=================================================================== ******************************************************************* =================================================================== ____ / ) ___ () / __ * / / ^ / / / / ) / _/_ ___ /__ / \ __| / / / / / /___) / ) \/ \ (_/ \____(__/___(___)___/_____/______(________/________/\___ ) _____ / ) / / _ / _ _ >-- / ) /___ / (_)___ / / / ) / / (_______)___(___)___/ (____(____/ =================================================================== ******The*E-Zine*of*Atheistic*Secular*Humanism*and*Freethought***** =================================================================== ################################################################### ########## Volume I, Number 5 ***A Collector's Item!***########## ###################### ISSN 1198-4619 ########################### ########################## SEP 1994 ############################### ################################################################### In the mythology and symbolism of our name, "Lucifer" is not to be confused with ha-Satan, the mythological source of evil. Lucifer's ancient identity was a bearer of light, the morning star, and it is as such that this journal intends to publish. As the religion virus depends on obscurity, obfuscation, confusion, irrationality and darkness in order to flourish, it is natural that it would see light as an enemy. Rational, skeptical inquiry has ever been the enemy of all religions and is ultimately fatal to all gods. The purpose of this magazine is to provide a source of articles dealing with many aspects of humanism. Humanists have been vilified by the religious as immoral. Apparently, the most horrible thing they can think of is an atheist. As we find their values, such as faith in the non-existent, obedience to the imaginary and reverence of the ridiculous, repulsive, we adopt the name of their ancient antagonist with pride. We are atheistic as we do not believe in the actual existence of any supernatural beings or any transcendental reality. We are secular because the evidence of history and the daily horrors in the news show the pernicious and destructive consequences of allowing religions to be involved with politics and nationalism. We are humanists and we focus on what is good for humanity, in the real world. We will not be put off with offers of pie in the sky, bye and bye. ==><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><== || Begging portion of the Zine || ==><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><== This is a "sharezine." There is no charge for receiving this, and there is no charge for distributing copies to any electronic medium. Nor is there a restriction on printing a copy for use in discussion. You may not charge to do so, and you may not do so without attributing it to the proper author and source. If you would like to support our efforts, and help us acquire better equipment to bring you more and better articles, you may send money to Greg Erwin at: 100, Terrasse Eardley / Aylmer, Qc / J9H 6B5 / CANADA. Or buy our atheist quote address labels, see below. ==><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><== || End of Begging portion of the Zine || ==><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><====><== Articles will be welcomed IF: ( they are emailed to: ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA; or, sent on diskette to me at the above Aylmer address in any format that an IBM copy of WordPerfect can read; ) and they don't require huge amounts of editing; and I like them. If you wish to receive a subscription, email a simple request to ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA, with a clear request for a subscription. It will be assumed that the "From:" address is where it is to be sent. We will automate this process as soon as we know how. 1994-05-08 Yes, please DO make copies! (*) Please DO send copies of Lucifer's Echo to anyone who might be interested. The only limitations are: You must copy the whole document, without making any changes to it. You do NOT have permission to copy this document for commercial purposes. The contents of this document are copyright (c) 1994, Greg Erwin and are on deposit at the National Library of Canada You may find back issues in anyplace that archives alt.atheism, specifically mathew's site at ftp.mantis.co.uk. Currently, all back issues are posted at the Humanist Association of Ottawa's area on the National Capital Freenet. telnet to 134.117.1.22, and enter at the "Your choice==>" prompt. /=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\ Shameless advertising: Atheistic self-stick Avery(tm) address labels. Consisting of 180 different quotes, 30 per page, each label 2 1/2" x 1". This leaves three 49 character lines available for your own address, phone number, email, fax or whatever. Each sheet is US$2, the entire set of 6 for US$11; 2 sets for US$20. Indicate quantity desired. Print address clearly, exactly as desired. Order from address in examples below. Laser printed, 8 pt Arial, with occasional flourishes. Order now to celebrate the rebirth of the Invincible Sun! _________________________________________________ |"Reality is that which, when you stop believing | |in it, doesn't go away." [Philip K. Dick] | |Greg Erwin 100 Terrasse Eardley | |Aylmer, Qc J9H 6B5 Canada | | email: ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA | |________________________________________________| _________________________________________________ |"...and when you tell me that your deity made | |you in his own image, I reply that he must be | |very ugly." [Victor Hugo, writing to clergy] | |Greg Erwin 100 Terrasse Eardley | |Aylmer, Qc J9H 6B5 Canada Ph: (613) 954-6128 | | email: ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA | |________________________________________________| Other stuff for sale: Certificate of Baptism Removal and Renunciation of Religion. Have your baptism removed, renounce religion, and have a neat 8" x 11" fancy certificate, on luxury paper, suitable for framing, to commemorate the event! Instant eligibility for excommunication! For the already baptism-free: Certificate of Freedom from Religion. An official atheistic secular humanist stamp of approval for only $10! Poster 8x11: WARNING! This is a religion free zone! All religious vows, codes, and commitments are null & void herein. Please refrain from contaminating the ideosphere with harmful memes through prayer, reverence, holy books, proselytizing, prophesying, faith, speaking in tongues or spirituality. Fight the menace of second-hand faith! Humanity sincerely thanks you! Tastefully arranged in large point Stencil on luxury paper. Likewise $10. 4. Ingersoll poster: "When I became convinced that the universe is natural" speech excerpt. 11"x17" See the June 1994 issue of the _Echo_ for full text. $15 Order from the same address as above. /=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\/=\_/=\ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-TABLE OF CONTENTS-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 1. Can a Christian Be a Moral Person? Greg Erwin 2. Ernest Thompson Seton, BSA's first Chief Scout, a Freethinker ltaylor@denali.CS.UCLA.EDU 3. THE PROMISE OF HUMANISM by Frederick Edwords 4. How Things Get Started on Internet Greg Erwin 5. OUR SUNDAY CHAPTER:THE INHABITANTS OF THE MOON, O. B. Huntington 6. ABORTION, A Humanist Response to the Bible Argument =================================================================== || BEGINNING OF ARTICLE || =================================================================== Can a Christian be a moral person? Generally speaking it is not possible for a Christian to be a completely moral person, as history bears out, for the following reasons: Many Christians have believed in predestination, therefore they feel that they are not responsible for their actions, as God has destined what these are to be and what the consequences are. Many Christians believe in demonic possession, therefore they feel that they are not personally responsible for their actions, but can blame what they have done on possession by an evil spirit. Christians do not understand the difference between damage, harm and simple violation of taboo. They equate a harmless act, such as masturbation, or heavy petting, with a harmful crime such as theft, rape or murder. As these are all equally "sinful" to the Christian mind, they cannot be trusted to refrain from criminal activities. Christians believe that they have been forgiven in advance for all of the sins that they may commit. All a Christian has to do is "believe in Jesus Christ" and the Christian's sins are forgiven. Over the centuries, this horrifying doctrine has been responsible for innumerable criminal acts by Christians who believe they can "sin" and evade responsibility through confession or believing afterwards. Christians believe that the "afterlife" is more important than the real world. They feel that any injustices they may commit will be straightened out in some supernatural way, so it is not necessary to try to fix things here and now. Christians believe that they can find an accurate guide to their code of conduct in a 2,000 year old book, which favors slavery, misogyny, tyranny and religious intolerance, but contains no reference to environmental caretaking, population control or democratic civic responsibility. With no incentive to be good citizens or to make this a better world, many Christian groups live a hermit-like existence, divorced from society, or as uncomprehending parasites on society. Christians are taught that they are sheep, and that their "pastor" or shepherd is the one ultimately responsible for their actions. They are specifically relieved from rationally thinking about the consequences of their religious doctrines and are taught not to question religious or civic authority but, rather, to delude themselves by pretending that everything is OK. This is called "faith." Christians believe that "God's Law" is higher than "man's law." Therefore they feel that they can violate national and local criminal codes with impunity. No Christian can really be trusted hold a position of responsibility in government or law enforcement, as they do not believe in enforcing merely "man-made" laws. Many Christians have gladly committed murder and other heinous acts, justifying their actions as defence of "God's Law," or "punishing sinners." Christians routinely practice discrimination against non- Christians, believing themselves to be superior. Christians constantly attempt to divert public tax money to specifically Christian purposes. Christians attempt to force others to abide by their taboos, such as forcing people to observe the sabbath, to pretend to pray, or to practice Christian sexual morality. As well, they have denied everyone access to information on contraception and abortion, and censored or destroyed works of art and literature. Christians believe that their religious organization (the "church") is more important than the state. When the laws of the state conflict with the taboos of their church, they will violate the laws of the state. When men in their church organization violate the laws of the state, Christians attempt to exempt them from justice. If they are in the law enforcement system, they conspire to evade the law. Visions; talking to invisible entities; superstition; inability (or refusal) to understand history, geology, cosmology and biology; complete misunderstanding of causality; glorification of ignorance and denigration of reason; all point to the pernicious effects of this deleterious doctrine on the minds of its deluded followers. Not all of the reasons stated above apply to every Christian, and, of course, some Christians have lead reasonably crime-free lives despite the teachings of their religion. However, it is likely that they are the exception, rather than the rule. I believe that, just to be on the safe side, all those professing to be "Christians" should be barred from public office, and perhaps, denied the vote. Of course, they should not be harmed or mistreated in any way. Just because it is necessary for a secular society to take reasonable precautions against Christians' irrational behaviour, is no excuse for atheists, people with a rationally based morality, to begin behaving like them. =================================================================== || END OF ARTICLE || =================================================================== AFTERWORD This was originally published as a posting to soc.religion. christian. (And I would like to point out that the moderator of that group has never hesitated to post articles which have often been severely critical of christianity in general, fundamentalism in particular, and which were often rather sarcastic in tone. The group exists to *discuss* christianity, not simply to promote it.) Response was so overwhelming that the moderator of the group had to cease posting replies. I personally received about 50 email messages from outraged christian defenders of the faith. If you are an outraged christian, and wish to communicate that emotion, please say something original. =================================================================== || BEGINNING OF ARTICLE || =================================================================== Ernest Thompson Seton, BSA's first Chief Scout, a Freethinker >From ltaylor@denali.CS.UCLA.EDU (Originally distributed on InterNet.) The Boy Scout Handbook, tenth edition (1990), p. 582, acknowledges Ernest Thompson Seton as a pioneer in boy scouting, and the first chief scout of the Boy Scouts of America. E. T. Seton, artist and naturalist, was more than that. A great part of _Scouting for Boys_, by Lord Baden-Powell, was taken directly from Seton's _Birch Bark Roll_. Many of the games were taken from Seton's book, with just the names changed. Seton invented the merit badge system for his group, _Woodcraft Indians_. When Baden-Powell's version of Boy Scouting came to the United States, Seton wrote large sections of the BSA manual (1911). Soon BSA became led, not by a naturalist, or a ``boy-man,'' but by lawyer and bureaucrat James E. West. Due to personality conflicts and underhanded manipulation, E. T. Seton was finally forced out as Chief Scout in 1915, despite having dedicated years of his life to the advancement of the Boy Scouts of America. Guess what. Ernest Thompson Seton, first Chief Scout of the BSA, originator of the spirit if not the form of scouting, did not believe in a personal God, and was antagonistic to traditional forms of religion. If he applied today as a scout leader, he would likely be rejected. Occasionally using the word God, or more likely, Great Spirit, it may be quibbled that he was not technically an atheist. I will give you a section of his autobiography verbatim, in which Seton defines his terms, as well as reveals his character (pp. 355-6). Seton and an Archbishop Corrigan had attended the same social function, and had inadvertently switched coats. The clergyman invited Seton over, and after drinks were served, asked (begin quote), ... ``To what church, may I ask, do you belong?'' I replied: ``I was brought up in the worship of Moloch.'' ``_What!_'' he exclaimed in loud horror. ``Yes,'' I answered, ``the demon-god of fire -- burn your children -- the more of them you burn alive, the greater your merit and likelihood of favor from the grim fire-god.'' For a moment he gazed in astonishment; then his expression changed to one of understanding and amusement, as he said: ``I see. You mean Scottish Calvinism.'' I nodded. Then he went on: ``I wish I could bring you into the True Church.'' ``There's no reason why you should not try,'' I responded. ``What would you give me for a starting point?'' he asked. ``Well,'' I said slowly, ``I will grant you that I exist, because I think. I will grant you that you exist, because we are here facing each other, and exchanging ideas; and we must postulate the reliability of our senses. ``I will grant that the universe exists, because if we exist, we must exist somewhere. That is all I will grant.'' ``Will you,'' he said, ``grant that this universe whose existence you admit, must have a first cause?'' ``Yes, as a necessity of debate, not as a proven fact.'' ``Will you let me go another step, and call that first cause by the name of `God'? '' ``Merely as a polite, but dangerous, concession to one's respect for terminology.'' ``Since you grant that the first cause is God, will you further concede that God is a personal God?'' ``No, I will not,'' I said firmly. ``And I see no reason in logic, biology, or dynamics to justify any such assumption.'' ``Oh, bother,'' laughed His Grace, ``let's have another glass of wine.'' End quote. Seton's version of atheism/ nature spiritualism/ whatever is enough for me. I hereby claim him as a Humanist. Welcome, Chief. You won't believe what your boys are up to. ********************************************************** Ernest Thompson Seton. _Trail of an Artist-Naturalist: Autobiography of Ernest Thompson Seton_. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1940. Ernest Thompson Seton. ``The Spirit of the Woods.'' _Century_ 103 (Dec. 1921): 213-24. H. Allen Anderson. _The Chief: Ernest Thompson Seton and the Changing West_. Texas A&M University Press, 1986. Betty Keller. _Black Wolf: The Life of Ernest Thompson Seton_. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 1984. **************************Editorial Comment************************ Why is it no surprise that the religionist is guilty of plagiarism, theft and then lying about it, and yet the religious organization continues to refuse to admit atheists because the basis of morality must be a belief in god? =================================================================== || END OF ARTICLE || =================================================================== =================================================================== || BEGINNING OF ARTICLE || =================================================================== THE PROMISE OF HUMANISM by Frederick Edwords Every religion has its promise, the special reward it offers to the faithful. Such a promise is often the main feature that attracts outsiders in. As such, it can become a primary selling point and motivator. The ancient promise of Christianity is eternal life in heaven. I can remember a number of years ago listening to one radio preacher describing it in detail with vivid word pictures as he rhapsodized over how wonderful it would feel to be there. I can remember as a child learning about the streets paved with gold and rivers flowing with milk and honey. Different denominations also offer secondary promises, such as wealth and happiness in this life, God's helping hand in times of trouble, and even physical healings. In Buddhism, the promise is somewhat different. If you follow the Noble Eightfold Path of conduct, you will experience inner peace and eventually, through a series of rebirths, the state of Nirvana. This state is the blowing out of all craving, attachment, and desire. New Age religions tend to promise increased powers of mind that will bring about inner peace, happiness, power over external events, cosmic knowledge, and ultimate union with God. Like in politics, so in religion: the key is PROMISE BIG. In the past, Humanists have sometimes thought of themselves as too noble and honest to stoop to such strategies for gaining converts. So, instead of offering our own "campaign promises," we used to prefer to run down the promises of all the other groups. Instead of focusing on a better way of our own, we kept the spotlight on those ideas we disagreed with. Only we didn't seem able to do it with the captivating music of Omar Khayyam: Of threats of Hell and Hopes of Paradise! One thing at least is certain--This Life flies; One thing is certain and the rest is Lies; The Flower that once has blown for ever dies. This seemed to be our message, and to some it still is. But, if this is our message, are Humanists merely the consumer crusaders of the metaphysical world, the Ralph Naders of the religious realm? Is our only role that of protecting the gullible from the purveyors of spiritual Florida swamp land? This is, of course, a noble calling, worthy of the best efforts of talented individuals. But is it ALL we should be about? From much of our older rhetoric, you would think so. On the other hand, today many Humanists are directing their focus on what HUMANISM has to offer. And when that is done, the relevant question becomes "What is the promise of Humanism?" Well, we already know what we can't promise. As sober realists and no-nonsense straight-shooters, we're experts in throwing the wet blanket of rationalism over the fondest hopes of our fellows. We know the "bad news," but what's our "good news," what is the gospel of Humanism? One way to find out is to ask ourselves how we would present Humanism to someone who has never been exposed to traditional religion. Here would be a person in no need of disillusionment and possessing no idols in need of smashing. We could now go directly to the goal of offering the "good news" of Humanism. If some Humanists would find themselves speechless in a situation like this, it could be because they believe Humanism is simply the "default" condition of humanity, the "natural state" that prevails when no brainwash is present. And I've known a number of Humanists who have put it to me in exactly those terms. But, if that's the case, then the solemn duty of every Humanist when confronting a person unexposed to religion is to immediately teach him or her all about it! In this way, the person will learn what to watch out for, will be prepared, and will be put on guard. But I don't accept that Humanism is the default condition of humanity. And I am indeed confronted with individuals unexposed to traditional religion. I confront them every day. They are my children. How do I teach my children Humanism? Well, I don't do it by running down religions they have never heard about. I don't do it by exposing them to the varieties of religious experience. Instead, I expose them to the varieties of worldly experience. My children, ages 4 and 5, already enjoy travel, pictures, movies, music, people, animals, flowers, daydreams, stories, words, numbers, shapes, colors, and the joy of learning. I want them to live the good life envisioned by Humanism, to experience the promise first hand. That's why, when I asked my eldest daughter, Livia, what the praying hands in front of the Oral Roberts medical complex were doing, she exclaimed, "They're clapping!" Are my children Humanists yet? Time will tell, but other Humanist parents I know who have used a similar approach have been pleased with the results. And the implication is clear. The promise of Humanism is a good life here and now. So, let's discuss it in detail. What IS the "good life?" Can it be pursued directly? Can EVERYONE have it (that is, do we have a promise we can keep; can Humanism deliver the goods)? And finally, will it play in Peoria? Lloyd and Mary Morain talked about the good life in their 1954 Beacon Press book, Humanism as the Next Step, when they wrote: As a starting point let us take the idea that this life should be experienced deeply, lived fully, with sensitive awareness and appreciation of that which is around us. This was the first of their seven key ideas of Humanism. They elaborated further, saying: Back through the centuries whenever people have enjoyed keenly the sights and sounds and other sensations of the world about them, and enjoyed these for what they were--not because they stood for something else--they were experiencing life humanistically. Whenever they felt keen interest in the drama of human life about them and ardently desired to take part in it they felt as humanists. Referring to this attitude as "zest for living," they were following the lead of Bertrand Russell who, in his book The Conquest of Happiness, referred to "zest" as "the most universal and distinctive mark" of the happy individual. People with this quality, Russell argued, are those who come at life with a sound appetite, are glad to have what is before them, partake of things until they have enough, and know when to stop. This vision reminds us again of Omar Khayyam: A Book of Verses underneath the Bough, A Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread--and Thou Beside me singing in the Wilderness-- Oh, Wilderness were Paradise enow! Ah, make the most of what we yet may spend, Before we too into the Dust descend; Dust into Dust, and under Dust to lie, Sans Wine, sans Song, sans Singer, and--sans End! Which sounds like the hedonistic doctrine Humanists are accused of advocating: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. Or, as Mad magazine once put it -- A Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread, and Thou-- Pretty soon I'll be drunk, fat, and in trouble. But there is much more involved in the Humanist notion of the good life. The physical pleasures are only a part of it, not to be denied of course, but far from representing the whole. For the Humanist there are also the pleasures of an unfettered mind making new discoveries, solving problems, and creating. There is the enjoyment of art, music, dance, and drama. There is the joy of helping others and the challenge of working to make the world a better and more peaceful place. And, of course, there are the joys associated with love and family. The Humanist seeks the enjoyment of as many of these as possible. In this, we are clearly at one with the ancient Greek ideal of wholeness and the integration of life. For example, in the ancient Olympic games, competition included not only athletics but drama, music, poetry, and philosophy. And the whole combination was viewed as a religious event. The Greeks put it together and did it all. So can we. In having zest for living, we join with the ancient Chinese who, in following Confucius, saw much of life as play--which accounted for their enjoyment of ceremony and especially their love of toys. This worldly and good-natured view of life that claims no ultimate knowledge, stands out when contrasted with Hinduism. Whereas the Yogi is often seen as renouncing desire, living an ascetic life-style, and acquiring eternal knowledge, Socrates, the sage of the ancient Greeks, deliberately provoked certain appetites in himself, lived a social and active life, and professed to have no knowledge whatever! It is also radically different from traditional Christianity, which has sometimes called this world a veil of tears, has seen pleasures as vanity, and seems to find the goal of human life beyond the grave. Such believers might quote Ecclesiastes-- Better to go to the house of mourning than to the house of feasting; for to this end all men come, let the living take this to heart. Better sadness than laughter, a severe face confers some benefit. Jerusalem Bible As an antidote, Robert Louis Stevenson offered these words in his Christmas Sermon: Gentleness and cheerfulness, these come before all morality: they are the perfect duties. If your morals make you dreary, depend on it they are wrong. I do not say, "give them up," for they may be all you have; but conceal them like a vice, lest they should spoil the lives of better men." Edwin H. Wilson, the grand old man of religious Humanism who, for 90 plus years, lived the promise, summed it up when he wrote: The Humanist lives as if this world were all and enough. He is not otherworldly. He holds that the time spent on the contemplation of a possible afterlife is time wasted. He fears no hell and seeks no heaven, save that which he and others created on earth. He willingly accepts the world that exists on this side of the grave as the place for moral struggle and creative living. He seeks the life abundant for his neighbor as for himself. He is content to live one world at a time and let the next life--if such there may be--take care of itself. He need not deny immortality; he simply is not interested. His interests are here. The way those interests should be carried out here is described by Havelock Ellis in his book, The Dance of Life. There he presents living as an art, one best characterized as a dance. In this, he follows the ancient Greeks who chose the image of dancing because, unlike walking or running, dancing is not generally viewed as a goal-oriented activity leading from point A to B. One dances for the sheer joy of the activity. It is the process more than the product that counts. And this is how the Humanist good life is to be lived. So, when someone asks a Humanist, "What is the purpose of life?" the Humanist should answer, "Life is not purpose, life is art." The meaning is found in the doing. This is a revolutionary and truly unique way of looking at the world. It is a way that finds the question of cosmic purpose irrelevant, one that is unmoved by the author of Ecclesiastes who, in contemplating the question of ultimate value, writes-- I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and what vanity it all is, what chasing of the wind! The Humanist response is that Solomon missed the point. The people, ideas, things, and actions we love do not depend for their worth on how long they last or their supposed cosmic significance. They are things in themselves to be enjoyed for their own sakes. Life is an art, not a task. Life is for us, not for the universe. And life is for now, not for eternity. But there's more. We can take Edwin Wilson's statement that this life is all and enough and beef it up a bit to declare that this life is more than enough. Then it will express the Humanist optimism of Robert Louis Stevenson when he wrote: The world is so full of a number of things, I'm sure we should all be as happy as kings. (We ought to get some rosary beads and repeat this every day.) There is more in this world than I could experience in a thousand different lifetimes. There is a richness here, a cornucopia of choices, a wealth of opportunities. There is so much to see, to do, to read, to learn. The question is not, "What shall I do with my life?" but "What shall I do next?!" Different people choose different things. Most Humanists will choose a life oriented outward, not only to enjoying the good life, but sharing the good life through helping others. Yet other people may choose the inner life of meditation. By making such a choice, each one misses something the other is enjoying. But that can't be helped. Any time one makes a choice in the use of one's time, one fails to engage in all the other possible uses for that time, including having other experiences. So, if a monk or celibate priest speaks to me about the ecstasies of spiritual contemplation, I respond by sharing how thrilled I was in the birthing room watching my children being born. If a young fundamentalist describes to me the experience of being "born again," I can't wait to talk about the exciting moment when I first appreciated geometry. If heaven is described to me in graphic detail, I immediately want to show my slides of sunsets, seascapes, and mountain ranges. I'm in love with life, and too busy with it to find time for things allegedly outside it. But now we can ask, if this is the promise of Humanism--if this is the promise of liberal religion--is it a promise limited only to the affluent, the intelligent, the educated? If so, then are we making a promise we can't always keep? This is the criticism leveled against us by the otherworldly religions. While we say that they can't keep their otherworldly promises, they explain that they turned to this other world because we Humanists didn't keep our worldly promises. Otherworldly faiths offer the "joys of the spirit" to those who have been denied "the pleasures of the flesh." And the claim is that such spiritual joys are more permanent and universal than is our pleasure. But why give up so easily, denying oneself worldly pleasure to feed on a mirage in its stead? Isn't this settling for less, and retreating into an unwarranted resignation? Bertrand Russell thought so when, in chapter 2 of The Conquest of Happiness, he took the author of Ecclesiastes to task for denouncing the very things that make happiness possible and give life meaning. Nonetheless, I must admit that I benefit from growing up in a middle-class environment in a wealthy country where I have access to such variety. But all is not lost in more impoverished environments in less wealthy countries. At the Atheist Centre in Vijayawada, India, an extended family of Humanists teach the poor the joys of traditional folk dance, music, athletics (especially acrobatics), science, animal husbandry, occupational skills, and, most important of all, the vast world made possible only through reading. Many of the beneficiaries of this effort are not only poor and uneducated, but are often crippled and abandoned. Yet in a country steeped in an ancient tradition of other-worldliness due to just such harsh realities, the promise of Humanism is offered and met. The International Association for Religious Freedom, the world organization of liberal religions, has similar projects in India and is getting similar results. The promise is no illusion. And I look at my own life, asking myself how useful the promise of the good life would be to me if I suddenly went deaf, or blind, or couldn't walk. And yet I can answer with Robert Louis Stevenson that the world is indeed so full of things that can make me happy. A calamity is a limitation, but if I were limited only to reading, I would find the world is so full of a number of books that I could not read them all in this lifetime. If I were limited only to seeing, I could not see all I want to see in this lifetime. If I were limited only to hearing, I could not hear all I want to hear in this lifetime. I have not tested all the thoughts I want to test, or worked out all the ideas I have started but don't have time to develop. I haven't written all the speeches I want to write. I haven't met all the people I could meet or faced all the challenges I could face. Calamities destroy the promise usually because we concentrate on what we have lost instead of letting the misfortune simply focus our pursuits in a new direction. The Stoic remedy for misfortune is as much a part of this promise as is the Cyrenaic enjoyment of good fortune. When misfortune limits you, shift your focus and move on. I would argue that we can, in most cases, keep the promise of joy in the here and now. And even when all cannot be joy--for life indeed includes a large share of obligations, struggles, sorrows, and pain--the larger context can still be that of an artful life. And when, in those rare instances, we find that the realization of the promise is futile, as in the case of an agonizing terminal illness, Humanism offers the freedom to exit this life at will and with dignity. This is voluntary euthanasia, an area of great importance to Humanists, so much so that there will be two major workshops on this topic at the national conference of the American Humanist Association next weekend. So, in the end, the promise is not a perfect one. But we admit that. Others may seem to offer more perfect promises, but can they deliver? I have no evidence that anyone has ever gotten to heaven, realized Nirvana, or merged with God. But I see evidence every day that the promise of the good life is no mirage. So, I'll stick with the honesty of Humanism, that this life is all there is, and with the promise of Humanism, that this can be more than enough. And this promise will serve as my motivation to make life better when all is not as it should be. For I can better enjoy the promise on a clean rather than a dirty planet. And I can enjoy it better when I am helping others to participate in it. This is a philosophy I can be proud of. And, being proud of it, I can confidently share it with others. I can offer the "good news" of its promise and know I am doing something valuable for others. As a result, Humanism need no longer be a philosophy exclusively for those bold enough to face an uncaring cosmos with defiance, for those fearless enough "to go where no one has gone before," and for those impudent enough to call the majority of humanity cowards for fleeing to a sweeter tale. Most people are moved by exciting promises. They are captivated by thrilling visions. And this philosophy can be for them to. There's nothing wrong with offering a zesty promise if we have one. And have one we do. So let us Humanists stress it, publicize it, and present it as our entry in the religious/ philosophical sweepstakes. I submit to you that this one shift in our focus will do more to counter the harmful effects of otherworldly belief than all the rationalistic arguments of history's greatest freethinkers. So let's give it a shot. We have nothing to lose but our minority status. ------------------------------------------------------------------ This is the text of a talk presented to various audiences over the years. Its author is the executive director of the American Humanist Association. (C) Copyright 1989 by Frederick Edwords So long as profit is not your motive and you always include this copyright notice, please feel free to reproduce and distribute this material in electronic form as widely as you please. Nonprofit Humanist and Freethought publications have additional permission to publish this in print form. All other permission must be sought from the author through the American Humanist Association, which can be contacted at the following address: AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION PO BOX 1188 AMHERST NY 14226-7188 Phone: (800) 743-6646 =================================================================== || BEGINNING OF ARTICLE || =================================================================== How Things Get Started on Internet ------------------------------------------------------------ Step #1 I receive a message from Colin requesting help in a calm, rational debate. Message #26 (28 is last): Date: Sun Aug 7 07:47:35 1994 From: ag250@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin T Downie) Subject: Catholic Basher Needed To: ai815 Reply-To: ag250 Here's a favor you can do for me . Respond to this thread which has been going in uk.misc and alt.religion but started off in scot.general when someone posted a message on the perils of Scientology . If you do post a response make sure you post to all the affected boards . Colin Step #2 I look up the posting in question, which follows. ------------------------------------------------------------ Article #980 (980 is last): From: cultxprt@indirect.com (Jeff Jacobsen) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,uk.misc,uk.politics, news.misc,scot.general Subject: Re: Campaign to Ban SellMoreSundayMails cult in the UK Date: Sat Aug 6 19:20:52 1994 Stuart McGinnigle (smcginni@cs.strath.ac.uk) wrote: [stuff deleted] : Get your priorities right. if you really want to investigate : a religion that screws up people's lives try the Catholic : Church for a start off. What is the Catholic Church doing that is so destructive? [stuff deleted] -- cultxprt@indirect.com Jeff Jacobsen PO Box 3541 Scottsdale, AZ 85271 YOWZA! (ack!poo!) ------------------------------------------------------------ Step #3 I post a calm, rational response to the inquirer's question. Date: Sun Aug 7 20:22:15 1994 Newsgroups: uk.misc,alt.atheism,scot.general,etc. Subject: Re: Campaign to Ban SellMoreSundayMails cult in the UK Reply-To: ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Greg Erwin) References: <3215sk$hf8@herald.indirect.com> <005311Z04081994@anon.penet.fi> <31t51t$hsk@dunlop.cs.strath.ac.uk> Organization: The National Capital FreeNet In a previous article, cultxprt@indirect.com (Jeff Jacobsen) says: >Stuart McGinnigle (smcginni@cs.strath.ac.uk) wrote: > > >[stuff deleted] > >: Get your priorities right. if you really want to investigate >: a religion that screws up people lives try the Catholic >: Church for a start off. > > What is the Catholic Church doing that is so destructive? 1) The Catholic church is the world's largest haven for pedophiles. When children or their parents have complained, the Church protects the priest, threatens the parents with damnation, and transfers the priest to another parish where he can commit the same crimes again. Only after years of losing expensive lawsuits and being forced to pay millions in court settlements, has the Church begun to take any action at all (obviously to save itself money, not out of any concern for children). 2) In the US, the Catholic Church, along with the Mormons and an alliance of other fundamentalists, provided the funding to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment which would have put gender equality in the US Constitution. Throughout the world the Catholic Church works against women's rights. 3) Similar to the last, the Catholic Church has made it virtually impossible to provide contraception information or abortion services to women as part of international projects. Through this method, the Catholic Church is responsible for killing tens of thousands of women each and every year. 4) In the Americas, the Catholic Church provided the ideology justifying the genocide of Native Americans. When given lands to be held in trust for Native nations, the Church cheated the Natives, and used the lands to benefit itself, as in Oka; Catholic duplicity is the basis for the recent trouble with the Mohawk nation there. The Catholic Church ran "Indian Residential Schools" which were designed to aid in the genocide of Indian culture. Death, sexual abuse and physical abuse, as well as simple humiliation and garden variety racism were the order of the day in these church-sponsored institutions. 5) In Ireland, the Catholic Church ran the Magdalen Laundry up to 1988, women who were sent there as "immoral" were imprisoned, abused and kept as slaves. Many died. 6) The Church is responsible for the spread of AIDS through its ridiculous prohibition of condom use. The Pope has stated that it is better morally for a man with AIDS to forego the use of condoms and infect his wife, if he cannot remain celibate. Add a few thousand more women to the church's total. 7) The Church promotes dictatorships and anti-democratic governments wherever it can as long as it can either protect itself or, preferably, control them. 8) Catholic monasteries and nunneries in France (and possibly throughout Europe) hid and protected Nazi war criminals for decades after World War II. 9) Through its alliances and concordats with Mussolini and Hitler, the Catholic Church gave both Nazism and Fascism the respectability they needed to become established. Catholic support helped defeat the elected democratic Spanish Republic and install the Fascist dictator Franco. 10) Through its magical thinking and peddling of trinkets, selling blessings, and extorting money from the ignorant by threatening the dead, it drains billions of dollars from the world's economies. These are just off the top of my head, I am sure there are more. ------------------------------------------------------------ Step #4 A grateful public responds ------------------------------------------------------------ Message #29 (47 is last): Date: Mon Aug 8 09:03:42 1994 From: ar@zeus.uk.mdis.com (Alastair Rae) Subject: Re: Campaign to Ban SellMoreSundayMails cult in the UK To: ai815@freenet.carleton.ca (Greg Erwin) Newsgroups: uk.misc,alt.atheism,alt.religion.scientology Thanks for your excellent 10 bones of contention with the RC cult. I was raised as a Catholic in Northern Ireland by liberal parents who taught me to respect the religious beliefs of others. So when I became an atheist I still held onto that tolerance and still find it very hard to criticise actions motivated by strong religious belief. It's refreshing to have someone do it with such well informed flair. -- Alastair Rae Message #30 (47 is last): Date: Mon Aug 8 09:37:04 1994 From: ag250@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin T Downie) Subject: Catholic Bash To: ai815 Reply-To: ag250 Saw your post . Good Work - thanks . Colin -- Message #33 (47 is last): Date: Mon Aug 8 16:08:36 1994 From: eiaze@cent1.lancs.ac.uk (Zack Evans) Subject: Re: Campaign to Ban SellMoreSundayMails cult in the UK To: ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA Reply-To: Z.Evans@cent1.lancs.ac.uk Newsgroups: uk.misc,alt.atheism,alt.religion.scientology In article you write: >> What is the Catholic Church doing that is so destructive? Can I use this in my web pages please? (URL in signature...) It's only polite for me to ask first. :) Thanks, Zack -- Opinions are mine and not the University's. Of course, it's fairly unlikely that a square mile or so of concrete, bricks, and glass is going to have any sort of significant world view in the first place. Zack Evans - Z.Evans@lancaster.ac.uk Step #5 I offer this to the world ------------------------------------------------------------ Zack does indeed have permission to use the article. As well I will send this into _Fighting Back_ via the CODESH mailing list, suggesting the topic, "What have you got against religion/churches, anyway?" =================================================================== || BEGINNING OF ARTICLE || =================================================================== For your edification, a direct, unmodified excerpt from _The Young Woman's Journal_, vol. 3, published by the Young Ladies' Mutual Improvement Associations of Zion in 1892. That is, the Mormons. OUR SUNDAY CHAPTER THE INHABITANTS OF THE MOON, O. B. Huntington Astronomers and philosophers have, from time almost immemorial until very recently, asserted that the moon was uninhabited, that it had no atmosphere, etc. But recent discoveries, through the means of powerful telescopes, have given scientists a doubt or two upon the old theory. Nearly all the great discoveries of men in the last half century have, in one way or another, either directly or indirectly, contributed to prove Joseph Smith to be a prophet. As far back as 1837, I know that he said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do -- that they live generally to near the age of a 1000 years. He described the men as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style. In my Patriarchal blessing, given by the father of Joseph the Prophet, in Kirtland, 1837, I was told that I should preach the gospel before I was 21 years of age; that I should preach to the inhabitants upon the islands of the sea, and--to the inhabitants of the moon, even the planet you can now behold with your eyes. >From the first two promises we may reasonably expect the third to be fulfilled also. --- One truth after another men are finding out by the wisdom and inspiration given of God to them. The inspiration of God caused men to hunt for a new continent until Columbus discovered it. Men have lost millions of dollars, and hundreds of lives to find a country beyond the north pole; and they will yet find that country-- a warm, fruitful country, inhabited by the ten tribes of Israel, a country divided by a river, on one side of which lives the half tribe of Manasseh, which is more numerous than all the others. So said the Prophet. At the same time he described the shape of the earth at the poles as being a rounded elongation and drew a diagram of it in this form: [crude drawing like a circle with handles at each side] which any one can readily see will allow the sun's rays to fall so near perpendicular to the center that that part of the earth may be warmed and made fruitful. He quoted scripture in proof of his theory which says that "the earth flieth upon its wings in the midst of the creations of God," and said that there was a semblance in the form of the earth that gave rise to the saying. CEDAR FORT, Utah, Feb. 6, 1982 ________________________________________ This is in _Mormonism - Shadow or Reality?_ by Jerald and Sandra Tanner. Their addresss is: Utah Lighthouse Ministry 1350 S. West Temple P.O. Box 1994 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 their catalog can be heartily recommended for anyone seeking information about the Mormons, or how Mormon doctrine differs from and is contrary to standard Christian doctrine. As you may suspect from the organization's title, they are Christians, and their primary concern is to influence Mormons to leave the false Mormon church and accept "true" Christianity. However, the method they use is to reprint accurate information about early Mormon history, accurate information about Mormon doctrines which have been changed and hidden over the years, and accurate information about current Mormon business, political and doctrinal shenanigans. Their information is good. =================================================================== || END OF ARTICLE || =================================================================== =================================================================== || BEGINNING OF ARTICLE || =================================================================== ABORTION A Humanist Response to the Bible Argument When faced with a moral dilemma, many people turn to a book like the Bible, in the belief that it will offer them some sort of guidance. This is particularly true for those who believe the Bible to be the literal world of God and the only authority on morality. However, their enthusiasm for what they believe the Bible says, rarely equates with what it actually does say. What Does the Bible Say About Abortion? This is a very easy question to answer, because the word abortion does not appear anywhere in the Bible. Out of the over 600 Mosaic Laws, covering everything from the shape of a man's beard to the minutest details of sabbath observance, not even one of them comments on abortion. One of the only references to this issue at all may be found in Exodus 21:22-25 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth..." Far from being any kind of pronouncement against abortion, this passage suggests that the miscarriage is only punishable by a fine, and is of little or no consequence and certainly does not involve any loss of life. It is only in the case of harm to the woman that the biblical rule of "an eye for an eye" is to be used. Other references to untimely births occur in Hos. 9:14; Job 3:16; Psalms 58:8; and Eccles. 6:3; but none of these imply in any way that abortion was considered contrary to any religious or moral law. Nowhere is there any reference to abortion that implies that it is in any way contrary to the will of God. What About "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? The sixth of the "Ten Commandments" is to be found in Exodus 20:13 and states quite explicitly "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Does this include abortion? Although this commandment is the most widely used argument in the anti-abortionists' biblical arsenal, its meaning is nowhere near as clear as they might like to think, because it does not explain just what it is that must not be killed. We use the word kill to refer to the ending of the life of anything that lives. We kill the weeds on our lawns, we kill the pests on our crops, we kill to eat, in fact we literally cannot live without killing something. To understand what this passage really means, we obviously have to see what the Bible says about different sorts of killing. I doubt that anyone would argue that the killing of plants is considered unacceptable in the Bible. Likewise there is nothing to suggest that the lives of domestic or wild animals were in any way considered of value. In fact the very opposite is the case as demonstrated in Mark 2:14 where Jesus is said to have cast out demons into a herd of swine which then drown themselves by running into the sea, or Exodus 9:3-6 where God reportedly killed all of the Egyptian cattle. Not to mention the Old Testament passion for sacrificial slaying and burnt offerings. So, we are left with just human life to consider, but again the meaning is not clear. Many passages in the Bible detail the mass slaughter of various enemies of the chosen people or their God. 2 Kings 8:12, "dash their children, and rip up their women with child", or Isaiah 13:16 "Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished." In fact if all of these divinely approved deaths were added up, the victims wold probably number in the millions. Time and time again, after making such an apparently unambiguous statement in favour of not killing, the Bible documents and apparently condones the killing of men, women and children for committing such crimes as picking up sticks on the sabbath (Numbers 15:32-35) or being a stubborn son (Deut. 21:18-21). The examples are almost endless and a thorough reading of the Bible indicates that killing was not only condoned but encouraged for such apparently trivial offenses and to a degree that no civilized person would accept. Surely Killing An Innocent Unborn Child Was Considered Wrong? Abortion is not new, it has been practised with varying degrees of success for thousands of years. However, there is not a single reference in the Bible to any woman being guilty of having or aiding an abortion and it is inconceivable to suppose that during the period that the Bible was written, not one abortion was performed. Likewise, it is inconceivable to imagine that this is merely an oversight, since the Bible goes to such lengths to identify supposedly sinful acts. If you believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, then you are left with the inevitable conclusion that God does not condemn abortion (which may explain the high number of natural spontaneous abortions). If you believe that the Bible was written by ordinary human beings, you are left with the conclusion that they placed no value at all on the unborn human fetus and not a whole lot more value on it even after it was born. Without the Bible as a Guide, How Can I Make Such a Decision? Even many dedicated Christians no longer regard the Bible as their only source of guidance, and an increasingly large proportion of the population are rejecting all religious beliefs and biblical authority. Whether they know it or not, and whether they use the name or not, these people are using humanistic principles as their guide. Simply stated, humanism promotes the use of rational thought, human experience and compassion to determine the most appropriate course of action to be taken. Some Christians ask how they can make a difficult decision on their own without relying on a source of supposed authority such as the Bible. However, most humanists would argue that once you have finally rejected mystical or religious thinking, the real issues become much clearer. You are able to rationally consider the likely outcome of each available course of action and make your decision based on the particular circumstances rather than on some religious dogma. Humanists acknowledge that the exercise of their free will requires the courage to accept that they may make the wrong decision sometimes. They may not have all of the relevant facts, or may incorrectly predict the outcome of certain events, but they regard the occasional failure as the inevitable cost of their own humanity. They would rather strive to be the best that they can be, even when they know that they may suffer failures, than blindly sacrifice their responsibilities to a rigid dogma. What is the Humanist View of Abortion? Humanists recognize that there are no absolute answers to this question. Each case is different and the decision must be based on individual circumstances. A rational and scientific analysis of the issue clearly indicates that there is a progression from single human cell to fully developed fetus during the course of a pregnancy, which may imply a changing value to that life. Likewise, not all children face a life of equal value. Many are not wanted and cannot be supported, or they may face a life of hunger, disease, neglect or abuse. Humanists agree that every woman has the inherent right to decide for herself whether to carry a pregnancy to term, or whether to terminate it. They trust women to care about the quality of life of their future children, and to be capable of making the best decision. They believe that nobody has the right to impose their wishes or opinions on a woman facing this decision, no matter what their motivation may be. Humanists believe that women can only exercise their rights in a free society where there is easy access to a speedy and safe abortion, and this is why humanists like Dr. Henry Morgentaler have fought and even gone to prison in support of a woman's right to freedom of choice. ____________________________________________________________ This is a pamphlet distributed by the Humanist Association of Canada. I am a member-at-large of the executive. To find out more about Humanism, you may write to: The Humanist Association of Canada P.O. Box 3736, Station C, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 4J8 or email me at ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA ____________________________________________________________ Membership application and <> quarterly subscription form. Name:______________________________________ Address____________________________________ Postal City___________________Prov/State___________ code/ZIP_______ Phone, Home: (____)_________ Work: (____)_________ I am sending $500 for a Life Membership $ 45 for a Household Membership $ 40 for an individual membership $ 30 for a full-time Student membership (indicate institution _________________ student # _________________ $____ additional donation Life membership does not include a subscription to <>; however, all other memberships do.) All HAC members receive the HAC Newsletter. Those who do not wish to subscribe to the Humanist in Canada Quarterly (for example, where a new member is already a direct subscriber or does not wish to read the magazine) please deduct $15 from the membership fee. Membership fees and additional contributions (except the $15 subscription portion) are eligible for Revenue Canada income tax credits for persons with income from Canadian sources. Members with mailing addresses outside Canada please add $4 to cover additional shipping costs for foreign mail. =================================================================== || END OF ARTICLE || =================================================================== ================================================================== || END OF ISSUE || ================================================================== Once again: ISSN: 1198-4619 Lucifer's Echo. Volume I, Number 5: SEP 1994. -- nullifidian, n. & a. (Person) having no religious faith or belief. [f. med. L nullifidius f. L nullus "none" + fides "faith";] / If this is a humanist topic then I am President of the Humanist Association of Ottawa. Greg Erwin. ai815@FreeNet.Carleton.CA