Why my time with the American Humanist Assoc. totally sucked

[Selwynn]

Disclaimer: the following is critical commentary. It reflects my extreme dissatisfaction with my experience with the AHA over the last year and a half to two years. I'm not going to pull any punches, but neither would I be closed to thoughtful responses.


You know, I used to call myself a humanist all the time. And I donated to the AHA and became a member. This year, I decided not to donate any more money or support the American Humanist Organization in any way. Want to know why?

Because when I joined I did so because I believed that this would be a group of people that valued the beauty of the human being, embraced a spirit of free and open critical inquiry, philosophical reflection, and wed that with an active commitment to a progressive agenda of social justice and human rights.

Of the course of my one and a half years of membership, you know what I found? I found that the AHA did very little besides bash religion. Almost every article, every call to action, indeed every issue that was ever brought to members had to do with criticizing fundamentalists or arguing against supernaturalism. Every time I turned around, there was only more evidence that the AHA was hardly pro anything, and instead was just an anti-religion organization.

This is a shame, because the subject of the rejection of supernatural imperatives for action and morality is only a tiny part of the Humanist Manifesto (II), and Humanism as reflected by Corliss Lamont was designed to be inclusive of secular and religious humanist, and of all people who believed in the dignity and importance of the human being, and believed that the power for positive transformative change lay in the domain of human action, and not supernatural intervention - a belief that is not irreconcilable with liberal religious articulations.

I'm not arguing for religious beliefs of any kind. But I was severely disappointed that the biggest subject the AHA ever talked about was religion, and how wrong it was, and and endless and repetitive attacking of classical theism, even while there were huge matters of gigantic importance going on in the world that should have been the focus of attention.

I'm not interested in joining an anti-religious group, or a group that makes its primary focus the attack or de-bunking of other people's beliefs. I am interested in organizations that have as their mission the active betterment of the human condition, the promotion of progressive ideals, and embracing of BOTH scientific rationality and emotional evocative beauty of life and the world, and an unswerving belief that regardless of faith beliefs or lack of faith believes, the power for continuing human betterment and development lies within each human being committed to progress. That is NOT what the AHA has show itself to be about in the last year and a half. I'm sick to deaht of yet another tired report critiquing the "logicality" of belief in God. That's not why I wanted to call myself a Humanist, to argue about matters of personal faith or lack thereof!

I have religious beliefs and I agree with every tennant of the Humanist Manifesto II including comments on supernatural beliefs insofar as they apply to classical theism or take away the primacy of human action in world affiars. Unfortunately, I wanted to come to a community where we could focus on real issues that matter in the world. Instead I found and organization that seems obsessed with religion, and the attack of it. I don't repsect that.

I am very disillusioned in "humanism" – at least insofar as it is officially represented by the American Humanist Association. And I don't even bother associating myself with the term these days.

[IrateCitizen]

1. Selwynn, have you ever explored a UU fellowship near you?

My wife and I started going close to two years ago, and we find it to be extremely fulfilling. Our congregation has Christians, Jews, Pagans, Wiccans and even Atheists. And while the "G-word" is being introduced more often these days, it is not done in a way that puts off those who are of an atheist bent -- nor do the atheists engage in condemning those who happen to believe in some kind of "creator" or "greater spirit".

[Selwynn]

2. I live in Boise Idaho - LOL I doubt there is a UU fellowship near me

[jono]

5. Sure there is

Boise Unitarian Universalist Fellowship
Number of Members: 193 Church Address: 6200 N Garrett St.
Boise, ID 83714-1250
Email Contact: [e-mail]
Web Site: http://www.unitarian-universalist.org

[Selwynn]

9. Thank you, this is interesting - I'll have to consider it...

[OKNancy]

6. I left a UU church because of the same things that went on

at the Humanist Organization. Fortunately I found another that was more to my liking. At the church I left all they did was make fun of religion and religious people. I told my husband that they were just the flip side of Oral Roberts.

I do not believe in ANY supernatural powers of any kind. But I also believe in the basic goodness of people.

[IrateCitizen]

19. I'm sorry for your bad experiences wth UU's, OKNancy.

I wish that your experiences with UU's could have been as overwhelmingly positive as mine have.

[OKNancy]

23. Oh they have

You missed the part where I said I found another one more to my liking. I forgot to say another UU church. We have three here in Tulsa.

http://www.allsoulschurch.org/

[Abe Linkman]

3. Your language is a turnoff

Saying something "totally sucked" is a very crude way of talking. It isn't a very smart way to entice people to read your little rant. All it did for me is make me want to ask you to please not sully DU with such language.

[Forkboy]

4. lol

:crazy:

Interesting post Selwynn,regardless of the "totally sucked" part.

How dare you sully DU :D

[OKNancy]

7. Did you contribute to the

Internet porn thread? That was one nasty peice of work. I didn't even notice it. I liked the rant.

[Selwynn]

8. I didn't know you felt that way.. I'll tell you want I'm gonna do...

I'm gonna leave it up. :)

I don't believe my intent of expressing how it made me feel crosses lines of appropriateness. I'm sorry that you do. I considered whether I should edit the post title while I still had time, but after giving it some thought, I don't feel my title is inapporpriate. And it isn't even remotely as blunt as many posts here.

I want to express the fact that I was severely dissapointed with my experience of the AHA. My experience really did suck, for me. I'm not going to change my comments on that.

I said "why MY TIME withe the AHA totally sucked." If I had said "Why the AHA totally sucks" that would be one thing. But my post is designed to express the fact that I had a very disappointed with the experience - and my post title describes that feeling to the tee.

I'm sorry you disagree, but on reflection, my choice of words stands.

[JasonBerry]

18. You're absolutely right, Selwynn

I think your post is fine --- as is. As you said, there are tons of posts on DU that are more, shall we say, "pointed." We can't go policing every term or phrase used. Thoughtful post, Selwynn.

[ixion]

10. don't hold the AHA against all Humanists....

While they might be the 'official' voice of humanists, I would tend to agree with you that humaists celebrate what it is to be human, and using a humaist coalition to attack fundies lowers them to the same level as the religious right, IMHO.

I'm not a member of the AHA, but I have also considered myself a humanist (informally) for many years, even though I will admit that stupid humans make me sad. Maybe that's why I've avoided offcial associations such as the AHA.

It seems to be the institutionalization of any group, be it religious, humanist or otherwise, that ultimately leads to the degradation of that group.

If you want to read the works of a great Humanist, read Vonnegut, if you haven't already. In my opinion, he's one of the finest humans around.

[Selwynn]

11. I really think you are on to something key:

It seems to be the institutionalization of any group, be it religious, humanist or otherwise, that ultimately leads to the degradation of that group.

I really think this is the sad truth, and it happens all the time...

Institutional religion?

Instituational Humanism?

Institutional Political PARTIES? (ooooh I'm gonna get in trouble for that one!)

How do we avoid this?

[ixion]

12. decentralization

that's the only way to avoid it, IMHO. Organizations will stay vibrant as long as they're accessible to it's members. Once you have an Uber group setting policy for All members everywhere, ultimately you lose quality.

I'm probably going to get flamed for saying that, but it's what I believe.

Decentralization is one of the reasons that the Founding Fathers gave so much power to the states. It's the idea that a community or extended family is the best way to organize. If you don't like a community, you find a group of like-minded individuals in a community with values and mores that suit you. The leadership of a community is accessible to each individual, and thus remains accountable.

One of the things I noticed when I was in Belize, is how the government is (or was) still accessible to the people. The bartender of the guest house where I stayed was running for the senate, for example. That's democracy on a local level, which is the best way to go, IMHO.

[ShimokitaJer]

14. I doubt you'll get flamed for that...

not because it doesn't apply to people on this list, but because the people on this list whom it most relates to won't realize that you're talking about them. They think they agree with what you're saying even as they attack others who don't think the way they do.

Who'd have thought humanism would be so hard for humans to practice?

[ixion]

16. exactly... Humanism = Too Hard for Humans

It's something we need to get over: Always thinking we're so correct about any given thing, that we refuse to believe there can be any other answer other than the one we've formulated. You see this time and time again in Science, Art, Religion, Politics, etc, and really, that is our Achilles Heel. The Truth is that people will always see existence from a wide variety of perspectives, and what we ought to try and do is work on trying to get along and truly accept people for their differences, rather than demonize them.

[IrateCitizen]

20. That's been my theory for a while now

As soon as members of an organization can no longer have a meaningful say in how that organization operates, then it ceases to represent the common good of its members. This is true whether you are talking about a religious community, a political party, a town/village/city, or a place of work.

No flames here. None whatsoever.

[ShimokitaJer]

13. Institutionalized dissent

I find your question extremely interesting, and admire your inclusion of political parties into the mix. Given the (occasionally reasonable) emphasis on capital "D" Democrats at DU and the frequent calls to stifle dissent or purge the rolls of Greens, Libertarians, or even Independents, it is clear that this kind of institutionalization is not something to which we are immune. Any organization that stifles dissent is on the road to replacing discussion with dogma, as your experience with the AHA shows.

I believe the only solution (if one actually exists) is to make exploration of dissenting opinion the fundamental goal of any organization which wants to avoid the trap. I'm not just saying that the group should encourage a difference of opinion, but that the group must actively explore the opposite side of issues in order to understand them, not merely to better attack them. What makes this so difficult is the very real possibility that you might have to change your mind about something.

I've seen this happen on DU often enough to be encouraged by it, but it is definitely the exception rather than the rule. Those who shout the loudest about how the Democratic Party is superior because of its open-mindedness and plurality of ideas are often the same ones who post "Bush(or Repugs/Nader/Catholics/Dean supporters/you) Suck!" or "I'd never give my vote to anyone who .... " Most people who are here are looking only to connect with people who agree with them, and when they find those who disagree, they create a divide and classify the infidels as "DINO" or "fake liberals." Hmmm... maybe we do have something like a religion here.

[info being]

15. I have an answer

But it won't be simple to describe in this format.

We need a "system" (which provides benefits greater than the sum of the parts) that doesn't constantly try to define what what is "normal" or "agreeable" to all members. We need a system that is united by diversity...one that gives us strength precisely through our diversity...one that fluidly links us up in appropriate ways with others based our uniqueness.

I have a very specific plan for such a virtual community, the groundwork for this can be seen in BETA at www.infobeing.net, but I'm currently putting these ideas and plans into a document and looking for Founders for such a movement.

[ixion]

17. good answer

I like your concept, and think that you're on the right track. Rather than deposing anomalies and differences, we ought to celebrate them.

[ixion]

22. hey, just checked out your site...

looks like a pretty cool concept. just wanted to pass on accolades.

http://www.infobeing.net/

[ShimokitaJer]

24. I checked it out too

But I'm confused about how you think it relates to this issue. Do you see your "subscription lists" being the beginnings of communities? If so, how do you see them being resistent to the problem of institutionalization?

[ixion]

25. yeah, not sure what it will do to thwart institutionalization

But I like the concept of an abstracted/relational community.

Now that I'm thinking about it, that is one of the things that could work against centralization... a community in the abstract. Although as infobeing grew, would it become that which it sought to replace? That is the trend.

The fundamental concept is sound, though. A loose association, based on any given number of not necessarily related concepts.

Sociologically speaking, we're up against a monster here, because of the human tendancy to organize into groups and seek control over other less powerful groups. That is really where we have to start tearing down the walls.
For example... let's say a group of people wanted to buy a large tract of land and start their own nation. There is virtually no country on earth that would let them live their lives. Many groups attempt this, but none have succeeded in contemporary times. Oceania, the Free State Project are just a couple examples. Oceania is pretty much defunct now, I believe, but they had the right idea: build a floating community in international waters, thus removing themselves from any specific governing body. Free State is attempting to move to a state and create an environment with sheer numbers, but that is probably doomed to fail. The US government would never allow a state to regulate itself entirely. There is the idea of buying an island, but in any of these scenarios, you run create a slippery slope as soon as you start dealing with outside governments, because their first impulse is going to be to gain control.

[mkregel]

21. Bob Dylan

"Don't follow leaders...watch your parking meters"

Always worked for me ;)

[pschoeb]

26. Huh? the group that puts out The Humanist?

your qoute
"Almost every article, every call to action, indeed every issue that was ever brought to members had to do with criticizing fundamentalists or arguing against supernaturalism."

well I went to the AHA site, and read their press releases and articles in The Humanist and saw nothing that bashed religion in general, only religious practices that were considered inhuman(as well as non religious practices that are inhuman, like the death penalty), and anything that effects seperation of church and state.

Here are the action alerts for 2003 and 2002
http://www.americanhumanist.org/press/actionalerts/

Here are the press releases
http://www.americanhumanist.org/press/pressreleases.html

Here is a Link to The Humanist where you can see their articles
http://www.thehumanist.org/

For September, I don't see bashing articles in existance, and most have almost nothing to do with religion or even supernaturalism at all. Maybe you could be more specific about which action alerts and articles upset you?
Here Septembers edition
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/SeptOct03.html

Also maybe you forgot to read the AHA definition of humanism before you joined? below are their definitions, are you saying that the group should not be allowed to eschew supernaturalism if it wants? They seem to have a clear stance on this, which would mean that they could critique supernaturalism if they want, and you are bashing them. This would be like me joining a church and complaining they talk about God all the time, I would consider that bashing as well.
Also both "secular" and "religious" humanists reject supernaturalism. Read the Humanist Manifesto II again, it makes clear that it is talking about naturalistic humanism which by definition does not support supernaturalism.

AHA definitions of Humanism

Humanism is a progressive lifestance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity.• American Humanist Association

Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice. Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values—be they religious, ethical, social, or political—have their source in human experience and culture. Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny. • The Humanist Magazine

Patrick Schoeb

[Malva Zebrina]

27. I am not sure that we have to "join" anything

to feel satisfied and happy.?????? Maybe as one gets older one becomes more autonomous and more secure in thier own convictions and does not need the security of a group. Do not get me wrong--things that are done in groups have power and can accomplish that which a single person cannot--but then, one must consider if they want to relinquish something of themself to the group.