HUMANISM

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Humanism is more than non-belief.  More than not knowing.  Humanism is an attempt to create something new.  I decided that Humanism deserved it's own thread; apart from Agnosticism and Atheism.

 

[mererdog]

Is it where you only eat humans?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 minutes ago, mererdog said:

Is it where you only eat humans?

 

Only the Orthodox.     

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

One of the Humanist groups, has taken a strong stance against the Pledge of Allegiance, in it's current form.  The line is -- Don't stand for the Pledge.

 

[Brother Kaman]

30 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

One of the Humanist groups, has taken a strong stance against the Pledge of Allegiance, in it's current form.  The line is -- Don't stand for the Pledge.

 

I stand for the Pledge of Allegiance out of respect to those around me. I do not recite the Pledge nor do I salute the flag. The same is true for the National Anthem.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

14 minutes ago, Brother Kaman said:

I stand for the Pledge of Allegiance out of respect to those around me. I do not recite the Pledge nor do I salute the flag. The same is true for the National Anthem.

 

The Pledge is a perverted misappropriation.  Over the years, it has gotten to me as few things have.  

[Rev. Calli]

Greetings to you all my sisters and brothers,

 

Speaking for myself, I find the pledge of Allegiance wrong on many many levels.  While the full list of particulars is something I do not want to get into right now, my major objection is that it causes us to give worship to a piece of fabric (and a badly designed one at that).  I do not give my allegiance to any object.  I do pledge myself to freedom, to equality, to the concept of justice, and to the ability of all people to choose their own faith path or to reject the very concept of faith.  That very idea that people are forced (or highly encouraged) to pledge themselves to an inanimate object kind of goes against the very ideals that object is supposed to represent.

 

In solidarity,

Rev. Calli

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

The Pledge was a secular statement of loyalty until 1954. Under the Eisenhower administration, The Pledge was perverted to become  a manifestation of the Cold War.  Under God was inserted, in order to distinguish "us" from the "Godless Commies".  It was done for the sake of Dominionist Theocracy, and I have despised it, since I was old enough to understand the issues.  

 

It shames me to consider how many times I recited the Pledge, because I couldn't summon the nerve to go against the social norms.  My days of being craven are behind me.  Few things enrage me, like being told that it doesn't matter.  That I can go silent for the two words.  That I can cough or mumble at the critical moment. --  (Yes Dan.  You.) --  That I should give silent assent, through silence -- and so be complicit in social corruption.  

 

 

[cuchulain]

On ‎10‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 10:44 AM, mererdog said:

Is it where you only eat humans?

Is that like baby oil...made with real babies?

 

The most troublesome part of the pledge of allegiance, to me, was always that it most prominently came up in childhood before school started.  I do not believe a person at the age of 5 has the understanding to make an educated choice about whether to recite a pledge of allegiance, whether to god to secular. 

So far as the pledge being changed...I have no problem with changing it within it's same context but altering it to include religion takes away that context.  That's obviously just my opinion.  I don't have evidence to back up that it is indeed my opinion, other than this first hand account that it is truly my opinion, and so I understand if stating my opinion in such a fashion without evidence negates it entirely for those who simply cannot believe me ...

[mererdog]

KPersonally, I have a bigger issue with the anthem than the pledge. Why must I be accosted by such horrid noise? Its like someone giving an alley cat a bad poetry enema. But I digress........

 

I have mixed feelings about the Pledge. On the one hand, it is clearly unconstitutional for the government to engage in that sort of religious propaganda. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to do any real harm to anyone, so its hard to care enough about it to complain.

I'm fairly sure I've never actually recited it. As a kid, I always did that thing where you move your mouth without actually saying anything. Not because I had an objection to the Pledge, but because I enjoyed defying authority whenever it was safe to do so. Good thing I outgrew that. 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, mererdog said:

KPersonally, I have a bigger issue with the anthem than the pledge. Why must I be accosted by such horrid noise? Its like someone giving an alley cat a bad poetry enema. But I digress........

 

I have mixed feelings about the Pledge. On the one hand, it is clearly unconstitutional for the government to engage in that sort of religious propaganda. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to do any real harm to anyone, so its hard to care enough about it to complain.

I'm fairly sure I've never actually recited it. As a kid, I always did that thing where you move your mouth without actually saying anything. Not because I had an objection to the Pledge, but because I enjoyed defying authority whenever it was safe to do so. Good thing I outgrew that. 

 

 

This is one of the BS things that people point too, when they want to assert that we are a Christian nation.  The damage may not seem like much, but it is cumulative.  I feel damaged by it, even if you don't.  Principals are lost in such small increments.  One day, we look up, and people like Ted Cruz and Rick Perry are running things. That a Betsy DeVoss is running the Department of Education.   Then we find out that the small things were worth protesting.  

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

13 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Is that like baby oil...made with real babies?

 

The most troublesome part of the pledge of allegiance, to me, was always that it most prominently came up in childhood before school started.  I do not believe a person at the age of 5 has the understanding to make an educated choice about whether to recite a pledge of allegiance, whether to god to secular. 

So far as the pledge being changed...I have no problem with changing it within it's same context but altering it to include religion takes away that context.  That's obviously just my opinion.  I don't have evidence to back up that it is indeed my opinion, other than this first hand account that it is truly my opinion, and so I understand if stating my opinion in such a fashion without evidence negates it entirely for those who simply cannot believe me ...

 

The old Pledge did just fine for us, until 1954.  Atheism was conflated with Communism, so we had to distinguish "us" from them" -- them being the Godless commies.  It was cold war hysteria.  Now, it's tradition.  As in traditional American values.  It amazes me how political corruption insists on wrapping itself in the Flag.  Now, they wrapped God in the Flag.  Quite a trick.  

[cuchulain]

7 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

The old Pledge did just fine for us, until 1954.  Atheism was conflated with Communism, so we had to distinguish "us" from them" -- them being the Godless commies.  It was cold war hysteria.  Now, it's tradition.  As in traditional American values.  It amazes me how political corruption insists on wrapping itself in the Flag.  Now, they wrapped God in the Flag.  Quite a trick.  

Or in other words..."pay no attention to that man behind the curtain"

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

22 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Or in other words..."pay no attention to that man behind the curtain"

 

 

It's more than that.  It's the creation of otherness.  That Atheist Americans are not real Americans.  Which is what both Presidents Bush actually stated.  That "real" Americans believe in God.  I'm so tired of being abused and insulted by my own government.

 

How do you feel about being delegitimized?  I know the ceremony is stupid.  It's an emotional thing.

 

Time to stop standing for the Pledge.  

[cuchulain]

3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

It's more than that.  It's the creation of otherness.  That Atheist Americans are not real Americans.  Which is what both Presidents Bush actually stated.  That "real" Americans believe in God.  I'm so tired of being abused and insulted by my own government.

 

How do you feel about being delegitimized?  I know the ceremony is stupid.  It's an emotional thing.

 

Time to stop standing for the Pledge.  

i dont disagree friend.  its a lot like someone who is power hungry.  they start by telling you to do things that you are already going to do just to get you in the habit of doing things that they want you to.  then introduce minor things that some disagree with but that a majority don't, to solidify that they have support.  then change the supporters minds about bigger things because they won't want to back pedal their support.  then comes the rain.

Edited October 6, 2017 by cuchulain

[Key]

On 10/5/2017 at 10:03 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

The old Pledge did just fine for us, until 1954.  Atheism was conflated with Communism, so we had to distinguish "us" from them" -- them being the Godless commies.  It was cold war hysteria.  Now, it's tradition.  As in traditional American values.  It amazes me how political corruption insists on wrapping itself in the Flag.  Now, they wrapped God in the Flag.  Quite a trick.  

I came to the same conclusion later in my teen life. I began to see the pledge as sort kind of form of idolatry. Pledging allegiance to an inanimate object AND to the republic for which it stands?

I understand symbolism, but am confused how Christians don't see it as wrong. I have always felt like a Christian, but I came to feel it was wrong.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

22 minutes ago, Key said:

I came to the same conclusion later in my teen life. I began to see the pledge as sort kind of form of idolatry. Pledging allegiance to an inanimate object AND to the republic for which it stands?

I understand symbolism, but am confused how Christians don't see it as wrong. I have always felt like a Christian, but I came to feel it was wrong.

 

 

The Jehovah's Witnesses have declared that it is idolatry.  They refuse to participate for that reason.  

[cuchulain]

On ‎10‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 9:50 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Humanism is more than non-belief.  More than not knowing.  Humanism is an attempt to create something new.  I decided that Humanism deserved it's own thread; apart from Agnosticism and Atheism.

 

I wondered...does humanism necessarily mean non belief?  So I looked it up.  That is a great thing about these thread, I get a little more educated.  humanism:  an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

I like that definition, from the dictionary.  It doesn't necessitate that the person be a non believer entirely, but it does sort of exclude Christianity in most forms I am aware of, since Christians place primary importance on deity.  Many other religions do as well, so I suppose those would be left out.  But there are perhaps many pagan religions, and many philosophies that might be considered close to religions, that embrace this ideology as well.  

 

Just some thoughts.  I have been reading the Dalai Lama recently, and he seems to be a proponent of humanism.  Might be my interpretation.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

11 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

I wondered...does humanism necessarily mean non belief?  So I looked it up.  That is a great thing about these thread, I get a little more educated.  humanism:  an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

I like that definition, from the dictionary.  It doesn't necessitate that the person be a non believer entirely, but it does sort of exclude Christianity in most forms I am aware of, since Christians place primary importance on deity.  Many other religions do as well, so I suppose those would be left out.  But there are perhaps many pagan religions, and many philosophies that might be considered close to religions, that embrace this ideology as well.  

 

Just some thoughts.  I have been reading the Dalai Lama recently, and he seems to be a proponent of humanism.  Might be my interpretation.

 

 

Something for the people, who want an affirmative and non-reactive label, with values.  

 

 

[cuchulain]

1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Something for the people, who want an affirmative and non-reactive label, with values.  

 

 

just another label friend, marcus aurelius said...stop talking about what a good man is. just be one.  probably poorly paraphrased as I don't have access to the quote right now.  i think i have never seen a label that reduced division or reaction.