkins. If you are wondering what an esteemed evolutionary biologist and respected Oxford University professor is doing placing billboards around London proselytizing atheism, you are not alone.

Dawkins wasn't the driving force. Columnist Ariane Sherine was. Blogger Jon Worth was. The British Humanist Association was. Dawkins gave some seed money toward it and supported the campaign, but he wasn't the mastermind.

Aslan didn't do his research.

And that's just the first paragraph.

Let's continue:

The new atheists have their own special interest groups and ad campaigns. They even have their own holiday (International Blasphemy Day).

We have our own holiday?!

More like we have a popular Facebook group. It's not like we're taking a day off work to get together and say, "Fuck Allah."

Here's the worst part:

It is no exaggeration to describe the movement popularized by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens as a new and particularly zealous form of fundamentalism--an atheist fundamentalism. The parallels with religious fundamentalism are obvious and startling: the conviction that they are in sole possession of truth (scientific or otherwise), the troubling lack of tolerance for the views of their critics (Dawkins has compared creationists to Holocaust deniers), the insistence on a literalist reading of scripture (more literalist, in fact, than one finds among most religious fundamentalists), the simplistic reductionism of the religious phenomenon, and, perhaps most bizarrely, their overwhelming sense of siege: the belief that they have been oppressed and marginalized by Western societies and are just not going to take it anymore.

Oh boy... the "atheist fundamentalist" argument. As soon as someone uses that phrase (in a serious way), you should tune them out immediately because nothing they say afterwards will be credible.

I've said variations of this before but here you go:

When I think of Muslim fundamentalists, violent images come to mind. When I think of Christian fundamentalists, I think of ignorant people who cling to literal interpretations of their Bibles instead of opening their eyes to reality.

When I think of "atheist fundamentalists," I think of books.

There's no comparison.

We're not in "sole possession of truth," but we do think science is the best method to discover it. Does Aslan think truth is found in a holy book?

Are we lacking tolerance? Of course not. You don't see us blowing up churches or beating up Muslims. We're vocal about our opposition to irrational thinking. That is all.

Dawkins compares Creationists to Holocaust deniers because both groups deny an obvious reality. That has nothing to do with tolerance.

Are we insistent "on a literalist reading of scripture"? If so, it's because the churches stress it. Nearly half of our country believes that men and women were created in our present form less than 10,000 years ago. That's appalling and idiotic.

We're thankful that many Christians don't take their scripture literally. Yet even they will insist that there's literal truth in the stories of Jesus' life.

Do we feel "oppressed and marginalized"? Damn right, we do. We're the most distrusted, least electable group of people in the country.

Aslan then spends 500 words complaining that we atheists just don't understand religion. From what I can tell, he's more interested in our religious literacy than he is with any sense of whether or not there's any truth to what different faiths believe.

I think there's value in both religious literacy and pointing out that these faiths are misguided and dangerous. There's a reason to learn about Greek mythology because it gives us insight into how those people thought about the world. There's a reason to study Christianity because it's the lens through which so many people (incorrectly) view the world.

But no New Atheist is against that. We're against the notion that we should take their mythologies as truth. We're against people taking those faulty beliefs and transforming them into public policy. They're made up stories and we want people to acknowledge that.

The new atheists will say that religion is not just wrong but evil, as if religion has a monopoly on radicalism and violence; if one is to blame religion for acts of violence carried out in religion's name then one must also blame nationalism for fascism, socialism for Nazism, communism for Stalinism, even science for eugenics. The new atheists claim that people of faith are not just misguided but stupid--the stock response of any absolutist.

*facepalm*

The practice of science is not to blame for the promotion of eugenics. Communism isn't to blame for Stalinism. Individuals distort ideas into their own agendas all the time.

But some holy books directly call for the slaughter of dissenters. There are people who take those writings seriously. That should be frightening to every single person.

As Dawkins has said before, religion isn't the root of all evil, but it's to blame for quite a bit of it.

This is an irresponsible piece written by a person who knows nothing about the subject he's writing about. Refute him, ignore him, but don't take him seriously anymore.

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.

Ask Richard: I'm Worried My Future Mother-in-Law Won't Accept Me

For Humanist Network News
July 21, 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've been an atheist for all my adult life. When I first came out to my Lutheran parents, they were surprisingly accepting, and now I regularly (and respectfully) discuss religion and current religious issues with them.

A few years ago, I met a wonderful man I'll call Craig. He was raised by Catholic parents, but never really considered himself a religious person. He is not as actively passionate about his religious opinions as I am; religion is more "irrelevant" to him than anything else. He has never discussed his secular preference with his parents the way I did.

I love his parents dearly and I'm thankful to consider them family. However, I'm starting to get anxious about the fact that my atheism has never been mentioned to them. Craig and I are planning to get married and have children, and I know his mother will expect church bells, baptisms and all the other religious rituals to which she adheres. For all her wonderful qualities--and there are many--I know that she has a tendency toward superficial judgment or narrow-mindedness. I don't think she knows any other atheists (or knows that she knows them), and I certainly don't think she's eager to.

I am terrified of what will happen when I inevitably have to tell her I don't believe what she believes. With her conservative, sometimes dated perceptions of various minority groups, I regularly hear her refer to people differently once she finds out they are somehow unlike her. For example, the "nice boys that just moved in" suddenly became "those gay fellows;" the friends Craig grew up with are referred to by their skin tone and not their names, occupations or relation to Craig. There is no hostility in her voice and she rarely makes comments that are openly racist or homophobic. But she always makes it glaringly evident that, in her mind, everyone is either in the in-group ("like her") or the out-group ("not like her").

I know in the pit of my stomach that she will immediately oust me into her mental out-group once she knows I am an atheist. And yes, yes, I realize that as future family members we ought to have plenty of time to discuss and debunk any prejudices she may have. But honestly, I dread being referred to or thought of as "my atheist daughter-in-law" or "the atheist girl my son married." I am so much more than that, and I agonize about her suddenly writing me off by slapping that label on me at every opportunity. She is truly a generous, warm, caring person who has shown me nothing but kindness from the moment I met her, and I hate to think our relationship might become suddenly strained because of her snap judgment. Since my coming-out with my own parents went over relatively well (they're very progressive and open-minded), I've never felt so worried or anxious about anyone finding out I'm non-religious. It's starting to feel like I'm deliberately hiding it from them.

--A Loyal Reader

Dear Loyal Reader,

Take a look at how intimidated you are by her. You use terms like anxious, terrified, pit of your stomach, worried and agonize. It sounds a little like you think her opinion of you makes you what you are. But if she decides that you're a codfish, you do not grow scales and fins. If your atheism is not a moral failing to you, then it's not a moral failing whether or not she thinks it is. You didn't have to face much adversity coming out to your own parents, so perhaps you didn't have to really grow strong and confident about your views. Be sure that you are free of any less-than-conscious shame or guilt about being an atheist that might be aggravated by having to face her "judgment."

Remember that the only power she has over you is the power that you give away to her. You are correct when you say that you are so much more than your atheism--or any of your many other qualities that she might, from her lofty, superior level, find lacking about you. Question your image of her. You were very tactful and kind in your description, but the picture you painted is clear:

Your future mother-in-law is just a basic bigot.

You say that she's generous, warm, caring and kind. Actually, all that good will is not broadly and generously offered. It is highly conditional, given only to people who fit very narrow criteria. She judges others negatively by their category rather than by their conduct. It is her disapproval that she broadly and generously offers, even if it is softly stated. A bigot with genteel manners is still a bigot.

Bigots are not usually monsters. They have been taught since childhood to belong to a group by excluding others from that group, so they are ignorant, provincial and brittle. The one mental skill they all have in common is their ability to disregard all the evidence that contradicts their biases. But their upbringing is not the only thing that can drive their bigotry. Sometimes their level of self esteem is much lower than the self-importance they pretend to have. Some of them have a hard time liking themselves unless they can continuously look down upon others. Without an out-group to sneer at, they get depressed.

Once you understand how sad and pathetic their state really is, they cease to be so formidable. They can infuriate or alarm you, but if you want to neutralize them in your mind, just feel sorry for them. Then you can challenge them with vigor, dismiss them with disdain or simply ignore them, depending on whatever is advantageous to you. You need not fight every single battle, nor must you knuckle under and make nice every time either. You can do whatever works for you.

So what makes this particular garden variety bigot so much more fearsome? Why is her good opinion of you so important?

She's the mother of your betrothed. I think you're worried that she may have more influence with him than you know. Even he may not be aware of how much pull she might have in certain circumstances. Rather than simply having to face her disapproval, I think you're concerned that she will be able to get a wedge in between the two of you.

If Craig were an opinionated atheist as are you, then I think you would feel less at risk, but he is simply disinterested and apathetic about it all and that could still allow him to harbor latent beliefs that might emerge later. Sometimes such things change over time, getting stronger or weaker.

So this is the time to have a long, detailed talk with Craig and get several things crystal clear. You've known each other for a few years, so you already have some understandings between you. But as a marriage counselor, I was often surprised by how many incorrect generalizations couples had made about each other, based on partial understanding and lots of assumptions. Far too many atheist/religious couples assume that all sorts of things will just work themselves out, but they discover to their dismay that they have left unattended the single most divisive set of ideas invented by man.

First, ask Craig's advice about how and when you should come out to his mother. He has had to live with her judgmental, conceited attitudes his whole life, so he may have some helpful suggestions and the two of you can come up with a plan with contingencies.

Then begin to clarify where both of you stand on several issues, hammer out clear agreements with compromises that neither of you will resent and write them all down. These things are complicated, and the details can get muddled in memory by the time they become pertinent. You don't want to have quarrels over who did or did not agree to some detail. Here is an incomplete list of some of the things that pertain to religion:

The wedding ceremony: Agree on the vows, the officiant, who pays for it, who is invited, where it will be. Will you keep your present name, hyphenate or take his name?

The roles you play in the marriage: Will anything fundamentally change after you're married? Are you equal partners in all things, or does one defer to the other in some areas? Don't assume things. Be explicitly clear. "Not talking about it" does not indicate love or trust; it only indicates foolishness.

Children: When and how many? What about birth control? Baptism? Confirmation? Church attendance and activities of all sorts? Education is a big topic, full of potential controversies. Formal or informal introduction to religion? How will you explain your and Craig's slightly differing views to the kids and what will you say to them about their grandparents' beliefs? Establish ground rules for grandparents or other religious family members when they're alone with your kids.

Family life: Will grace be said at the table? How about when your in-laws visit? How religious or secular will your holidays be? Details. If you'll excuse the expression, the devil is in the details.

Loyal Reader, although part of this is about you feeling more strength and confidence within yourself, the other part is about you and Craig forming a solid bond that can withstand pressures from outside. He needs to be willing and ready to stand up to his mother to defend his wife, if that becomes necessary. He may have been able to avoid a clash with his parents so far, but eventually he won't be able to step around conflicts.

If push really comes to shove with his mother about any of these or other matters, you should also have clear agreements with Craig about what the two of you will do to assert yourselves against her. If you know because you've discussed it that you can count on his support and that his loyalty is to you first and foremost, then you can feel more confident when dealing with your in-laws.

--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.

Letters to the Editor

For Humanist Network News
July 21, 2010

To send a letter to HNN, look for "Letter to the Editor" link in the small box in the upper right-hand corner of every article in HNN.

"Injustice" is the Wrong Word to Describe the BSA's Membership Policy

(Re: The Greater Worcester Humanists Take On the Boy Scouts of America, Humanist Network News, July 14, 2010.)

The BSA, like any other private institution (or person acting in a private capacity) has the right to hold, and act on, objectionable beliefs so long as there is no infringement on the rights of others. People may, of course, express their disagreement with the BSA. However, I think the following observations are worth nothing: (a) labeling the BSA's actions as injustice is conceptual corruption as it implies that someone has not got what he deserves--and no boy should claim that he deserves membership in the BSA even though he does not meet their rational or irrational entry requirements; (b) time and other resources spent giving the BSA undue attention could be more gainfully employed boycotting them and forming an alternative.

We who preach tolerance should realize that it extends to the intolerant--as long as they don't infringe the rights of others--and that tolerance does not imply acceptance.

--Robert Henry, St. Catherine, Jamaica

Undivine Comedy

Comics

July 21, 2010

The Greater Worcester Humanists Take on the Boy Scouts of America

By JESSICA SHEEHY

While the debate rages on regarding the Boy Scouts of America's discriminatory membership policy--which denies membership to atheists and the LGBT community--the public has heard from countless organizational leaders representing atheists, LGBT rights advocates and even many religious communities about the injustice of the policy.

For their part, the BSA's national leaders have made their support for the discriminatory policy clear, while some former scouts have taken it upon themselves to speak out both in favor and against the policy. There is one tier within the Boys Scouts hierarchy, however, which has remained notably silent: local BSA groups.

Many local BSA leaders have yet to make their positions public. Privately, they tell members and potential donors that they reject the national policy of discrimination that's been put in place above their heads, but according to the national standards, local troops are in practice compelled to comply.

This double talk and hands-off attitude allows the BSA to maintain support for local divisions all over the country while keeping unpopular policies in place. If the BSA is fighting so hard for their "right" to discriminate, then someone somewhere must be making use of it, but the local groups aren't owning up.

However, one American Humanist Association chapter, the Greater Worcester Humanists, has had enough and is urging local BSA leaders to speak up in response to questions that have long gone unanswered. Their argument: the Boy Scouts cannot be allowed to continue trying to get support from people on both sides of the issue and the public deserves to know exactly where the local BSA groups stand.

Three Massachusetts BSA leaders were publicly contacted: Matthew Conlon and Jay Garee from the Mohegan Council, and Gerald Bieler from the Nashua Valley Council.

Of the three emails sent by the GWH to local leaders, not a single one was answered--which suggests that they have a lot to work out within their organizations.

American Humanist Association chapters and affiliates all over the country are encouraged to make an issue of the contradictions within their own local BSA groups and keep the pressure on local officials to answer publicly. With enough outcry, BSA leaders will be forced to break their silence and issue a response.

And if people consistently reject any contradiction and demand clarification, every possible outcome is better than the current situation.

The most desirable result of course would be that the local leaders stand up to the national figureheads as a demonstration that their policies need to change to meet both internal and external demands. If their stance causes further uproar, it would finally be in the BSA's best interest to change their policy.

However, the BSA higher-ups might still refuse to change. David Niose, president of the American Humanist Association and of the Greater Worcester Humanists, suggests that, if after publicly speaking out against the policy of discrimination without change within the national BSA, local leaders could break off and create an all-inclusive BSA alternative. If they did so, they would surely gain wide support from the public.

And even if the local leaders do concede and begin openly discriminating, at the very least the American people would breathe easier knowing where the BSA stands and they could take it upon themselves to boycott a shamelessly hypocritical and discriminatory organization. This would certainly change the BSA's reputation and, rather than being tricked and deceived, people could make informed decisions. The result over time would be a nation-wide loss of support for the BSA.

It should be made clear, however, that this is not an attack on the local council leaders. They are the ones who work so hard, often as volunteers, to help local children grow into respectful and capable adults. The Telegram & Gazette quoted GWH spokesman Christopher Lackey as saying, "It's our understanding that the local councils are run by decent people who want to do the right thing and it's a shame that the national BSA casts a cloud of intolerance over scouting."

We can only hope that these decent people will speak up and that improvements can be made so that boys of all creeds, orientations and varying capabilities can choose to participate in an organization like the scouts.

Jessica Sheehy is a communications and policy intern at the American Humanist Association.

Humanism on the Move

STAFF REPORT

For Humanist Network News

July 14, 2010

Student Atheist Group Protests Professor’s Dismissal

The University of Illinois has fired a professor for expressing anti-gay sentiments. Kenneth Howell, a professor of Catholicism, released an e-mail to his students addressing his beliefs on the immorality of homosexuality, an act the university deemed unacceptable. The Atheists, Agnostics and Free-Thinkers of the University of Illinois, however, released a statement condemning Howell’s dismissal. 

“In spite of all our differences Dr. Howell and AAF are both committed to the open and free discussion of all topics of merit,” the statement read. “We are equally committed to freedom of speech and to the virtue of public debate. We each see the university has a special place a nation should set aside for the free exchange of all ideas--offensive to some or otherwise. A campus is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, not an exercise in authoritarian squelching of unpopular voices.”

Florida Atheists File Prayer Law Suit

The Atheists of Florida filed a federal law suit in response to the vocal prayer preceding each Lakeland, Florida city commission meeting. Though clergy members from various religions have been invited to lead the prayer, Ellen Beth Wachs, president of the Atheists of Florida, believes a moment of silence to be a more respectful alternative.

"It offends nobody, and everybody can choose what they want to do during that moment of silence,” Wachs told Tampa Bay Online. “If you choose to pray you're free to pray. If you want to do a grocery list during that moment of silence you're free to do a grocery list. Nobody knows what you're doing, but nobody's stopping you from praying."

American Atheists Speak Out Against World Net Daily Writer

The American Atheists spoke out against Crissy Satterfield’s endorsement of vandalism of a North Carolina Secular Association billboard (the group put up the billboard with additional funds provided by FreeThoughtAction, an adjunct of the American Humanist Association). Satterfield, a writer for WorldNetDaily.com, asserted that atheists had vandalized her beliefs for years, hence the vandalism was suitable retribution.   

“It's one thing to disagree with what other people--Atheists or Muslims or Christians--are saying, but endorsing violence and incivility in the form of vandalism crosses an important line,” said Ed Buckner, president of American Atheists. “When people are intimidated by physical violence for politely (or strongly) stating their views, the First Amendment rights of everyone in our society are threatened.”

 Amazing Meeting 8 Held In Las Vegas

The Amazing Meeting 8, a four-day convention featuring critical thinking workshops and an array of engaging skeptic lectures, was held in Las Vegas last week. Featured speakers included Paul Kurtz, David Javerbaum and Richard Dawkins.