Category: Utah Humanist

The Right Side of History

By whatever name we’re called—and we have many names,
Like humanists and secularists—we all have similar aims.

One is a world that’s rational, that looks at actual facts,
At objective evidence to inform our thoughts and acts.

Too many in this world, though, do not accept this view
And embrace their ideologies which to them are true.

They hold back much needed progress as climate change deniers,
Preaching to the world that climate change scientists are liars.

Anti-evolution creationists are hell-bent on winning,
Believing that Genesis records the world’s beginning.

How many patriarchs are there who populate the Senate
Who believe in “legitimate rape” as a guiding tenet?

Birther Donald Trump and many others still pursue
The idea that Obama is not native born; and, too,

That Obama’s socialistic and a Muslim; they insist we see
That he wants nothing more than to destroy democracy.

And still too many people think that men choose to be gay.
The disregard the evidence that they were born that way.

The list of false beliefs goes on and on, there is no end.
They skew debate and everything on which our lives depend.

I think the number of ideologues will decrease
As non-rational beliefs dwindle, promising us peace,

And that sometime in the future there will by no mystery
About who today is on the right side of history.

—Earl Wunderli

---

President’s Report

Happy new year everyone, I hope you had a pleasant holiday season.

Looking back on 2015, for me it was a rather busy year in spite of my being mostly retired. I could spend some time reflecting positively and negatively on the year. There is plenty to reflect on both personally, locally, nationally and worldwide. And, have no doubt I will have a lot to say about subjects like Donald Trump, terrorism, the environment, etc. in the month to come. But for now I would rather contemplate the coming year.

Personally, I had sort of a wow experience as I realized that I will soon be (no doubt) getting notices of my fifty-year high school reunion. Now I’m feeling like a real geezer (with apologies to those who don’t like the word geezer.) It should be interesting see who shows up. I remember last time Amy and I sat at a table where two of the wives (obviously Mormon) were determined to sit with mostly folded arms determined NOT to have a good time. It was held at a country club with all the decadence of a cash bar. But enough about the past for now.

In regards to our Humanists of Utah schedule, we have as our January guest speaker, Terry Orme, editor and publisher of the Salt Lake Tribune. Interestingly, my wife Amy knew Mr. Orme when He was doing the concert reviews and such. Her father John O’Connor was an editor on the city desk at the time and from what I’m told, Terry would pass on extra tickets to concerts to John for his daughters. So I’m looking forward to meeting and hearing from Mr. Orme and I hope you will join us.

In February we will be hosting our ninth annual Darwin Day celebration. This year it will be held at our usual venue in Eliot Hall at the Unitarian Church. As usual, there will be a reception before the speaker with catered finger food and a birthday cake for after the speaker.

I know I’m getting ahead of things a little bit, but one reason I have been excited about our Ninth Darwin Day event is that next year will be our tenth. That seems to me to be a milestone of some note. Hopefully the tradition will go on for many years. It has also been a dream or aspiration of mine to eventually form a foundation that could help make sure in goes on indefinitely. Now I realize forming a foundation is no simple task. It takes a lot of work and funding to plan and implement such a project, but I certainly think it is worth the effort.

That’s about all I have to say for now except to ask that you let us know what we can do to get more of you to join us more often. You know, we rarely here from some of you and we would like to see you.

Thanks to all for your support.

—Robert Lane
President, HoU

---

 

Passport to Hiroshima

At our November General Meeting we were pleased to have Toshiharu (Tosh) Kano as our guest speaker. Tosh and his wife currently reside in the foothills of Mount Olympus, and he “enjoys a quiet life with their two dogs (Indie and Speedy), cats, and a yard family of birds and squirrels.” He gave us an entertaining (but somewhat terrifying) account of what it was like to be in Japan near the end of World War II, and its following occupation. He was still in his mother’s womb when Hiroshima was bombed by a nuclear weapon on August 6, 1945; his mother and family were less than one-half mile from the hypocenter of the blast. It is somewhat of a mystery as to how they survived being that close, when so many thousands nearby were incinerated. 

Tosh was born a few months later, and the story of he and his family’s survival is well documented in a book recently completed by him called “Passport To Hiroshima.” One fact emphasized in his talk (and in his book) is that the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, as terrible and destructive as it was, is a child’s toy compared to the thousands of nuclear weapons stockpiled by the Superpowers in today’s world, each one a thousand times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb.

Tosh, who describes himself as Shinto and Buddhist, considers it to be his mission to help to bring peace to today’s world, in the hope that nuclear weapons will never again be used in war. To quote a passage near the end of his book: “War has no sharp edges. It does not begin on this day nor end on another. It is especially so with nuclear war. The world is altered forever by the presence of a monster ironically named, as though to feign innocence, “Little Boy.” Having once been unleashed, this dragon lives forever. Though chained by law within the deep abyss of international treaties, and intents and guarded by the angel of peace, the beast still lives. We must never allow it to break free of its restraints.”

One might expect that the survivors of Hiroshima would be bitter toward the United States, but a quote from Tosh’s father, Toshiyuki Nekomoto/Kano, says “I will honestly say, no. They don’t hate the United States, but the war.” He also stated “Let bygones be bygones. Let us not have hatred against each other but better understanding and live together in prosperity, peaceful and united.” This was certainly a thought-provoking presentation for our monthly meeting, giving us much to ponder as we observe today’s headlines from around the globe.

—Art King

---

The First War on Christmas

How did the first settlers celebrate Christmas? They didn’t. The Pilgrims who came to America in 1620 were strict Puritans, with firm views on religious holidays such as Christmas and Easter. Scripture did not name any holiday except the Sabbath, they argued, and the very concept of “holy days” implied that some days were not holy. “They for whom all days are holy can have no holiday,” was a common Puritan maxim.

Puritans were particularly contemptuous of Christmas, nicknaming it “Foolstide” and banning their flock from any celebration of it throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. On the first December 25 the settlers spent in Plymouth Colony, they worked in the fields as they would on any other day. The next year, a group of non-Puritan workmen caught celebrating Christmas with a game of “stoole-ball” — an early precursor of baseball — were punished by Governor William Bradford. “My conscience cannot let you play while everybody else is out working,” he told them.

Why didn’t Puritans like Christmas? They had several reasons, including the fact that it did not originate as a Christian holiday. The upper classes in ancient Rome celebrated December 25 as the birthday of the sun god Mithra. The date fell right in the middle of Saturnalia, a month-long holiday dedicated to food, drink, and revelry, and Pope Julius I is said to have chosen that day to celebrate Christ’s birth as a way of co-opting the pagan rituals. Beyond that, the Puritans considered it historically inaccurate to place the Messiah’s arrival on December 25. They thought Jesus had been born sometime in September.

So their objections were theological? Not exclusively. The main reason Puritans didn’t like Christmas was that it was a raucously popular holiday in late medieval England. Each year, rich landowners would throw open their doors to the poor and give them food and drink as an act of charity. The poorest man in the parish was named the “Lord of Misrule”, and the rich would wait upon him at feasts that often descended into bawdy drunkenness. Such decadence never impressed religious purists. “Men dishonor Christ more in the 12 days of Christmas”, wrote the 16th-century clergyman Hugh Latimer, “than in all the 12 months besides.”

When did that view win out? Puritans in the English Parliament eliminated Christmas as a national holiday in 1645, amid widespread anti-Christmas sentiment. Settlers in New England went even further, outlawing Christmas celebrations entirely in 1659. Anyone caught shirking their work duties or feasting was forced to pay a significant penalty of five shillings.

Christmas returned to England in 1660, but in New England it remained banned until the 1680s, when the Crown managed to exert greater control over its subjects in Massachusetts. In 1686, the royal governor of the colony, Sir Edmund Andros, sponsored a Christmas Day service at the Boston Town House. Fearing a violent backlash from Puritan settlers, Andros was flanked by redcoats as he prayed and sang Christmas hymns.

Did the Puritans finally relent? Not at all. They kept up their boycott of Christmas in Massachusetts for decades. Cotton Mather, New England’s most influential religious leader, told his flock in 1712 that “the feast of Christ’s nativity is spent in reveling, dicing, carding, masking, and in all licentious liberty…by mad mirth, by long eating, by hard drinking, by lewd gaming, by rude reveling!”

European settlers in other American colonies continued to celebrate it, however, as both a pious holiday and a time for revelry. In his Poor Richard’s Almanac of 1739, Philadelphian Benjamin Franklin wrote of Christmas: “O blessed Season! Lov’d by Saints and Sinners / For long Devotions, or for longer Dinners.”

So Christmas was finally accepted at that time? No. Anti-Christmas sentiment flared up again around the time of the American Revolution. Colonial New Englanders began to associate Christmas with royal officialdom, and refused to mark it as a holiday. Even after the U.S. Constitution came into effect, the Senate assembled on Christmas Day in 1797, as did the House in 1802. It was only in the following decades that disdain for the holiday slowly ebbed away. Clement Clarke Moore’s poem “A Visit From St. Nicholas”—aka “’Twas the Night Before Christmas”—was published in New York in 1823 to enormous success.

In 1836, Alabama became the first state to declare Christmas a public holiday, and other states soon followed suit. But New England remained defiantly Scrooge-like; as late as 1850, schools and markets remained open on Christmas Day. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow finally noted a “transition state about Christmas” in New England in 1856. “The old Puritan feeling prevents it from being a cheerful, hearty holiday; though every year makes it more so,” he wrote. Christmas Day was formally declared a federal holiday by President Ulysses S. Grant in 1870.

—PIQUE Newsletter, 12/15
Reprinted from Week Magazine12/20/11

---

President’s Report

It would seem inappropriate for me to use my December President’s Report to criticize religion. But I just can’t help it. Those of you who know me know that I don’t shy away from disparaging religion, but you may also know that I prefer to counter the effects of religion as best we can by advocacy for our humanist aspirations and the advocacy of science. Plus, some of the discussions and arguments become the same ones over and over again and somewhat tiresome.

But recent events, both worldwide and right here at home, have gotten under my skin to the point that my head will explode if I don’t vent a little. This venting could easily turn into a tome, so I’ll try to just touch on three things, the Paris terrorist attack, the Colorado Planned Parenthood shootings and the Mormon effect here at home. My, oh my, I took a break from writing this report and in the time that has passed I have become aware of the latest shooting in San Bernardino. It has derailed my train of thought. It is difficult to get back to what I was going to write about, but I’ll try.

In regard to the “worldwide” event, I’m referring to the killings in Paris (there were bombings elsewhere too). I don’t want to dwell on condemning these horrible acts. That should go without saying. But I do want to comment on the continued cries that “this isn’t about Islam.” I understand that the average moderate religious individual is not responsible for the actions of others. Although I think the moderates could and should do more to counter and resist the murderous elements amongst them. But there are those of their same basic religion that are using THEIR own version, their interpretation of their religion to justify their actions. It is about religion, not everyone’s religion, but religion none the less.

If we move on to the Planned Parenthood shootings in Colorado, we don’t have to look to deep to see religion involved here also. It is my opinion that the people who doctored the video about Planned Parenthood regarding fetal tissue awhile back are partly to blame for this incident. For me, it is almost like inciting to riot, but in a more sneaky way.

Finally I want to write about the “Mormon effect” as I sometimes call it. I am sure you are aware of the “uprising” the LDS church’s edict about children of married LGBT couples being excluded from rituals and baptism until age 18 is causing. Plus, they also have to disavow their parents and their parents’ lifestyle to be accepted. It is kind of like the Old Testament where some group or tribe of people are to be cursed for seven generations. You know, punished for the sins of the fathers or mothers. Pretty pathetic beliefs if you ask me. But I also got a little black humored chuckle over this. I understand this is serious and very hurtful for many in this situation. Exclusion can be difficult to deal with. It happened to me when I told the bishopric that I was not going to accept being made an elder in the church and would not accept a mission call. The “Mormon Iron Curtain” came down and most the Mormon neighbors wanted little to do with me. But I did not care because I had little in common with them and would soon join the U.S. Air Force and leave happy valley for four years.

Getting back to the chuckle I got, it was also because when my children were born we decided not to have them blessed by the church as all their grandparents requested and were appalled that we did not. It is funny because my children have actually thanked me that the church didn’t have their names.

Thanks for letting me rant about religion. We are hosting our annual December Social on the tenth. So be sure to come and bring a friend. I am looking forward to it.

—Robert Lane
President, Hou

---

Mentoring Reconsidered

Dr. Mary Jo Hinsdale, author of Mutuality, Mystery and Mentorship in Higher Education, is the Director of the McNair Scholars Program at Westminster College. She spoke to us on October 8 concerning mentoring “outsider” students.

While this PhD is highly academic, her talk was quite personal. Through the program she directs, she seeks to find ways for people less well-represented in higher education to be successful in the academic field. These students have been marginalized and minoritized by society and academia. Most have experienced myriad microagressions.

Dr. Hinsdale told stories of students, especially Latinos, who feel that there is no space for them in the predominately white university system, as if they don’t belong there, especially because they are so often thought to be part of the service staff. Advanced degrees may utilize knowledge practices that have remnants of colonial times. These contemporary resonances of colonialism are barriers to progress of each individual and of academia in total.

Thus, mentoring the outsider is deeper and more risky than a protocol or list of ways that a mentor may interact with a protégé. The McNair program attempts to induce trust in both the mentors involved as well as the protégé’s they work with. Both groups are changed by the interactions. Thus, the word “mutuality” in the title of Dr. Hinsdale’s book.

As Dr. Hinsdale says, building trust is complex and is more than having a cup of coffee. It takes time to create a trusting relationship with a protégé, and mentors must realize they can never truly know another’s experience. Thus the word “mystery” in the title of her book.

As W. Brad Johnson says in his book On Being a Mentor, “Mentoring is a personal and reciprocal relationship in which a more experienced, usually older, faculty member acts as a guide, role model, teacher, and sponsor of a less experienced, usually younger, student or faculty member. A mentor provides the protégé with knowledge, advice, counsel, challenge, and support in the protégé’s pursuit of becoming a full member of a particular profession.”

78% of the graduates of the McNair Scholars Program have either attained advanced degrees or are in graduate programs. The ultimate goal of this U.S. Department of Education TRIO program (started in 1987) is to diversity the professoriate.

Dr. Hinsdale ended her informative talk with some practical ideas to exemplify the Will Rogers quote: “Go out on a limb–that’s where the fruit is.”

Mentoring is a personal and reciprocal relationship in which a more experienced, usually older, faculty member acts as a guide, role model, teacher, and sponsor of a less experienced, usually younger, student or faculty member. A mentor provides the protégé with knowledge, advice, counsel, challenge, and support in the protégé’s pursuit of becoming a full member of a particular profession.

77% of the graduates of the McNair Scholars Program have either attained advanced degrees or are in graduate programs. Eight alumni have already attained the PhD, and seven have earned professional doctorates. The ultimate goal of this U.S. Department of Education TRIO program (started in 1987) is to diversity the professoriate.

Dr. Hinsdale ended her informative talk with some practical ideas to exemplify the Will Rogers quote: “Go out on a limb—that’s where the fruit is.”

Going out on a limb requires a mentor to signal openness and conduct a relationship that allows for mutual connection. A mentor must be curious about the protégé all the while respecting who the protégé really is. A mentor must want the protégé to succeed and take their ideas seriously. Mentors have to be willing to adopt an “inquiry stance”, lay down their defenses and be willing to share power and voice critical understanding of privilege.

From this discussion of Dr. Hinsdale’s work, we see that her book, which can be found on Amazon or in the Westminster Bookstore, elaborates the complex process that is mentoring and the wide range of skills which are required to mentor well and with satisfaction.

—Lauren Florence, MD

 

---

President’s Report

Sometimes I have a hard time thinking of something new to write about each month. Plus lately I’ve been extra busy. But I know a couple of individuals who are struggling with serious health problems. Plus, they are struggling with obtaining needed resources, in one case, and obtaining disability benefits in another. So this awareness of the “struggling” I see reminds me of a good subject (well related) to write about. That being the lack of a Medicaid plan for Utah. Still, after all this time, nothing. I mean, they have had quite a bit of time since the first opportunity to implement something came available a few years ago. But the decision makers are happy to pat themselves on the back for being fiscally responsible. As if that were really the case as they try to lure business with tax breaks and allow other corporations to pollute without much in the way of any useful restrictions. But I digress.

So, what does it say about our culture here in Utah that everything is business as usual while people want for basic health care? It would appear to me that there is a total lack of empathy (from conservatives) for the needs of a large number of fellow human beings. This seems a bit odd to me because on the one hand the dominate religion here, LDS, does do a lot of charity work and giving. But on the other hand we have those in our state government who are almost all of the LDS faith that refuse to get anything done for the needy. It does seems that the bottom line, profits, matters of money are more important than the needs of some who are struggling and even desperate for help. And recently we’ve seen local media reports make reference to statistics that state that a number of people have died due to the lack of action on the part of our legislature.

Sometimes it’s a little baffling to me that we Americans haven’t come to some sort of collective awareness, that if we provide a few of those basic needs like food shelter and basic health care, we will have a healthier society in general. Why don’t we understand COLLECTIVELY that if people aren’t stupefied by poverty and ill health they might be more productive, happier, and less prone to destructive or criminal behavior? I know some will cry about the evils of socialism, but some aspects of socialism are worthy ideals when implemented rationally.

I’m well aware that providing health care for those who have little or no means to pay for it is an expensive endeavor. But I think it can and must be done, for all the moral and practical reasons that are so blaringly apparent to all. Except, of course to certain uncaring conservatives.

—Robert Lane
President, HoU

---

Dear Minister Elaine

We are doing an episode on Polyamorous weddings/commitment ceremonies (triads or larger) or even those who are planning a proposal. We will be shooting in the next few weeks so we are hoping to find partners who have imminent plans [and] would allow us into their lives leading up to the big day to shed light on committed polyamorous relationships! Would you know of anyone who might be interested? After speaking to so many wonderful polyamorous families who fear coming forward, I am passionate about finding partners who feel they are ready to talk about this on a national platform. MTV is committed to telling stories that will influence tolerance and respect and address biases that we may not even know we have. Check out their campaign: http://www.lookdifferent.org/about

—Z.P., Casting Director for MTV True Life

 

Dear Z.P.,

While I have been certified to provide officiating services to non-theistic Utahns since 2011, I have not yet been asked to officiate at a Poly/Open wedding or commitment ceremony. I do, however, strongly believe that polyamorous families, especially those in committed relationships, raising children with multiple partners, need to have their voices heard! They are out there, but as you point out, far too many are living in fear of coming forward in their communities.

I’ve chosen to answer this question of yours publicly through our Humanists of Utah monthly newsletter, in the hope that someone will see that MTV True Life is interested in telling their stories! Thank you sincerely for working to break down the barriers that our society has erected to exclude non-traditional families from public recognition, understanding, and support. All families deserve to be open and honest about who they are, and who they love!

Please submit questions relating to humanism, ethical living, complicated life decisions, etc. to Minister Elaine Stehel at ministerelaine@gmail.com

—Elaine Stehel

---

Health Care Reform Task Force

You have all heard or read about the Utah Legislatures efforts to create an acceptable health care plan for those individuals falling within the “coverage gap” as a result of the federal Affordable Care Act.

The Gang of Six and Utah House of Representatives have been toiling away for months…behind closed doors…and finally coming up with UTAH ACCESS +.

Would you believe they then invited the general public to a meeting in the House Building to present the “fruits of their labors”? Well, Robert and I took advantage of this open-ness and attended on Tuesday, October 6, in the afternoon.

The Main Room 30 was packed so two overflow rooms were made available with audio and video accessibility; but we were provided only with audio. I was pleased to see numerous white T-shirts in all three rooms, as the Alliance For A Better Utah suggested we wear. During the session their reactions, like ours, as to what was going on were quietly voiced now and again.

A clipboard was passed around for anyone to sign either Pro or Con on the UTAH ACCESS +. Within a short period of time there were quite a few signatures, people hoping to be called upon for a comment or question. (at the end of two hours only a few  private citizens had the opportunity to speak).

An Agenda also was furnished listing all those who were invited to participate. This was a long list of those from the medical field; such as the Utah Hospital Association, Utah Medical Association, Utah Pharmacies, on and on…17 in all. Oh, I thought, this is great. As UTAH ACCESS + would be partially funded by doctors, hospitals. etc. The responses and comments were (not surprisingly) negative in endorsing this plan.

So much of the time was taken up by the legislatures pressing questions upon these spokes persons.  Also they kept droning on and on about the millions and millions of dollars and percentages here and there and explaining charts, that my eyes glazed over and attention was almost nil.

After about an hour of this, I realized this was a “set up” by these legislators. A plan brought before us, in the open, which they knew would not “pass muster” with those they designated to pay for Utah’s share of any costs of the plan.

How could a legislative body representing the electorate in Utah so flagrantly flaunt a plan such as UTAH ACCESS + and manipulate this much needed health care in this way?????

—Sally Jo Fuller
—Robert Frahm

 

---

Founding Politics: Debating the Constitution in Philadelphia

Professor Jeremy Pope from the Political Science Department of BYU presented our Founders Day lecture. He started by discussing George Washington’s “first farewell” which was titled Circular to the States, the third sentence reads, “if their Citizens should not be completely free and happy, the fault will be entirely their own.” In the end the loose federation of the states proved to be too little to guarantee the safety and prosperity of group so a Constitutional Convention was convened. This was not an easy thing to do, why did they establish the government that they did? On February 21, 1787, the Continental Congress resolved that “…it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several States be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.”

Some of the main players included William Paterson of New Jersey who was a successful advocate for the rights of the small states. James Wilson from Pennsylvania advocated a strong and independently elective executive. Roger Sherman from Connecticut who had helped with the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, proposed the Great Compromise. Gouverneur Morris from Pennsylvania did the actual drafting of the constitution. Alexander Hamilton was a powerful friend of stronger government. George Mason from Virginia, while a major player, did not sign the final document as it lacked a bill of rights. John Rutledge from South Carolina strongly defended slavery at the convention. Benjamin Franklin from Pennsylvania, while his age prevented as much participation as some, endorsed the constitution and backed it with his prestige. George Washington left retirement to risk his reputation on the enterprise. He only made two speeches, but he presided over the convention and consistently supported the document.

Socializing was an important aspect of getting the document completed. The delegates spent a lot of time at taverns and eating together. An actual surviving bill from City Tavern shows that they ordered about two and a quarter containers of alcohol per delegate for one evening; wines, claret, whiskey, porter, hard cider, beer, and alcoholic punch were all listed. These conversations were less formal than the ones in Constitution Hall but were the source of many significant compromises. Among the significant agreements were Proportional Representation, Federalism, and Executive Independence. There were roughly three groups of states: the (physically) Small States which wanted little if any reform but favored a stronger executive. The Deep South, who wanted to change federalism and representation to favor slave-holding states, but did not want to make a powerful executive. Finally the Core Reform States who wanted to change everything, but they didn’t all agree on exactly how and what.

They set an example that could help us today. Slavery was of paramount importance, much that is good in the Constitution came about because of the slave interest. The founders did NOT agree on everything but they were able to compromise and forge one of the greatest political documents in history. Two statements from participants illustrate this:

“On the whole sir, I cannot help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.”

—Benjamin Franklin

“It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country to decide, by their conduct and example, the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force.”

—Alexander Hamilton

The most thought provoking and challenging concept of this lecture was that without slavery the Constitution likely would not have been written. It is ironic indeed that so much good could be spawned by something as heinous and revolting as slavery.

---

President’s Report

I’m still recuperating from attending the Third annual Comic Con at the convention center here in Salt Lake City. My sweetheart, Amy, surprised me a few weeks ago when she told me she had bought us three day golden passes to Comic Con. So I thought I would write about my experience. Like Amy said “we had a blast.” Indeed it was quite enjoyable in a number of ways.

But while I’m thinking about them, I have a few suggestions about attending Comic con. One obvious thing is to wear good shoes. You’re going to do a lot of walking. I think I must have walked at least 15 miles in three days going back and forth and around all the vendors on the main floor. Plus we walked an extra mile round trip to where we parked on the second day. Another suggestion is to go early the first day because that is when it is the least crowded and the vendors haven’t ran out of the popular items yet. Most of which are gone by the third day. And most important, if you can, take lots of money.

Don’t go if you hate crowds or if you’re not into Sci-Fi, Fantasy or Horror “stuff,” it’s what it’s all about. They had the entire convention center and it was full. It was full of vendors of all sorts of artists, authors and lots of crazy people, like me, there to buy all kinds of stuff. Plus there were photo ops with celebrities and of course lots of food. There were also dozens of workshops and presentations and retrospectives and tributes. And naturally, the big draw for many was having Chris Evans of Captain America addressing the audience in the grand ballroom on the third day.

But for me, the most fun of all was all the people watching you could do, without feeling guilty for staring. There were thousands of people dressed in all sorts of costumes. You name it, and someone was there in costume and they were all quite willing to pose for you or with you. Speaking of costumes, they had as many people in costume as they could get, to gather in one area so Guinness World Records could get a count. They did and it was announced they broke a record set in China in 2011 with a count of over 1700. But there were still hundreds and hundreds more in costume not being counted still wandering around with the rest of us.

I did say bring lots of money didn’t I, because there are a lot of things to buy when there are hundreds of booths to check out. Because it was a mini stay at home vacation for Amy and me, it was possible for us to spend a little more. And spend a little bit more we did. I for example I bought six shirts, (only two will be gifts) a couple of pictures, coasters, playing cards and other items of swag. Amy did the same plus she had originally bought us each photo ops. Mine was with Walter Koenig. Cool. Although they do run you through like cattle when there are a couple hundred waiting for their photo op.

There was one “touching” moment in a retrospective of Leonard Nimoy. After the presenters gave a nice pictorial of his life, they opened the mic to the audience. One young man talked emotionally about how as a youth the persona of Spock with his insistence on logic and reason helped him greatly to use reason and be skeptical. That was quite satisfying for this old humanist to hear. So I think I will leave this as is without bitching about any republicans or religious idiots this month and just say, as always, “Hope to see you Thursday at our general meeting. I’ll bring the goodies.

—Robert Lane
President, HoU

---

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined
                                  ~Book Review~

This book by Steven Pinker is an amazing work. Consider the sub-title, “Why Violence Has Declined”—are you kidding me? Violence has declined? This week saw another campus shooting where multiple students were killed by a gunman, what is happening in the Middle East? However, after reading this book it is apparent that violence has declined, and indeed precipitously declined. “The past encompasses a vast diversity of cultures and customs. What they have in common is the shock of the old: a backdrop of violence that was endured and often embraced, in ways that startle the sensibilities of a 21^st century Westerner.”

According to Pinker the decline in violence was precipitous: “The reason so many violent institutions succumbed within so short a span of time was that the arguments that slew them belong to a coherent philosophy that emerged during the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment. The ideas of thinkers like Hobbes, Spinoza, Descartes, Locke, David Hume, Mary Astell, Kant, Beccaria, Smith, Mary Wollstonecraft, Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, and John Stuart Mill coalesced into a worldview that we can call Enlightenment humanism.”

This lead to the acceptance of governments as arbitrators; “A government is a good thing to have, because in a state of anarchy people’s self-interest, self-deception, and fear of these shortcomings in others would lead to constant strife. People are better off abjuring violence, if everyone else agrees to do so, and vesting authority in a disinterested third party. But since that third party will consist of human beings, not angels, their power must be checked by the power of other people, to force them to govern with the consent of the governed. They may not use violence against their citizens beyond the minimum necessary to prevent greater violence. And they should foster arrangements that allow people to flourish from cooperation and voluntary exchange. This line of reasoning may be called humanism because the value that it recognizes is the flourishing of humans, the only value that cannot be denied. I experience pleasures and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same.” … “In many parts of this book I have credited the Leviathan—a government with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force—as a major reducer of violence. Feuding and anarchy go together. We can now appreciate the psychology behind the effectiveness of a Leviathan. The law may be an ass, but it is a disinterested ass, and it can weigh harms without the self-serving distortions of the perpetrator or the victim. Though it is guaranteed that one side will disagree with every decision, the government’s monopoly on force prevents the loser from doing anything about it, and it gives him less reason to want to do something about it, because he is not conceding weakness to his adversary and has less incentive to carry on the fight to restore his honor.”

The book is detailed and complex. The above quotes barely scratch the surface of this fascinating subject. I’ll conclude this review with a couple of points that are further developed in the book. First, “giving women more control over their reproductive capacity (always the contested territory in the biological battle of the sexes) may be the single most effective way of reducing violence in the dangerous parts of the world today.” And, “Carefully reasoned briefs against slavery, despotism, torture, religious persecution, cruelty to animals, harshness to children, violence against women, frivolous wars, and the persecution of homosexuals were not just hot air but entered into the decisions of the people and institutions who attended to the arguments and implemented reforms.” And finally, “The forces of modernity—reason, science, humanism, individual rights—have not, of course, pushed steadily in one direction; nor will they ever bring about a utopia or end the frictions and hurts that come with being human. But on top of all the benefits that modernity has brought us in health, experience, and knowledge, we can add its role in the reduction of violence. The forces of modernity—reason, science, humanism, individual rights—have not, of course, pushed steadily in one direction; nor will they ever bring about a utopia or end the frictions and hurts that come with being human. But on top of all the benefits that modernity has brought us in health, experience, and knowledge, we can add its role in the reduction of violence.

—Wayne Wilson

---

 

 

 

“The Satanic Verses” – What Was the Problem?

I found myself incensed last January when the editors and cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo were murdered by Islamists in Paris, and the patrons of a kosher grocery slaughtered. It immediately struck me that the goal of the Islamist movement has always been global political power, and insults to Islam are just convenient excuses used to justify the movement’s violence. This aspiration to power has been the goal of fundamentalist movements since even the early days of Judaism, when the Jewish priesthood fabricated the stories of Genesis and Exodus to legitimize their political influence and the rule of the Davidic line. The use of violence to suppress dissent is a political tool employed throughout recorded history by the Romans, the Roman Catholic Church, and more recently by Stalin, Hitler, and the Saudi monarchy today.

I also remembered that Salman Rushdie’s 1988 novel The Satanic Verses was the first piece of fiction published in the West to bring down the wrath of the fundamentalist Muslim clergy, in this case the Shi’ite cleric and political leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. There were demonstrations and book-burnings in Britain, and the Ayatollah issued an assassination order, not unlike a Mafia murder contract, calling for the death of Rushdie. I wanted to see what it was about the book that was so offensive, so I purchased a copy.

First let me say that Salman Rushdie is a brilliant writer. His masterly use of English and extensive knowledge of both western and Indian idiom presents a flowing, lyrical, soaring, and often poetic prose that entertains and entrances

The Satanic Verses is a story that revolves around two characters, both Muslims of Indian descent. One is a film star in India, the other a voice actor in England. On a trip to London, their plane is destroyed in flight by terrorists and the two of them somehow survive the 30,000 foot fall back to Earth. This fall starts their dream life as the film star, Gibreel, begins to fancy himself an incarnation of the angel Gibreel (Gabriel), and the other, Salahudin, changes physically into a manifestation of Satan complete with cloven hooves, tail, horns, and hellish breath. Their stories are entwined as Gibreel soars into dream and hallucination, and Salahudin falls into despair trying to deal with his devilish visage. A third plot line is introduced in the form of Ayesha, a saintly namesake of Mohammed’s favorite wife, who leads a starving village on a dreamy, miraculous, and disastrous pilgrimage to Mecca.

It is the dreams and hallucinations of Gibreel that are so offensive to Islam. He dreams he is an angel present during the lifetime of the Prophet and then later under the command of an Imam closely modeled on the Ayatollah Khomeini. His dream narratives question the transmission of God’s word, the intellectual honesty of Mohammed, the early history of Islam, and the motives and humanity of the Ayatollah himself. The dreams are a whimsical and irreverent “what if” presented as dim and vague recollections of a delusional misfit sinking into madness.

Even though these “insults” to Islam and its clergy are presented as the dreams and delusions of an obviously deranged fictional character en route to an ignominious end, their irreverent whimsy cannot be tolerated by the religious power structure. They encourage the reader to think and question the faith. Even this hypothetical questioning is an intolerable threat to power, and defending power is the real motivation for the Ayatollah’s murderous fatwa, the real reason for the attacks in Paris last January, the real impetus behind the Mohammed cartoon riots of 2008, and even the shootings in Texas last spring at the “Draw Mohammed” contest. The average Muslim isn’t affected one way or another by a work like The Satanic Verses or the low-brow lampooning of Charlie Hebdo. And I cannot imagine an almighty God, creator of this vast and splendid universe, who would demand such a bloody response to a work of artistic fiction. But any even perceived threat to the authority claimed by the violent men driving the wars in the Middle East cannot stand and must be met with violent suppression.

And before we blame the victims of violence for offending people of faith, as some in the media have, we must ask ourselves a question. Stephanne Charbonnier, the editor of Charlie Hebdo, after the 2006 Mohammed Cartoon riots and years before he was murdered by those deluded morons asked “What kind of civilization is this if we cannot mock and satirize those who murder innocents in the name of religion?”

—Steve Hanka

---

President’s Report

A number of years ago we started what was to be an annual Thomas Paine Day. Originally we wanted honor him for his role in revolution with his writings. Plus I also didn’t like the way he had been, (as I termed it,) “shelved” because of his views on religion. But later we changed it to Founder’s Day and then kind of trailed off in doing this as one of our annual events or subjects. This month we are endeavoring to revive this idea. So please join us for some enlightenment by our featured speaker and refreshments including one of those yummy cakes we get from granite bakery.

I’ve been writing these messages for quite some time now and I enjoy doing so. But sometimes I feel like I’m always complaining about someone or something. Not that complaining is always a bad thing, but just not all the time. It’s hard not to be critical and even derisive in cases like the County Clerk in Kentucky, who still will not do her job and issue marriage licenses to LGBT couples, even after the Supreme Court refused to intervene in the execution of the court order against her. But I would rather write about something else. So I’m going to talk about my garden. (So you think,” that sounds boring.”)

It may be boring, but I’m mentioning it to also advocate the ideas of grow local and buy local when you can and for me also having a home garden. The advantages of the “going local” are several and obvious, like keeping the money close to home and also being able to buy fruit and veggies that are Not picked way to early. You know, ripe, with flavor. The open markets around the valley are a good way to buy and a fun outing. Next year I plan to look into a community garden somewhere close to where I live.

Something else I would like to propose is to find a way to save some of the fruit that goes to waste each year. There are so many trees in this valley that are, shall we say unutilized. This year I canned peaches and pears at about a hundred bucks for the fruit. It seems a shame to me when I see trees that with a little care can produce a fair amount of fruit. So maybe next year I’ll see if any of you humanists want to share your fruit trees. I’m always looking for apples, apricots, peaches, pears and plums.

I know that canning isn’t for everyone, but homemade applesauce, canned peaches and pears, apricot and plum jams are worth the effort.

One humorous note about my garden is the amount cucumbers I have harvested and continue to harvest. We’ve eaten them, given them away and I’ve made sixteen quarts of dill pickles and about the same amount of mustard pickles. Plus right now there are about twenty pounds down in the kitchen challenging me to do something with them while out in the garden is about a hundred pounds of Hubbard squash waiting to be dealt with. I guess I better get busy.

—Robert Lane
President, HoU

---

Dear Minister Elaine

Dear Minister Elaine: I found these three intriguing books relating to the founding years of Christianity that you might be interested in reading … I’d love to hear what you think of them: The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls and The First Christian – A Study of St. Paul and Christian Origins, both by A. Powell Davies (1956 & 57); and Religion Without Revelation by Julian Huxley (1957)—Y.J.

Dear Y.J., Thank you for these fascinating reads! I’ve finished The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls and am well into The First Christian. I have to say that I haven’t read a great deal relating to Christian religious history over the past few years, having been more interested in humanist philosophy, and eastern religious views (the Tao and Buddhist texts, for example). But I have been deeply engrossed by these informative and rather brief works relating to Christian history, so thank you!

I thought there may be others in our group who may be interested in a brief overview of The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, so without further ado: A. Powell Davies was a pastor of the All Souls Church in Washington, D.C. in the 1950s and was well-versed in Biblical scholarship. He wasn’t afraid, as many clergy of his time, to delve deep into the historical questions relating to the beginnings of Christianity as a religious tradition, and was passionate about sharing scholarly findings with lay-people, who he felt had every right to know about the historical beginnings of their faith, as well.

What Davies shares with the reader of Dead Sea Scrolls is an astonishing account of the scrolls found in 1947 by Ta’amire Bedouins near the Dead Sea, manuscripts that had been hidden by an early-pre-Christian community called the Qumrân sect. The scrolls were soon dated by Biblical scholars and archeologists and were found to have been hidden in the caves near the Dead Sea around 67-70 A.D. One of the eventual “effects of the Qumrân discoveries has been the need to re-date documents which were formerly thought to belong in the Christian era.”

The most fascinating aspect of Davies’ book, for me, was learning about what we now know about the early Essenic community of elite Jewish sectarians who eventually hid these manuscripts when they had to flee the area because of political upheaval / persecution. It was like watching a play about the beginnings of Judeo-Christian worshipers, learning about where in the world they lived, what their days may have been like, who their neighbors were, etc. I loved learning about how interconnected were the beliefs of early Jews and eventual Christians, and how Christianity as a movement was a natural evolution of Jewish beliefs and practices.

I look forward to reviewing The First Christian, and Religion Without Revelation in the coming months!

Please submit questions relating to humanism, ethical living, complicated life decisions, etc. to Minister Elaine Stehel at ministerelaine@gmail.com

—Elaine Stehel

---