Humanists- What’s Wrong with You?

Seriously Humanists, can we move past the ridiculous political ambitions that make absolutely no sense whatsoever? It seems nearly daily I can read an article put out by Humanists that makes me embarrassed to call myself one. Some of you who read this blog regularly think I’ve been hard on Christianity, and I suppose that’s true, however, I’m an equal opportunity complainer.

This discussion is taken from Humanism.org’s “Statement of New Humanism” (for some). For purposes of brevity, I will focus on only one section of this statement: their beliefs on democracy.

As for representative government, since the extension of universal suffrage people have believed that only a single act is involved when they elect their representative and their representative carries out the mandate received. But as time has passed, people have come to see clearly that there are in fact two acts: a first in which the many elect the few, and a second in which those few betray the many, representing interests foreign to the mandate they received.

True, to an extent. Representative Democracy is certainly not perfect. There never has been a perfect government, and let’s face it, there never will be. We must never forget that the people that are elected have ambitions of their own…We seem to expect a great extent of altruism from our elected officials, but are our expectations even remotely reasonable?

Humanists struggle to transform the practice of representative government, giving the highest priority to consulting the people directly through referenda, plebiscites, and direct election of candidates.

Are you freakin’ kidding me??? Someone else can do some research on the participation pathetic levels of the American people in Presidential elections, let alone the mid-term elections. You seriously want to consult the American people on issues such as waste disposal, how much to spend on Katrina cleanup, National infrastructure repairs, Covert military actions, and what day will be national “hug your cat” day? Everybody knows that any form of policy change toward direct democracy will be a huge disaster. It’s like Socialism- Sounds great in theory, works terribly. To be fair, they don’t seem to be arguing for direct democracy, however, they are talking about representative democracy reform. To what? Who will do the reforming? The representatives in power? I don’t think so.

And in order for there to be true equality of opportunity, during elections the news media must be placed at the service of the people, providing all candidates with exactly the same opportunities to communicate with the people.

I remember seeing something about “freedom of the press” somewhere.

To address the problem that elected officials regularly fail to carry out their campaign promises, there is also a need to enact laws of political responsibility that will subject such officials to censure, revocation of powers, recall from office, and loss of immunity.

Seriously? Who is going to enforce these laws? The elected officials?

As for directly consulting the people on the most urgent issues, every day the possibilities to do so increase through the use of technology. This does not mean simply giving greater importance to easily manipulated opinion polls and surveys. What it does mean is to facilitate real participation and direct voting by means of today’s advanced computational and communications technologies.

See above comments.

In sum, to give highest priority to the issues of capital and labor, real democracy, and decentralization of the apparatus of the State, is to set the political struggle on the path toward creating a new kind of society—a flexible society constantly changing in harmony with the changing needs of the people, who are now suffocated more each day by their dependence on an inhuman system.

So…how about giving a plan, rather than preaching the virtues. How are you going to create this “Utopian” society that is incredibly ridiculous.

Sorry for the rant, but when Humanists (or anyone for that matter) are more interested in picking apart the system, without having any ways to correct it, I get irritated. The same with my earlier post on Presidential Candidates. They say what’s wrong now, and what the ideal would be, but there’s no meat to it.

How do You Relate to Your Leaders?

While I have long held an interest in politics, I have been resolved to not broach that subject within the confines of this blog. My reasoning for this:

1. There are far too many blogs of this nature out there (for better or worse)
2. I don’t know exactly where I stand anymore

While I still hold a deep and abiding view that politics is a very important subject for all citizens to be both knowledgeable of and closely monitored, I can’t help this apathy I’ve obtained in the last few years. I admit that I am ashamed of this apathy, as I always felt that those who were apathetic to politics were just making excuses. However, I truly have become apathetic. I can really only think of one reason: The Practicing of Politics Requires Full Concealment.

Have you noticed the changes in the parties, candidates, and even the media as the political season gears up for another 1 1/2 year long Presidential race? Really, what becomes important? I am tired of watching the Sunday morning political shows where the politicians will be asked about their stance on the Iraq war, and end up reminiscing over their Grandmother’s all-American apple pie that they ate fresh out of the oven when they were kids. The politicians will answer questions with no answer at all, and I really am tired of it.

Perhaps this is our fault (as a nation). Perhaps we hold expectations that are too high for any one person to even attempt to attain. Indeed, perhaps we make it impossible for people to actually answer questions with how they honestly feel. Is President Bush a conservative? Well, perhaps socially, but not fiscally. And, to be honest, it depends upon which group you were to ask. Perhaps the religious right would say he’s socially conservative, while other conservative think-tanks would say he’s not fiscally conservative. We have neo-cons, liberals, moderates, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, religious, non-religious, blah blah blah. I truly long for the candidate who will just say what he or she thinks, without fear of which group they might forsake support.

This post is turning into more of a rant than I intended, but I haven’t posted in a couple of weeks, and it has been building. There is another area that truly disturbs me in politics: Religion.

I watched the Republican debate on Fox a week or two ago…Did you know that for each candidate, they would list on the screen as they were speaking what religious persuasion they hold? It was absolutely astounding to me. Everyone was a Christian, of some form or another, oh, and one Mormon. We have politicians wanting to make sure they are seen entering and leaving church, quoting the bible, and generally trying to appeal to the “family values” of the America of a bygone era. I am tired of feeling like I’m being pandered to in the vain hope of getting my vote.

I understand the reasoning behind this religious focus. If someone holds the same, or similar, religious views I do, then the chances are good that they will hold the same values as I. This makes complete sense, however, I can’t help but wonder if there isn’t a better way to relate to our leaders. I feel that all of this religious pandering that the candidates do throughout these campaigns really cheapens the religions and those who support them because of these views. Think about this, how does the phrase “religious right” make you feel? How about the group “Christian Coalition,” or the “Family Research Council,” or “Focus on the Family?” My point is not to speak out against these groups per se, but instead, bring to mind the emotion and anger that these groups can bring out among the masses. The same can be said for “Moveon.org” and the “ACLU.” While those last two aren’t religious, they do raise the same emotions from the other side.

Here’s what I would like to see. A man or woman, answering the questions asked, giving their opinions, giving their plans, and giving their goals for what they want accomplished in their Presidency. Stop telling me that you’re for “Family Values,” and then not tell me what that means. How many candidates have been for “family values” and had opposite views on abortion, homosexuality, and the role of religion in government? Many. What are family values? Whose family? How is that family made up? Wife, husband, 2.4 kids? Or…single mother raising her two children with a minimum wage job and living in tenaments?

I think we need more Americans as Politicians, not politicians that happen to be Americans.

American Christianity? Part Two

In the last “American Christianity” post, I was solely interested in making the point that Christianity, at least here in America, has become “Americanized”. Here, however, I am more interested in the fact that Christianity and American seem to go hand-in-hand in many circles. I find this extremely interesting as I have previously posted on the cultural ties within religion. However, Christianity did not start here in America, nor was America founded on Christian principles. (I know, many will argue this last statement, however, Christianity does not, I’m afraid, have a copyright on Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness). Instead, American political philosophy was very much dependent upon Enlightenment ideals. So, how is it that to not be a christian, has become un-american? How is it that people have the belief that Christianity and the freedoms that the United States enjoys go together so well?

Christianity has taken up a huge role in politics today. This can be seen every election year when a candidate’s religious views are put to the test, as is their church attendance. We look at the religious views often times to get an idea of how patriotic a person is. Conservatives are Christians, liberals are not. In order to be a Christian, one has to practice conservative politics. It truly is astounding. Many people go as far as to vote for a candidate based on their religious beliefs and fervor. I can think of former Presidential candidates such as Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer, both of whom had not a chance at winning the Presidency, but were able to mobilize huge support in the Christian arena.

It’s interesting to me to look how Christianity has been Americanized now. While there are news stories about China soon becoming the nation with the largest amount of Christians, I daresay that no other nation comes close in in the efforts of evangelism, missions, and donations for worldwide broadcast of the Christian message as the churches of the United States. The only problem with this effort by the churches of the United States in worldwide evangelism, is that Christianity in other countries does not necessarily reflect the Christianity here in the United States. They may have the same central beliefs about Jesus, however, their approaches may be far different.

American Christianity seems to have a lot of emphasis on “doing”. Many churches go a long way to do good works for others (although often at a price of listening to the Gospel message and solicitation to join their faith). While I don’t believe that American Christians as a whole are doing more good works than non-Christians, as Churches they are very focused on evangelization and supporting missionaries and church planters all around the globe.

It seems however that Christianity in many other nations is more internally focused. More contemplative, introverted. I could be mistaken in this, as these are just my own observations. To me, it’s just remarkable how a religion centered around an Israelite, officially founded in Rome, has now been centered in the United States.

Somehow, it has become unpatriotic to question Christianity, just as it has become unpatriotic to question the war. Christians (as a whole, yes there are exceptions) tend to be supportive of the war in Iraq, whereas non-christians tend to be against the war. Christians, as a whole, tend to support the Israeli cause, whereas non-christians tend to support the Palestinian cause. Much of this comes from the belief of Israel as God’s chosen people. Christians, as a whole, tend to be for the Constitutional Amendment banning Gay marriage, whereas non-christians tend to be against it.

I’m not trying to slam Christianity or support it, I just find it interesting how your religious beliefs tend to determine your political support. In a country as diverse as the United States, I find it a dangerous thing to combine politics and religion.

It’s fine to support the Israeli or Palestinian cause, but what is your reasoning for doing so. Is it based on a text out of history (the bible) or actually following what’s happening now? It’s fine to be for or against the marriage amendment, but what is your reasoning? Is it because an historical text makes a few statements about it, or is it otherwise? It’s fine to support or not support the war in Iraq, but what is your reasoning? Is it because the President of the United States is somewhat conservative and a proclaimed Christian, or is it otherwise?

In conclusion, to base the policies of the United States on Christianity is just not reasonable. Nor is it reasonable for Christians to just get out of politics. C.S. Lewis once made the comment (I’m paraphrasing): The world doesn’t need more Christian authors; the world needs more authors who are Christians. I firmly believe that any religion has a much better chance at furthering it’s cause by participation in society as a citizen, not through participation in society as a Christian (or any other religion). This goes to C.S. Lewis’ point. Minds are changed through reasoning. If one has reasoning behind one’s beliefs, then there is a much greater chance at institutional change. One cannot change mind’s by using a personal religious perspective. It is dangerous to combine patriotism with religion, and the founding fathers recognized this point.

Have opinions, have central beliefs of right and wrong, but please don’t try to affect national policy because of your own personal religious views.

The Problem with Humanism- No Borders

In some Humanist circles, the idea of nationality is regarded as a severe roadblock to human progress. There are many humanists that cosider themselves “world citizens” before claiming any nationality. While I undestand this view, I cannot go along with it.

Nationality plays too large a role in our world to even consider the prospect of doing away with it. Citizens, including me, are extremely proud to hail from their country of origen. I think nationality affects our lives in more ways than we realize. Political beliefs, religious beliefs, social norms, views of the rest of the world, cultural relations are all affected by nationality. Consider how differently citizens of other countries view world events.

Nationality also can give people a sense of pride and loyalty. How many of us rally behind our nation’s team every time the Olympics come around. How about national achievements in Science, the respect of a nation’s flag, the history surrounding your country? All of these things, along with many others, help to make nationality very important. On some level, nearly everyone can feel some sense of belonging as a citizen of their country.

When considering that some Humanists believe that a borderless world would bring us all closer, we have to take all of these points into account. What do we have in common with every other person in the world? Humanity. The fundamental issues that lead to war, primarily religion and politics, will in no way be lessened by a borderless world.