Humanists that want to “Cross Out” America
If I had to
classify the American Humanist Association’s (AHA) direction
lately, I’d say it is like a kite in the wind.
Their tagline reads, “Good without a God.” It is a
nice concept, but can’t they do so without lawyers and
lobbyists? Has reason failed and the art of personal persuasion
been abandoned for strong armed methods?
Straying from Humanist Principles
lines from the Humanist Manifesto III that strongly appealed to
this ex-minister upon leaving the ministry and religion; they
still do! The following lines are from the Humanist
Manifesto III (The Humanist Manifesto is a trademark of the
Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed
to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views.
are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and
concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences
are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The
joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our
lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires
hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.
spirit of that great document has been lost by a number of folks
representing or claiming humanism. Hypersensitivity has set in
and many within the movement are looking to be offended or for a
fight that they might be able use to pander for funding
movement attacked an excellent writer (Sally Quinn) because a
“popular blogger” couldn’t discern apparent satire before
he hung the story upon the foul pole. I might add, the AHA has
featured this “blogger” for many years.
AHA is somewhat confused about their identity. They seem to have
successfully conflated two differing terms: atheism and
humanism. This is the organization that awarded Humanists of the
Year to two notable atheists: Richard Dawkins (1996) and Daniel
Dennett (2004). But they outdid themselves with the 2009 honor,
Ignorant Humanists Admit That They Want to Tear Down America
PZ Myers has
different ideas about being good
without God. One would think that the AHA has a hard time
squaring PZ’s view with their tagline. At least PZ has the
integrity to be forthright about his goals. According to Will
Durant, PZ’s confession is what Durant identifies as what
destroys society. Seems
that PZ’s education shorted him of Durant & Santayana.
Nevertheless he and his flunkies are smugly speeding towards the
cliff, defiant or unaware of what lies ahead.
following quotes from: PZ Myers
Sacrilege Bad Without God
“Announcing that atheists are “good” is a repudiation of
our actual goals, which are subversive. We aim to change the
that’s really my big problem with the phrase: I don’t want
to be reassuring to people whose awful bogosity I oppose. I want
to provoke and challenge, I want to change the status quo, I
want to tear down the gooey conventionality of morality and
narrow standards of public behavior. I want us all to mock and
laugh at public professions of piety. I want to change how
people think, and I want people to reject the absurd claim that
our morality is founded on an odious holy book.”
Wow, not one
word of descent from a movement with leaders that cannot
recognize the peril their movement yearns for. It is hard for me
to fathom the lack of discernment and leadership within such a
highly educated movement and those ignorantly following them.
These people seem to dislike America. I’ll call it for what it is:
revolutionaries tear down a country. Humanists must be finding
it hard to be good without God these days.
The AHA's Cross Hypersensitivity is Un-American -- Self Centered Pandering
sacrifice seem to upset the AHA. While Myers wants to mock
and laugh at public professions of piety, the AHA’s Fred
Edwords was offended with a Peace Cross in Bladensburg, MD (link
to the story & a veterans
Edwords might have a lawyer loving point. It definitely plays as
a fund raising pandering item that sickos will be attracted to.
This humanist understands the Peace Cross situation as a
predates Christianity by centuries. Speaking frankly, it’s
hard to avoid the pagan origins of a cross. Even without this
knowledge, I must ask how one can object to a reminder of
sacrifice in our modern day? Practically, society benefits by
having a representative symbol that reminds us of the virtue of
sacrifice. Christianity wisely adopted a pagan symbol to
commemorate sacrifice, in their lore it cost them their founder.
A cross spans secular and religious viewpoints; now a crucifix
is distinctively Christian (the Peace Cross isn’t a crucifix
on public land). Come on Fred, I think your hypersensitivity is
a bit shallow.
This all leads me to a déjà vu moment. Something good like religion and humanism get seized upon by people that blatantly misrepresent its precepts and get away with doing so. Before long, society has a difficult time distinguishing the real thing from the bastardized version, which is loathed. It happened with Christianity, its happening now with humanism. As constructed, the secular movement has nothing to contribute to society except agitation. Americans have lived in a secular society my whole life span, thus we have always had a “secular movement” (we don’t live under a theocracy). That is a legitimate unintended secular movement that should be distinguished from the current band of revolutionaries on parade.
Brian Worley Ex-Minister.org October 16, 2012 All Rights Reserved