The Humanist magazine (see May/June 08) has a review this month of my book Humanism for Parents - Parenting without Religion by Jennifer Hancock (see Sumo Girl).
It is a good review and very thorough.
if you don't get The Humanist, you should and if you do, then check out the review.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
A Humanist-Life-Stories Publication?
The Humanists of Silicon Valley are sponsoring the development of a "Humanist Life Stories" book. This is akin to the Humanist Heritage effort the Humanist Society did a while back. I consider it a great idea and I hope they can pull it off. For my part, I'll be sure to submit one or two stories. If any of you are interested, let me know and I'll get you in touch with them.
We, Arthur Jackson (president) and Armineh Noravian (vice president) of the Humanist Community in Silicon Valley, California, wish to share an exciting idea with you. Our constant search for ideas to promote Humanism has led us to the realization that one important area is the manner in which Humanists deal with difficult or unusual life circumstances. We believe that sharing such experiences will provide important models of how Humanists live with life’s challenges without divine guidance.
This idea has defined one of our projects, which is to compile a series of life stories by Humanists all across the world. With this goal in mind, we would like to request your help by asking that you send us a life story that might ultimately be printed in a book, which we would like to title “Humanist Life Stories- Sharing our experiences with difficult problems”. We know that projects like this have been discussed before, but are not aware of any collections that are currently available. If you know of any, please tell us.
We believe that the outcome of such an exciting project will have a number of positive consequences, both for Humanism and all those participating in the project.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Wannabe Scholars -or- What counts as evidence?
This last week I received a book
Evidence and Paul's Journeys by Jefferson White.
Jefferson is claiming to be a scholar who has spent many years investigating how "evidence" is used by scholars, especially as it relates to Paul's Journeys. He goes through a long diatribe as an introduction extolling the failures of scholars to look at real evidence and says that instead they look at theory and ideas and then try to present it as evidence.
He goes on to give a definition of evidence that he will use for the book he has written about Paul's travels. Listen to this definition of evidence:
in other words, the bible is assumed to be true, period. Have you ever heard such utter crap? If I were to present you (him?) with the FSM Bible and said that my evidence for it being real is its claim that it is correct and that constitutes evidence unless you can prove it false, you would call me (rightly) nuts. I've done a fair bit of research into this myself (though I wouldn't claim to be a scholar) and I know very well how much the Bible was rewritten as needed over the first three centuries and how little of it is truly original writings of the claimed author (though some of Paul's letters were). Still, to say you know about "real" evidence and then to present such a ridiculous definition is pathetic at best.
How can people be so stupid/ignorant as that? And, I'm ashamed to say, he claims to be in Computer Science; if someone in computers can't get basic logic right and thinks evidence is a completely invalid assumption, how will we ever get the general population to understand?
Evidence and Paul's Journeys by Jefferson White.
Jefferson is claiming to be a scholar who has spent many years investigating how "evidence" is used by scholars, especially as it relates to Paul's Journeys. He goes through a long diatribe as an introduction extolling the failures of scholars to look at real evidence and says that instead they look at theory and ideas and then try to present it as evidence.
He goes on to give a definition of evidence that he will use for the book he has written about Paul's travels. Listen to this definition of evidence:
1. The biblical record is assumed to be true unless it can be shown to be false.
2. if a contradiction is alleged to exist between the bible record and other historical evidence, and there is a reasonable explanation to account for it, the contradiction is not proved.
in other words, the bible is assumed to be true, period. Have you ever heard such utter crap? If I were to present you (him?) with the FSM Bible and said that my evidence for it being real is its claim that it is correct and that constitutes evidence unless you can prove it false, you would call me (rightly) nuts. I've done a fair bit of research into this myself (though I wouldn't claim to be a scholar) and I know very well how much the Bible was rewritten as needed over the first three centuries and how little of it is truly original writings of the claimed author (though some of Paul's letters were). Still, to say you know about "real" evidence and then to present such a ridiculous definition is pathetic at best.
How can people be so stupid/ignorant as that? And, I'm ashamed to say, he claims to be in Computer Science; if someone in computers can't get basic logic right and thinks evidence is a completely invalid assumption, how will we ever get the general population to understand?
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Back in it...
A few months ago I decided to stop blogging for a while because this blog had taken a direction that I hadn't originally intended. Mostly this was to be about spirituality within Humanism. However, as I became more and more frustrated with the direction America is taking and with the Bush administration and how there are people trying to turn us into a Theocracy, I found myself blogging against things things of for things.
That wasn't my intent, but it was a natural outcome of the environment we are in. I wanted to take some time off to reevaluate my stance and my intentions for this blog.
In the end, many of the things I have been blogging about are as or more important than the original intent of this blog. Therefore, I've decided to get back to blogging about whatever comes up that feels important (regarding Humanism and freedom of belief of course) and not worry so much about the original intent (or name) of this blog.
So, you can look forward (or not) to my ranting on various applicable topics. In the next few days (and this is one of the things that convinced me to get back in the game), I'll post on the idiocy of some wannabe scholars when it comes to evaluating the bible.
Cheers, Sean
That wasn't my intent, but it was a natural outcome of the environment we are in. I wanted to take some time off to reevaluate my stance and my intentions for this blog.
In the end, many of the things I have been blogging about are as or more important than the original intent of this blog. Therefore, I've decided to get back to blogging about whatever comes up that feels important (regarding Humanism and freedom of belief of course) and not worry so much about the original intent (or name) of this blog.
So, you can look forward (or not) to my ranting on various applicable topics. In the next few days (and this is one of the things that convinced me to get back in the game), I'll post on the idiocy of some wannabe scholars when it comes to evaluating the bible.
Cheers, Sean
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
How up-front about not being religious should we be?
I was recently at some friends house in Iowa (I live in Colorado) with my children. These friends happen to be extremely religious and my children and I aren't at all.
Through most of my life, I have tried to be very tolerant and respectful of other's beliefs and opinions. In this case, that meant at dinner, when they prayed, I would stay quiet, though not participate.
This year however, they went to hold hands prior to the prayer. I didn't think much of it and just held hands with the two people on either side of me. But, I noticed my oldest two children refused to do so and one of them gave me an odd look for the fact that I was doing it.
It made me ponder just how tolerant I should be. I've been getting less so because of the changing tide in this country, especially with the Bush Administration. But, with friends. I also noted on this trip that they were willing to give me a book on Christianity that I'm sure they hope will convert me, but I'd be uncomfortable giving them a book trying to break them of their faith.
This is certainly something each of us has to ask ourselves and for me, I've been making a concerted effort to be more upfront about me beliefs, but I also don't see a lot of gain in being argumentative just to argue or with people that aren't really open to it. I tend to be much more willing to let them know what I think without being pushy about it and while being willing to listen to them.
Through most of my life, I have tried to be very tolerant and respectful of other's beliefs and opinions. In this case, that meant at dinner, when they prayed, I would stay quiet, though not participate.
This year however, they went to hold hands prior to the prayer. I didn't think much of it and just held hands with the two people on either side of me. But, I noticed my oldest two children refused to do so and one of them gave me an odd look for the fact that I was doing it.
It made me ponder just how tolerant I should be. I've been getting less so because of the changing tide in this country, especially with the Bush Administration. But, with friends. I also noted on this trip that they were willing to give me a book on Christianity that I'm sure they hope will convert me, but I'd be uncomfortable giving them a book trying to break them of their faith.
This is certainly something each of us has to ask ourselves and for me, I've been making a concerted effort to be more upfront about me beliefs, but I also don't see a lot of gain in being argumentative just to argue or with people that aren't really open to it. I tend to be much more willing to let them know what I think without being pushy about it and while being willing to listen to them.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Ask Presidential Candidates
Over the past seven years Humanists have watched as the president and congress have repeatedly breached Thomas Jefferson's wall of separation between church and state. But now you can act to prevent a continuation of this process.
At every opportunity you have, ask the candidates pointed questions on this issue. Or call on your local media to ask such questions. Write letters to the editor expressing church-state concerns. Request that your friends ask such questions. Let's make 2008 the year we begin to set things right as we publicly hold the feet of all presidential candidates to the proverbial fire.
Here are ten questions to draw from or to modify in your own words.
1. Leaders of the religious right often say that America is a "Christian Nation." Do you agree with this statement?
2. Do you think houses of worship should be allowed to endorse political candidates and retain their tax exempt status?
3. Do you think public schools should sponsor school prayer or, as a parent, should this choice be left to me?
4. Would you support a law that mandates teaching creationism in my child's public school science classes?
5. Do you think my pharmacist should be allowed to deny me doctor-prescribed medications based on his or her religious beliefs?
6. Will you respect the rights of those in our diverse communities of faith who deem same-gender marriage to be consistent with their religious creed?
7. Should "faith-based" charities that receive public funds be allowed to discriminate against employees or applicants based on religious beliefs?
8. Do you think one's right to disbelieve in God is protected by the same laws that protect someone else's right to believe?
9. Do you think everyone's religious freedom needs to be protected by what Thomas Jefferson called "a wall of separation" between church and state?
10. What should guide our policies on public health and medical research: science or religion?
These suggested questions were developed by First Freedom First, a joint project of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Interfaith Alliance Foundation. First Freedom First is cosponsored by the American Humanist Association and its allies in the community of reason. So we urge you to use one or more of these questions if you attend a Town Hall meeting or another event where candidates for office will be gathering.
At every opportunity you have, ask the candidates pointed questions on this issue. Or call on your local media to ask such questions. Write letters to the editor expressing church-state concerns. Request that your friends ask such questions. Let's make 2008 the year we begin to set things right as we publicly hold the feet of all presidential candidates to the proverbial fire.
Here are ten questions to draw from or to modify in your own words.
1. Leaders of the religious right often say that America is a "Christian Nation." Do you agree with this statement?
2. Do you think houses of worship should be allowed to endorse political candidates and retain their tax exempt status?
3. Do you think public schools should sponsor school prayer or, as a parent, should this choice be left to me?
4. Would you support a law that mandates teaching creationism in my child's public school science classes?
5. Do you think my pharmacist should be allowed to deny me doctor-prescribed medications based on his or her religious beliefs?
6. Will you respect the rights of those in our diverse communities of faith who deem same-gender marriage to be consistent with their religious creed?
7. Should "faith-based" charities that receive public funds be allowed to discriminate against employees or applicants based on religious beliefs?
8. Do you think one's right to disbelieve in God is protected by the same laws that protect someone else's right to believe?
9. Do you think everyone's religious freedom needs to be protected by what Thomas Jefferson called "a wall of separation" between church and state?
10. What should guide our policies on public health and medical research: science or religion?
These suggested questions were developed by First Freedom First, a joint project of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Interfaith Alliance Foundation. First Freedom First is cosponsored by the American Humanist Association and its allies in the community of reason. So we urge you to use one or more of these questions if you attend a Town Hall meeting or another event where candidates for office will be gathering.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
So we ARE a Christian Nation!
The House on Tuesday passed a resolution 847 that while not explicitly saying we are a Christian Nation, sure implies it. It includes implications that:
It is ridiculous that the house feels compelled to even deal with such a resolution let alone that it would pass one thereby slapping every other religion and the non-religious in the country (and world) in their collective face.
I'm appalled and I feel like it is one more step towards making this country a Theocracy.
- Christianity is the primary religion of the country and the world
- Acknowledges the importance of Christianity, but not others.
- Recognizes that Christianity had a lot to do with the founding of this nation
It is ridiculous that the house feels compelled to even deal with such a resolution let alone that it would pass one thereby slapping every other religion and the non-religious in the country (and world) in their collective face.
I'm appalled and I feel like it is one more step towards making this country a Theocracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
