Humanism for Parents

I am in the final stages of publishing a book called Humanism for Parents that provides information to parents and potential parents (or even caregivers) about how to raise children without reliance on religion. By some accounts there are 1.1 billion people who don't believe or don't practice religion. There are plenty of books out about parenting with religion but few that are specifically secular. This book describes the aspects of parenting that are particular to a non-religious household.

It is currently available at the publisher (Lulu), and will be available at Amazon, Google Books, Barnes&Noble, and Borders within 6-10 weeks. You can also preview the book through my page on The Spiritual Humanist web site here.

Cheers, Sean

Global Warming

This week’s edition of Newsweek has a special report on Leadership & the Environment. It’s nice to see such a prominent, mainstream magazine get it right. There is way too much politics involved in this “debate” and it is obscuring the real science. I still hear people, usually ones impacted by energy companies or big business, say that global warming isn’t real or isn’t anthropogenic (man-made) and it really irks me.

All the serious scientists and all the real, peer-reviewed work says that global warming is happening and that it is anthropogenic. The only real debate happening is around what we can do about it. Newsweek’s article makes the valid point that to get everyone behind fixing the problem; we have to make energy produced by the burning of fossil fuels more expensive than renewable energy and we have to apply the changes worldwide. Until you do that, people in general will continue to use energy that is helping to cause global warming.

There are some serious efforts under way to apply technologies to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it underground or in the deep ocean (below a certain level, it sinks instead of rises). I have hopes that our ability to apply technology will yet save us (I did a master’s thesis on Technological Mitigation Options to Anthropogenic Global Warming which evaluated many of the potential technologies we might apply (and no, Ethenol isn’t one of them). But, we need to get the federal government behind the changes. Right now, they are being implemented piecemeal by individual states (e.g. CA) and cities (e.g. Seattle), but these won’t be sufficient. This will take a worldwide, concerted effort.

I have actually heard some fundamentalist Christian people say that we don’t really need to worry about global warming because the second coming is happening soon and so the health of the planet won’t really matter much longer. This is at the heart of the difference between Humanism and some religious people (not necessarily the religions). We believe that we all have to lead a reasonable, sustainable life without reliance on faith or a potential afterlife. There is no way they can know for sure when (if ever) the second coming will happen, so how can they say we don’t need to worry about the planet. Do they really want to leave this mess to their kids to figure out? It is frustrating to see such blind stupidity contribute to the planet’s man-made sickness.

With magazines like Newsweek printing a fairly accurate view of global warming, I’m hoping more of the general public gets behind serious change.

If you want to look at discussions between real climate scientists about the subject, try http://realclimate.org.

Goodbye Kurt Vonnegut

Kurt Vonnegut (November 11, 1922 – April 11, 2007) died yesterday. He was a profound American novelist who combined dark human and science fiction. But, most notably for this blog, he was an avid Humanist. He won the 1992 Humanist of the Year award and took the place of Issac Asimov as Honorary President of the American Humanist Association.

"I am a humanist," he wrote in a letter to AHA members, "which means, in part, that I have tried to behave decently without expectations of rewards or punishments after I am dead."

Indianapolis, where he lived, named 2007 "The Year of Vonnegut."

Goodbye Kurt, the world is a lesser place with you gone.


If you are interested in furthering his cause, you can contribute at The AHA. You can also leave a personal message honoring him. The AHA compile those comments in the coming days and create a special online memorial page.

Homosexuality and Humanism

My career happens to be in Computer Science. One of the things that really irked me off at one point was learning about the homophobic plight of Alan Turing. Turing is arguably one of the founders of modern computer science and he played a huge role in defeating the Germans in WWII by deciphering their code. He should have been hailed as a hero for the war, but was instead vilified, tried, and convicted for homosexuality. Punishment was either prison or being chemically neutered.

It is shocking to me that this is still such a heated topic. Homosexuality has been around for as long as we have records. There have been various forms of it:

• Egalitarian where the partners are equal


• Gender-based where the two partners take on male or female roles


• Age-based where there is a wide discrepancy in ages

In modern western society, the egalitarian type of homosexuality is most prevalent, but in roman times, it was common and accepted for men to have homosexual relationships with young boys. The Koran also discusses young boys as a reward for men.

It is difficult to tell just how prevalent homosexuality is in modern society, mostly because of the rampant homophobia in some parts of the country. In addition, there is the difficulty in defining homosexuality – does a single homosexual experience make a person homosexual; does it require multiple experiences; or is it only when someone is exclusively homosexual, or self-identifies as homosexual? Generally, though, most research indicates that 35% to 40% of the population has had some homosexual encounter and an estimated 4% of the population claim to be exclusively homosexual. Homosexuality is also present in various animal species including a number of primates. Some report that it is well-documented behavior in more than 500 different species.

From a scientific standpoint, there is no evidence that a gene or genes exist that promote homosexuality. In addition, the American Psychiatric Association has been clear that “treatment attempts to change sexual orientation are ineffective” . They go on to say, however, that the risks are great and can include anxiety, self-destructive behavior, depression, and suicide.

I can’t specifically explain how homosexuality made it past evolution, but then attributes acquired through natural selection are extremely complex and sometimes very difficult to explain. What we can say is that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon and we must give homosexuals the same rights as every other citizen, including marriage and all the rights that that includes.
However, this stance is one that tends to cause even liberal religious people to baulk. It has been a rallying force for religious people across the country, but especially in the Bible belt. Otherwise conflicting groups like Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons unite in their stance that homosexuality is evil. As Michelle Goldberg puts it:

“Homosexuality has become the mobilizing passion for much of the religious right. A populist movement needs an enemy, but one reason the Christian nationalists are so strong is that they’ve made peace with many old foes, especially Catholics and African-Americans. Gay people have taken the place of obsolete demons.”

The Humanist stance on this topic is quite clear. Homosexuality is natural and is here to stay. We must provide the same rights to homosexuals that heterosexuals have and we should never be prejudiced or homophobic.

References
Steve Jones, Darwin’s Ghost

Sara Goudarzi, LiveScience, November 2006, Homosexual Animals Out of the Closet

www.medicow.com/topics/Reparative-therapy

Michelle Goldberg, Kingdom Coming

Sean Curley, Humanism for Parents

Separation of Church and State

Blogswarm is sponsoring a blog promotion about separation of church and state. This isn’t exactly on-topic for this blog, but it is an incredibly important topic. There are active organizations in this country who are trying to undermine the bedrock American stance on separation of church and state. If they succeed, our ability to believe as we want will evaporate. We will become a Christian Nation, which is exactly what they are after.

The most prominent recent successful actions undermining separation of church and state is the faith-based initiative President Bush has put in place and the politicizing of the judicial system. The first is using millions of dollars of taxpayer money to promote Christian values without the checks-and-balances the secular system has in place. The second is an attempt to institute faith-based laws by overloading the judicial system with judges who base their decisions on the Bible instead of the Constitution and rational thought.

If you doubt any of this, try reading any of the following books:

Michelle Goldberg, Kingdom Coming
Damon Linker, Theocons
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Or read through some of the material at any of the following:

The Interfaith Alliance Foundation
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
The First Freedom First Foundation
The American Humanist Association

Nontheists and Politics

It is accepted (though it shouldn't be) that a politician who declares himself or herself to be atheist (or any nontheist) is finished. The founding fathers would have been shocked at such a political environment. Many of them were nontheists themselves or at the very minimum thought that religion should be kept stickily separate from politics and it shouldn't matter whether the politician is religious or of what religion. As the following quote from George Washington in a treaty signed by John Adams says:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...

Despite what some say, this is not a Christian nation, it is a secular nation with firm footing in an environment where everyone is allowed to believe and practice as they wish, including atheism.

This last week Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) publicly acknowledged he does not believe in a supreme being. The declaration, it said, makes him the highest-ranking elected official — and first congressman — to proclaim to be an atheist.

Roy Speckhardt of the AHA said: "With Stark's courageous public announcement of his nontheism, it is our hope that he will become an inspiration for others who have hidden their conclusions for far too long."

Stark said he was "a Unitarian who does not believe in a supreme being." He also wrote "I look forward to working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social services."

Unitarian Universalism describes itself as creedless, allowing members to shape their beliefs based on personal experience rather than an authoritative statement of religious belief. Some members believe in God, but not all do.

Stark has represented Fremont in Congress since 1973 and chairs the health subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee.

So, is this brave, political suicide, or both? Certainly it is more honest. In both Sam Harris' recent book The End of Faith and Richard Dawkins recent book The God Delusion, the authors explain how statistically a high percentage of intelligent, college educated people are nontheists, yet 100% (until now) if congress and the senate say they are believers (593 total people). The conclusion is inescapable - either they are lying or they are stupid. It is great to see a politician trying to be honest

What is more important, however, is what do we need to do to get back to the secular, freedom from religious discrimination foundations that this country was built on?

Sean

AHA's Humanist Celebrant Program

This past week I was approved by the Humanist Society (associated with the American Humanist Association) to be a Humanist Celebrant. This is a program that certifies celebrants and gives them the rights of clergy to perform weddings, birth celebrations, funeral, etc.

The program itself is a valuable one. I’m honored and excited the AHA has accepted me as a Celebrant. The process itself is straightforward though it takes time. You have to be a member of the AHA for a prescribed period, fill out a detailed application about your views, and get four recommendations. They want to see that you will uphold the Humanist ideals, that you are active in the community, and that you will purport yourself well as an AHA representative.

The only issue I encountered during the process was that one potential reference refused to be one based mostly on the AHA site. These friends are conscientious and religious. I had talked with them about Humanism multiple times. My thinking was that it would be valuable to have input from Christians who knew me well.

These friends don’t just give recommendations though; they needed to understand Humanism more. They went to Humanist sites, avoiding anti-humanist sites because they wanted to hear about Humanism from “the horse’s mouth”. What they found on the AHA site disturbed them to the point that they couldn’t conscientiously be a reference.

They found the Humanist principles and actually agreed with those – they considered them noble and inline with their own thinking. But when they went to the articles and stories on the site, they found those very articles didn’t adhere to the Humanist principles. What they found were emotional, political and irrational thinking instead of the scientific, rational thinking they were expecting.

I’ve had this same complaint myself about some of the work that comes out of the AHA. When they talk Humanism, it is close to perfect, but when the get involved in politics and current affairs, they try to make their point and do so by emotion and passion and not clear and reasoned thinking.

It is frustrating that the very organization I represent as a Celebrant has such an emotional face to it through their web site. I had to get a different reference that didn’t have such conscientious objections for the Celebrant application. Happily this worked and I’ve been approved.

The entire process took a couple of years, but that was because I had to be an AHA member for a certain amount of time and I wanted to build up my Humanist activity with the community prior to applying to be a Celebrant. If you have already been an AHA member and are already active, then the process is really just an application, the references, and then a few weeks for them to review the material.

I’ve posted a page on our site here about my work and availability as a Celebrant (or Officiate).

Rev. Sean Curley