Humanism and "Into the Woods"

Humanism and the musical “Into the Woods”

 A popular movie musical that has just come out is “Into the Woods” with lyrics by Steven Sondheim.  It is always good to see humanistic thoughts and values which are expressed by popular media that is outside the realm of the Humanist community. 

Part of the storyline tells of how a witch has taken a child, Rapunzel, and raised her as her own.  Rapunzel says to the witch who has raised her in isolation in her tower:

“I am no longer a child. I wish to see the world.”

The witch pleads with Rapunzel to stay with her, and stay a child rather than go out and observe life for herself and to experience life in a cold, dangerous world.  This is very true to the Biblical metaphor of a god not allowing Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  And this is true of many religions today who create a strong inclusive community who are afraid of their young people to go out into the world, the out-group, but would rather keep them inside even if it means keeping them in “blissful ignorance”. 

“Don't you know what's out there in the world?
Someone has to shield you from the world.
Stay with me.

Princes wait there in the world, it's true.
Princes, yes, but wolves and humans, too.
Stay at home.
I am home.

Who out there could love you more than I?
What’s out there that I cannot supply?
Stay with me.

Stay with me,
The world is dark and wild.
Stay a child while you can be a child.
With me.”

In Humanism many of us believe that each human has the ability, and the responsibility, to determine what is right and what is wrong for ourselves.  We are not to take our values, or our beliefs, or our moral behavior from some outside source whether that be a religion, or a political party, or a guru, or even a parent.  Parents have the responsibility to teach their children to develop the skills necessary to develop these areas personally – not as a dictum from some outside authority.  Psychologists have often shown how religion acts as a surrogate parent which continues to control a person long after they have become independent of their biological parents. 

This song from “Into the Woods” does a good job of showing the harm done by sheltering and over-protecting a person even though the motivation and intention by the “parent” is well-meaning. 

For example, religious people and churches sometimes prefer to keep their kids out of public schools lest they be presented with the ideas of evolution and sex education.  When I was a kid, although the commandment was from my parents that I shall have no friends except those from my church, the church obliged by making sure that I was so busy that I had no time for activities or friends outside of the church.  Sunday had Sunday School, then the service, then Sunday evening service.  Monday had Stockade – a “Christian” boys scout.  Wednesday had prayer meeting.  Thursday had Mission Society meetings.  And Friday had Youth Group.  And then of course the church had special events whenever the school had special events like Halloween or the Prom – these were to keep us from wanting to go to an event where there might be dancing. 

And of course, today, religions aren’t the only outside influences in our society which tries to prevent people, young or old, from experiencing the world themselves.  Today there are groups like the Tea Party groups, or the FOX Entertainment (I refuse to call it FOX News) group that prefer to tell people how to think, which values to eschew and which values to promote, and how best to judge other people. 

People, young and old, need to be shown how to create their own values, what to believe in terms of reality, how to formulate their own personal world view, and how to shape their behavior in terms of these beliefs and values.  The direction should come from within a person, not from without.  And this is one of the things that Humanism is about.

David Kimball

Let It Go – A Humanist’s Perspective

I don’t have children and so I only have heard “Let It Go”, from the movie “Frozen”, one time – when I saw the movie when it first came out.  However I have heard that others, especially parents, have heard the song so many times that they are actually sick of it.  I read an article the other day that the producer of the movie actually felt the need to apologize for the success of the song to the point where it has gone far beyond the amount of appreciable saturation by the normal adult.

So I decided I should view the lyrics of the song.  I was surprised when I read them that they seemed to describe my experience at coming out from my strong religious background and proclaim myself a Humanist.  For those who have only heard the song, and haven’t dwelt on the words, here are the words to the song.  After these lyrics, I will explain how they parallel my experiences.

The snow glows white on the mountain tonight
Not a footprint to be seen.
A kingdom of isolation,
and it looks like I'm the Queen
The wind is howling like this swirling storm inside
Couldn't keep it in;
Heaven knows I've tried

Don't let them in,
don't let them see
Be the good girl you always have to be
Conceal, don't feel,
don't let them know
Well now they know

Let it go, let it go
Can't hold it back anymore

Let it go, let it go
Turn away and slam the door
I don't care
what they're going to say
Let the storm rage on.
The cold never bothered me anyway

It's funny how some distance

Makes everything seem small
And the fears that once controlled me
Can't get to me at all

It's time to see what I can do
To test the limits and break through
No right, no wrong, no rules for me,
I'm free!

Let it go, let it go
I am one with the wind and sky
Let it go, let it go
You'll never see me cry
Here I stand
And here I'll stay
Let the storm rage on

My power flurries through the air into the ground
My soul is spiraling in frozen fractals all around
And one thought crystallizes like an icy blast
I'm never going back, the past is in the past

Let it go, let it go
And I'll rise like the break of dawn
Let it go, let it go
That perfect girl is gone
Here I stand
In the light of day
Let the storm rage on

The cold never bothered me anyway!

I was always told to be the “good boy”, and my church told me what behaviors would label me as such.  I was told to “conceal, don’t feel” and to be dishonest in my feelings, and especially my doubts.  I was told not to let them, the church and Bible College, know of my doubts. 

Then I decided to let it go.  I turned away from my religion and slammed the door behind me.  I no longer cared what they said about me or to me.  I didn’t mind their cold, icy responses. 

After a while, looking back, it is funny how small those once-big things, like salvation, and Scripture memorizations and regurgitations, seemed once I was looking at them from a more proper prospective.  The fears of Hell, and judgments beyond my death that once controlled me, no longer bother me at all. 

It’s time to see what I can do without the restrictions of religion – to test the limits of my own development .  No one outside of me telling me what is right, or what is wrong, and without the need to follow particular rules for my behavior.  By my living according to my own values of developing all that it means to be human both in myself and in others, I will be much better than I was obeying someone else’s rules.  That is freedom for me.

Let it go, let it go.  I am one with the wind, and sky, and earth, and other humans and all beings that are a part of this evolutionary parade.  You won’t see me cry – even if I am pushed to my limits.  Here I will stand and will stay as the religious ones create such a storm around me. 

“One thought crystallizes like an icy blast/I’m never going back, the past is past.” 

By freeing myself of my religious past, I will rise like the break of dawn as the “good boy” is gone.  My goodness is no longer an adjective – it is a noun.  I am now goodness because I am doing good for others, not for my reward in some heaven. 

Here I stand in the light of day and in the light of reason.  I’m letting the beliefs in the supernatural go.  Let the storm of the supernaturalists rage on.  Their bluster doesn’t bother me now. 

After reviewing the words to “Let It Go”, I came up with this observation:  One of the best things about Humanism is when one finds the precepts of Humanism being promoted not from the bowels of the Humanism community, but from the thoughts and feelings of humans themselves. 

David Kimball

The Science of the Brain - Altruism

I have written in several blogs here about the amygdala – a part of the brain located in the experiential brain (as opposed to the rational brain in the frontal lobes).  The amygdala is the seat of certain emotions including what we have talked about for years as the “fight or flight” syndrome.  But with scientific tests of functional MRI’s (fMRIs), the amygdala is seen as the seat of many emotions and the function of empathy. 

NPR.org had an article about the amydgala and altruism today.  “The amygdala was significantly larger in the altruists compared to those who had never donated an organ. Additionally, the amygdala in the altruists was extremely sensitive to the pictures of people displaying fear or distress.”

Many people who believe in different religions hold that altruism only comes from a god.  Howver, science is showing that altruism, and empathy are natural effects with natural causes.  And this raises the responsibility that those of us who are dedicated to developing ourselves and others need to be aware of this function of the brain so that we can develop altruism and empathy in ourselves as well as others. 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/09/22/349639464/the-biology-of-altruism-good-deeds-may-be-rooted-in-the-brain

The article also tells of tests of the amygdala showing a lack of a developed amygdala in psychopaths.  Which again, in practical terms, shows us why when people are convicted of crimes, and have a less-developed amygdala, they should be sentenced to serve time in an environment where their amygdala can be developed rather than an environment where their amygdala will shrink even more. 

We can learn a lot about ourselves and other humans from the science of the brain.

Interfaith and the United Nations

Interfaith Dialogue and Human Rights with UU-UNO (United Nations Organization)

I received this post from the UU-UNO (United Nations Organization) which is affiliated with the UUA.  It brings out an important aspect in that often we have large prejudices with the whole concept of religion.  Often generalizations are made that do not include progressive religions nor even mainstream religions.  This also emphasizes my former blog that Secularism is NOT anti-religion.  Secularism is to rid governments of being influenced by religions.  But it is not designed to remove religion from various cultures.  For instance, the Indians in Mexico have a right to celebrate their heritage and culture including their religious practices.  However, they do not have a right to influence the Mexican government for favorable treatment.  And also, the Mexican government does not have a right to selectively enact laws which are detrimental to their culture. 

Interfaith Dialogue for Human Rights

Religion tends to have a bad rap in the media. When people think of zealous religious figures, terms such as “bigot” or “xenophobe” often come to mind. A group of religious non-governmental organizations met at the United Nations on Friday, August 29th, 2014 to discuss putting an end to this trend. The Unitarian Universalist United Nations Office (UU-UNO) sponsored the interfaith dialogue workshop, entitled “Interfaith Progressive Values Promote Universal Human Rights” as part of the 65th Annual UN DPI/NGO Conference. Co-sponsors included Muslims for Progressive Values, the NGO Committee on Human Rights, the NGO Committee on Disarmament, Peace, and Security, the Tzu Chi Foundation, Soka Gakkai International, Won Buddhism, and Buddha’s Light International Association.

In the workshop, participants emphasized that, while faith is important, it should not stand in the way of basic human rights. Debra Boudreaux, Executive Vice President of the Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation, spoke of her dedication to Buddhism, but said her foundation will help any kind of person, not only Buddhists. Kamila Jacob, representing the UU-UNO, told the workshop that her drive for social justice is put into action by her faith.

Hiro Sakuri of Soka Gakkai International voiced his regrets that there is no longer an interfaith conference at the United Nations. In 2005 he established an interfaith conference at the UN, with support from 75 member states, 15 UN agencies, and a set of religious non-governmental organizations. Following this development was the first ever General Assembly high-level dialogue on inter-religious communication for peace. However, the interfaith conference no longer occurs since members of certain agencies and organizations have left. Now, he struggles to find committed people to bring this conference back to life.

Ani Zonneveld, President of Muslims for Progressive Values, addressed the conflict that occurs between religion and human rights. She proposes that it is not religion itself that creates tension with human rights, but men’s interpretation of it. Of her own faith, Islam, she said “Sharia law is the interpretation of that divine inspiration [Sharia] by men of patriarchal society.” Zonneveld clarified that Sharia is the spiritual path of Islam. However, Sharia law has been warped by the values of the time (centuries ago) when it was enacted and the cultural issues it conflicts with today.

The UU-UNO affirms the Unitarian Universalist belief that there is inherent worth and dignity in every individual. Humanity is diverse in race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and religion, and the UU-UNO recognizes and embraces this fact. The UU-UNO wants to foster interfaith dialogue so that no religious groups stand in the way of the rights of individuals. We must be aligned in what is true, what is right, and what is good.

The UU-UNO recognizes that if religious groups are to succeed in protecting human rights, a greater degree of dialogue and cooperation in the future is essential. The workshop cast a look at what such a future might entail. Members attended from a plethora of religious groups – Jewish, Humanist, Catholic, Atheist, and a variety of others. The UU-UNO is hopeful that interfaith dialogue will continue as we need unity to secure fundamental rights around the world, rather than the division that has plagued religious dialogue in the past.

Humanism and Humanitarian Aid through the UN's Millennium Development Goals

As Humanists, we are often quick to point out the need for humanitarian aid.  We should be just as quick to be knowledgeable about the efforts of humanitarian aid.  The United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals are a set of goals set by the UN in the year 2000 and set to expire next year, in 2015.  The progress towards these goals has been phenomenal.  Few people realize that extreme poverty was cut in half by the year 2010 – 5 years ahead of schedule.  Few people are aware of the other goals which have already been reached.  And few people are aware of the goals that are not on track to be met.

This is one of the last “scorecards” of the MDGs as the MDGs will be phased into the Sustainability Development Goals for the years 2015 and Beyond.  It is refreshing to hear of what has been done rather the constant din and roar of what needs to be done.  This work in the civil sector has been accomplished through the collaborative efforts of over 25,000 Non Government Organization (NGOs), some governments, and some organizations in the business sector. 

The bullets below are shown here to give an overview of the “scorecard” for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).  For more detailed information, read the accompanying paragraphs below.  For charts and data by global sectors for even further details, view the full report at the following web site:  

MDG Scorecard

From the United Nations Millennium Development Goals Report for 2014

SEVERAL MDG TARGETS HAVE BEEN MET

 The world has reduced extreme poverty by half

Efforts in the fight against malaria and tuberculosis have shown results

Access to an improved drinking water source became a reality for 2.3 Billion people

Disparities in primary school enrolment between boys and girls are being eliminated in all developing regions.

The political participation of women has continued to increase

Development assistance rebounded, the trading system stayed favorable for developing countries and their debt burden remained low

SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE IN MOST AREAS, BUT MUCH MORE EFFORT IS NEEDED TO REACH THE SET TARGETS

 Major trends that threaten environmental sustainability continue, but examples of successful global action exists

 Hunger continues to decline, but immediate additional efforts are needed to reach the MDG target

Chronic undernutrition among young children declined, but one in four children is still affected

Child mortality has been almost halved, but more progress is needed

Much more needs to be done to reduce maternal mortality

Antiretroviral therapy is saving lives and must be expanded further

Over a quarter of the world’s population has gained access to improved sanitation since 1990, yet a Billion people still resorted to open defacation

90 per cent of children in developing regions are attending primary school

SEVERAL MDG TARGETS HAVE BEEN MET

 The world has reduced extreme poverty by half

In 1990 almost half of the population in developing regions lived on less than $1.25 a day.  This rate dropped to 22 per cent by 2010, reducing the number of people living in extreme poverty by 700 million.

Efforts in the fight against malaria and tuberculosis have shown results

Between 2000 and 2012, an estimated 3.3 million deaths from malaria were averted due to the substantial expansion of malaria interventions.  About 90 per cent of those averted deaths – 3 Million – were children under the age of five living in sub-Saharan Africa.  The intensive efforts to fight tuberculosis have saved an estimated 22 Million lives worldwide since 1995.  If the trends continue, the world will reach the MDG targets on malaria and tuberculosis.

Access to an improved drinking water source became a reality for 2.3 Billion people

The target of halving the proportion of people without access to an improved drinking water source was achieved in 2010, five years ahead of schedule.  In 2012, 89 per cent of the world’s population had access to an improved source, up from 76 per cent in 1990.  Over 2.3 Billion people gained access to an improved source of drinking water between 1990 and 2012.

Disparities in primary school enrolment between boys and girls are being eliminated in all developing regions.

Substantial gains have been made towards reaching gender parity in school enrolment at all levels of education in all developing regions.  [Note:  This is “developing regions” and not “Least Developed Countires”]  By 2012, all developing regions have achieved, or were close to achieving, gender parity in primary education.

The political participation of women has continued to increase

In January 2014, 46 countries boasted having more than 30 per cent female members of parliament in at least one chamber.  More women are now holding some of the so-called “hard” ministerial portfolios – such as Defense, Foreign Affairs, and the Environment.

Development assistance rebounded, the trading system stayed favorable for developing countries and their debt burden remained low

Official development assistance stood at $134.8 Billion in 2013, the highest level ever recorded, after two years of declining volumes.  However, aid is shifting away from the poorest countries.  80 per cent of imports from developing countries entered developed countries duty-free and tariffs remained at an all-time low.  The debt burden of developing countries remained stable at about 3 per cent of export revenue.

SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE IN MOST AREAS, BUT MUCH MORE EFFORT IS NEEDED TO REACH THE SET TARGETS

Major trends that threaten environmental sustainability continue, but examples of successful global action exists

Global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) continued their upward trend and those in 2011 were almost 50 per cent above their 1990 level.  Millions of hectares of forest are lost every year, many species are being driven closer to extinction and renewable water resources are becoming scarcer.  At the same time, international action is on the verge of eliminating ozone-depleting substances and the proportion of terrestrial and coastal marine areas under protection has been increasing.

Hunger continues to decline, but immediate additional efforts are needed to reach the MDG target

The proportion of undernourished people in developing regions has decreased from 24 per cent in 1990 – 1992 to 14 per cent in 2011 – 2013.  However, progress has slowed down in the past decade.  Meeting the target of halving the percentage of people suffering from hunger by 2015 will require immediate additional effort, especially in countries which have made little headway.

Chronic undernutrition among young children declined, but one in four children is still affected

In 2012, a quarter of all children under the age of five years were estimated to be stunted – having inadequate height for their age.  This represents a significant decline since 1990 when 40 per cent of young children were stunted.  However, it is unacceptable that 162 Million young children are still suffering from chronic undernutrition.

Child mortality has been almost halved, but more progress is needed

Worldwide, the mortality rate for children under age five dropped almost 50 per cent, from 90 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1990 to 48 in 2012.  Preventable diseases are the main causes of under-five deaths and appropriate actions need to be taken to address them.

Much more needs to be done to reduce maternal mortality

Globally, the maternal mortality ratio dropped by 45 per cent between 1990 and 2013, from 380 to 210 deaths per 100,000 live births.  Worldwide, almost 300,000 women died in 2013 from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth.  Maternal death is mostly preventable and much more needs to be done to provide care to pregnant women.

Antiretroviral therapy is saving lives and must be expanded further

Access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) for HIV-infected people has been increasing dramatically, with a total of 9.5 Million people in developing regions receiving treatment in 2012.  ART has saved 6.6 Million lives since 1995.  Expanding its coverage can save many more.  In addition, knowledge about HIV among youth needs to be improved to stop the spread of the disease.

Over a quarter of the world’s population has gained access to improved sanitation since 1990, yet a Billion people still resorted to open defacation

Between 1990 and 2012, almost 2 Billion people gained access to an improved sanitation facility.  However, in 2012, 2.5 Billion people did not use an improved sanitation facility and 1 Billion people still resorted to open defecation, which poses a huge risk to communities that are often poor and vulnerable already.  Much greater effort and investment will be needed to redress inadequate sanitation in the coming years.

90 per cent of children in developing regions are attending primary school

The school enrolment rate in primary education in developing regions increased from 83 per cent to 90 per cent between 2000 and 2012.  Most of the gains were achieved by 2007, after which progress stagnated.  In 2012, 58 Million children were out of school.  High dropout rates remain a major impediment to universal primary education.  And estimated 50 per cent of out-of-school children of primary school age live in conflict-affected areas.

David Kimball

Humanism and Secularism:

Religion and Government doesn't work.

Not in Iraq.

Not in Israel/Palesting.

Not in the United States.

Secular organizations should that these parallels and show why the US government should not try to be a pluralistic society catering to as many religions as it can.  The only sane and rational approach is to insist on Secularism where no laws are passed or enforced which favor any religion.  Secularism does now try to abolish religion, but only tries to abolish its influence in governmental affairs.

David Kimball

Humanism and Justice Systems

Last night at the Discussion Group Meeting of the Concord Area Humanists, the subject of justice came up and it was apparent that most people in this group were not aware of an alternative justice system called Restorative Justice.  So I thought I would present a very basic tutorial.

First, for some scientific grounding based on neurobiology.   Scientists are constantly discovering more and more functions of the amygdala – a part of the brain.  (Wikipedia)  This amygdala is responsible for our emotional reactions (not necessarily our emotional states) such as fight or flee.  It is the seat of many fears.  And it is also the seat of our empathy.  It has been scientifically shown that many people who have shown disturbing behaviors such as murders and physical attacks have less developed amygdalas.  These people are very low in terms of empathy and cannot feel what others feel adequately.  This is not to say that such people should not be held responsible for their actions. 

It has also been shown that the amygdala can become more developed in the right environment.  However, our prisons, which are like the cages that rats were kept in for tests reveal an environment that actually decreases the development of the amygdala.  It is no wonder that someone with a less-developed amygdala, performs a crime and is sent to prison and is then released after 12 years with an even less-developed amygdala.  Such people are very likely candidates for re-incarceration after more socially unacceptable behavior which harms society.

So it behooves a society to treat people with less-developed amygdalas by putting them in an environment where their amygdalas can develop.  And as Humanists, our goal is to develop all that it means to be human both in ourselves and in others.  This includes people with less-developed amygdalas.

For a more complete explanation, please watch this presentation from a TED Lecture: 

In this presentation, Daniel Reisel mentions Restorative Justice but doesn’t really describe or define it.  Of course it could take a book to describe, but I thought I would present an introduction to it by differentiating it with our current punitive and litigious system.  I will present it and the differences in its premise, its process, and its penalties.  (Can you see that I took a course in Hermeneutics? Smile)

First the premise.  The premise of our current justice system is that crimes are committed against the State.  That is why the trials and the players - the judges, the prosecuting attorneys, and often the defense attorneys - are State employees.  The premise is that a crime was committed against the State.  In Restorative Justice, the premise is that the crime is committed against a community – not just an individual.  For an example, I will take a case where Person A assaults Person B.  The crime is more than just against Person B.  The crime is against all of the stakeholders who were harmed – not just physically.  The spouse of Person B was also harmed by having to tend and care for Person B during their rehabilitation.  Neighbors might also have been harmed by having Person B incapacitated.  Person’s B’s boss was harmed during the time that Person B was out of work.  The big question in Restorative Justice is first to determine WHO was harmed in order to give them a voice in the proceedings.

However the community around the perpetrator, Person A, is also involved as stakeholders.  They may provide defenses or even submit extenuating circumstances or collaborative evidence.  But also, if Person A is adjudged to be guilty, the community of Person A must be taken into consideration when assessing the penalty.  (More about that later when I discuss the Penalty section.)

The process of Restorative Justice is also very different.  In our current system, the process is that the whole theater of the trial is played out by two litigious lawyers each with their own goals and objectives.  Each has an objective to win the case.  The prosecuting attorney is looking for a guilty verdict, and the defense attorney is looking for an acquittal.  Each knows that their future positions will be determined by their win/loss ratios.  The defense attorney is often not looking for justice, but rather is looking for a win.  And the prosecuting attorney too often is looking for a win rather than looking for justice.  They will argue legal points of the case in an effort to win regardless of the people involved.

And too often in trials, the people affected are often not allowed to present their own story.  Most defense lawyers will not allow a defendant to testify.  And often even a victim is not allowed to tell their own story.  If the victim is put on the witness stand, they are only allowed to answer directly the questions which are given to them by the lawyers.  Many victims feel cheated because their story was not allowed to be told.  And many defendants feel cheated because they were never allowed to tell their story.

In Restorative Justice processes, once the community has been identified, they are often arranged in a circle similar to the Native American councils.  Going around the circle, each is given an opportunity to present their own story so everyone is heard.  In this case, Person A can hear the harm that was done to Person B and Person B’s community.  Often Person A is not aware of the harm which has been done – especially to the whole community.  It is often very therapeutic for a victim to explain to the perpetrator the consequences of their actions. 

The penalties in our current system is usually incarceration.  The perpetrator is sentenced to a period of time in prison and the case is closed.  However no thought is made to the rehabilitation of the convicted person nor of the penalties imposed on Person A’s family.   When a person is sent to prison, often that person may be working and earning an income.  Now the family of an incarcerated parent has to do without that income.  Often mothers are sent to jail a great distance away from the home so the children are not even allowed to visit her.  Again, if a person is sent to prison who is working, that person’s employer is affected and harmed.  The prisons are designed to incarcerate people, not rehabilitate them.  With a person sent to prison, there is no chance to have the harm restored to the victims.

The penalties of Restorative Justice take all these issues into consideration.  It will often realize that the best penalty for an offender is often not to incarcerate them.  Rather, the question is raised as to how the offender can restore the harm.  If the offense was theft, it is better that the perpetrator be allowed to continue working at their job in order to restore or return what was stolen.  It is sometimes better to have the offender work for the victim on weekends in order to restore the harm.  It is better to keep the offender’s family intact even if it means that the family contributes to the restoration.  Restoration is a key principle to Restorative Justice.  For the community to come up with an acceptable penalty makes everyone realize the value of the community in administering justice.

The biggest problem with Restorative Justice is that few people know that this is an alternative to our current unworking (and unworkable) justice system.  A few places have instituted Restorative Justice into their community.  Brattleboro, Vermont has a good system in place.  Concord, MA also has a limited Restorative System in place in Concord and some outlying communities.  (Communities for Restorative Justice)  In Concord the Restorative Justice system incorporates the police department in administering Restorative Justice to youth offenders.  Rather than young people getting a prison sentence or a criminal record for the rest of their lives, the police realize that it would be better for these youth offenders to go through the Restorative Justice system.  From what I understand, it has been very successful and is used as a model for other communities interested in instituting Restorative Justice. 

Restorative Justice may not be the best system for all cases, but it is definitely better than the present system in many cases in providing a humane approach to justice.  And that is something that we as Humanists should be aware of. 

David Kimball

Humanism and Human Rights and the US

As Humanists, it should go without saying that we should be concerned about Human Rights.  The first thing necessary about “being concerned” is objective viewpoints.  The media often presents us viewpoints about Human Rights in Russia, or Cuba, or China.  And while many of these Human Rights articles give us viewpoints, often they are not objective but are subjective.  But seldom does the media give us viewpoints on Human Rights regarding the United States.  (I want to say “never”, but I never say “never”.) 

I consider myself a Global Citizen.  (This is a personal decision and is not tied to my being a Humanist.)  I prefer to view myself as a citizen of the world rather than a citizen of any particular tribe or nation.  As a global citizen, that means that I should try to understand global issues, and understand them from a global perspective rather than a provincial perspective.  I need to understand the rest of the world from a global perspective.  And it also means I need to understand how the rest of the world perceives issues in the United States.  For instance, how does the rest of the world perceive Human Rights in the United States.  Especially since the United States raises the issue of Human Rights more than any other country when judging other countries. 

UN Report on Human Rights Concerns in US

The US media does a poor job of describing the viewpoints of the rest of the world pertaining to the United States.  This is true regarding sex in politics, economics, and Human Rights among many others.  I saw this article in the Guardian, from London, a few days ago entitled “US Human Rights Record Chastised in UN Report”.  The article describes a UN report by the UN’s Human Rights Commission which included members from many countries – many who are friends and allies of the US.  The report was an assessment of how the US complies with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and was chaired by a British Law Professor.  The main concerns were dealing with torture, drone strikes, the failure to close Guantanamo Bay, and the NSA’s bulk collection of person data (both domestically and internationally).

The report’s concerns with torture was that the US had failed to prosecute high level personnel in the use of torture (both in Guantanamo Bay and also in Iraq) and only a “meagre number” of low level personnel.  The US was urged to "ensure that all cases of unlawful killing, torture or other ill-treatment, unlawful detention, or enforced disappearance are effectively, independently and impartially investigated, that perpetrators, including, in particular, persons in command positions, are prosecuted and sanctioned". 

The concern with the NSA was that the supposed legal oversight had largely been kept secret and failed to protect the rights of those affected.  The UN committee urged the US to overhaul its surveillance activities to ensure that they complied with US law and also conformed to US obligations under the ICCPR. 

The committee also gave a “scathing” [this term was used by the Guardian] report about Washington’s “legal justification” for targeted killings by the use of drones.  The committee criticized the US’ justifications as being too broad and said it was unclear what precautionary measures were being taken to avoid civilian deaths.  The committee said that the US needed to review its policies and see that they should be subject to independent oversight.

The report also criticized the US for failure to fulfill a commitment to close Guantanamo Bay.  It noted that many detainees “have been held there, and in military prisons in Afghanistan, for more than a decade without charge or trial. It called on the US to speed up the transfer of detainees and ensure that any criminal cases are dealt with by the US justice system rather than a military commission.”

“The committee also expressed alarm about the continued use of the death penalty in 16 states, the "still high number" of fatal shootings by certain police forces, notably in Chicago, and the high proportion of black people in the country's jails.”  Not mentioned in the article was that the US is the only country which will sentence a youth offender to life in prison.

Whether we agree with these finding or not, these are Human Rights issues here in the United States that we as Humanists should be prepared to explore and arrive at our own convictions as to what should be done.  

The US and the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights

What this article did not cover was the position of the Unites States with respect to the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).  Although much was made when Eleanor Roosevelt put together these Rights, the United States has still not ratified all of them.  Because of political issues at the time, namely the Cold War, both Russia and the US would not sign the list.  So for political expediency, the list was divided into two Covenants – the Covenant for Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant for Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.  The US has signed the Covenant for Civil and Political Rights and that was finally ratified in 1992 with five reservations, five understandings, and four declarations.  (Wikipedia entry)  This Covenant is what the above report was referencing because the US is held to its principles in international matters.  (Although the US ratified it for international dealings, it expressly kept it from being a part of our domestic law which is very unusual.) 

But the US has failed to pass the Covenant for Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights even though the USSR/Russia and many other countries have signed it. 

I have a problem with our media in that I need to go to media outside the US to find out about these things.  I have been looking at NPR.org CNN.com and others and haven’t seen anything about this report.  The US media seldom reports on anything on the United Nations except as it may pertain to the General Assembly, the Security Council, or the peacekeeping efforts of the UN in areas of armed conflict.  The provincialism of the US media keeps me from knowing how the rest of the world views the US in aspects of Human Rights, Sustainability, international economics, international affairs, etc. 

As a Global Citizen, I need to be informed of Human Rights issues in the US.  As a Humanist, I need to be concerned about these Human Rights.

David Kimball

Humanities and Humanism

As some of you may know, I define Humanism as encompassing “all that it means to be human”.  This, of course, includes science, but it also includes the non-rational mind of the creative, the social, the psychological, and all of those subjects that the universities include in their “Humanities” subjects like art, literature, history, etc.  (Humanism is soooo much more than pro-science and anti-religion.)  And it also includes all of the efforts included in the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).  As such, I subscribe to “Humanities” magazine which is the bi-monthly magazine published by the NEH

As I was perusing the latest issue, I became aware of the Annual Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities.  This is the highest honor that the Federal Government confers for “distinguished intellectual achievements in the humanities”.  This award has been conferred upon individuals since 1972.  I did some research on this annual award and found a wealth of interesting articles/biographies. 

This year, 2014, the award will be presented to Walter Isaacson, author, journalist, and president and CEO of the Aspen Institute.  The award ceremony will be held on Monday, May 12, 2014 at the John F. Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C.

I thought I would share some of the past recipients here.  These introductory paragraphs are from their site http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture  The links, following the introductory paragraph are to a full biographical sketch of the person.

Martin Scorsese – 2013

In a number of interviews, on stage, in print, and on television, Martin Scorsese has already told his life story. The beginning sounds like a script in development, like a Scorsese project that hasn’t yet gone into production.  http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/martin-scorsese-biography

Wendell E. Berry – 2012  (One of my favorites)

At seventy-seven years old, Wendell Berry continues as a great contrary example to the compromises others take in stride. Instead of being at odds with his conscience, he is at odds with his times. Cheerful in dissent, he writes to document and defend what is being lost to the forces of modernization, and to explain how he lives and what he thinks.  http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/wendell-e-berry-biography

Drew Gilpin Faust – 2011

“I felt very much that I lived in history,” said Drew Gilpin Faust as she recently described her childhood in an interview for Humanities magazine. A well-known scholar of the antebellum South and the Civil War era and, since 2007, president of Harvard University, Faust had two histories in mind. First was the history of the Civil War.  http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/drew-gilpin-faust-biography

Jonathan Spence – 2010

For over fifty years, Jonathan Spence has been studying and writing about China. His books and articles form a body of work notable for groundbreaking research, fine literary quality, and extraordinary public value. If the West understands the culture and history of China better now than it did a half century ago, Jonathan Spence is one of the people to be thanked.  http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/jonathan-spence-biography

Leon Kass – 2009

Leon Kass was born in 1939, on the twelfth of February, when we celebrate the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin. A mere coincidence, of course, but an interesting one. In celebrating Lincoln, which we do this year for the sixteenth president’s bicentennial, we pay homage to human dignity; in celebrating Darwin, which we also do this year for it is also his bicentennial, we pay homage to the progress of scientific knowledge.  http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/leon-kass-biography

John Updike – 2008

His pen rarely at rest, John Updike has been publishing fiction, essays, and poetry since the mid-fifties, when he was a staff writer at the New Yorker, contributing material for the “Talk of the Town” sections. “Of all modern American writers,” writes Adam Gopnik inHumanities magazine, “Updike comes closest to meeting Virginia Woolf’s demand that a writer’s only job is to get himself, or herself, expressed without impediments."  http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/john-updike-biography

Harvey Mansfield – 2007

For more than forty years, Harvey Mansfield has been writing and teaching about political philosophy. His commentary "demonstrates the virtues that should guide scholars of the humanities," writes Mark Blitz, a former student. Blitz explains those virtues as "patient exploration of the intention of a superior author, attention to other scholars and generosity to trailblazing teachers, brilliance and wit, and an eye toward what can improve us here and now."  http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/harvey-mansfield-biography

Tom Wolfe – 2006

"I think every living moment of a human being's life, unless the person is starving or in immediate danger of death in some other way, is controlled by a concern for status," Tom Wolfe has said. As the man in the iconic white suit with a swaggering pen, Wolfe has spent the past fifty years chronicling America's status battles and capturing our cultural zeitgeist.  http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/tom-wolfe-biography

Donald Kagan – 2005

"Throughout the human experience people have read history because they felt that it was a pleasure and that it was in some way instructive," says Donald Kagan. "Without history, we are the prisoners of the accident of where and when we were born." Known to his students as a "one-man university," Kagan has illuminated the history of the ancient Greeks for thousands of students and readers.  http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/donald-kagan-biography

Helen Vendler – 2004

“When you’re in a state of perplexity, sadness, gloom, elation, you look for a poem to match what you are feeling,” says Helen Vendler. She writes that “Poetry is analytic as well as expressive; it distinguishes, reconstructs, and redescribes what it discovers about the inner life. The poet accomplishes the analytic work of poetry chiefly by formal means.”  http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/helen-vendler-biography

David McCullough – 2003

He is called the "citizen chronicler" by Librarian of Congress James Billington. His books have led a renaissance of interest in American history--from learning about a flood in Pennsylvania that without warning devastated an entire community to discovering the private achievements and frailties of an uncelebrated president. His biography of Harry Truman won him a Pulitzer, as did his most recent biography of another president, John Adams.  http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/david-mccullough-biography

David Kimball

Free Will and Determinism

A few nights ago, those of us at Concord Area Humanists had a speaker, Tom Clark, discuss free will and determinism (among other topics of Naturalism).  I’m not going to say that I followed everything he said, but I wanted to present my theoretical model that I have created which allows me to accept both free will and determinism without any distortions to my worldview. 

The problem with free will and determinism occurs when we feel that our behavior is strictly the result of our will – or our desire.  The problem comes up when we experience behavior that seems contrary to our desires.  There seem to be other causes, or contra-causes acting within our psyche that determines our behavior in addition to our wants and desires.  Sometimes we know what those contra-causes are – like behavior patterns that we learned when growing up.  Sometimes those contra-causes are not known immediately, but after some reflection or work, we can discover the reasons.  And sometimes we have no idea why we do what we do no matter how much time we try to analyze it.  (This is along the line of the Freudian metaphor of the conscious, the pre-conscious, and the sub-conscious.) 

Now that scientists have begun to observe the workings of the mind, they have seen that while we may “will” a particular action up to a point, there is a small slice of time, in microseconds, where we react to our impulses (these contra-causes) from our intuitive mind (the amygdala) rather than our rational mind (the pre-frontal lobes) where we create our will.  It is in this small slice of time, which we would call “NOW” that we lose our free will according to some people.

However if we re-define “free will” to be in the future instead of “NOW”, then there isn’t a problem.  Our immediate reactions are the result of several factors and will always cause us to react immediately a certain way.  Unless we decide to change that process.

For example, take a baseball batter who always swings at balls thrown high and outside.  He realizes that to be a better ballplayer, or a better batter, he needs to change that reaction.  No matter how much he resolves not to swing, how hard he grits his teeth and scowls at the pitcher, he still finds himself swinging at balls that are high and outside. 

So he decides to change his reaction.  He practices and practices and works hard on overcoming those immediate reactions.  Finally, after much work and practice, he is able to watch a high and outside ball go by without swinging.  He has overcome that previous initial reaction. 

Now, when he sees a ball that is high and outside, he watches it rather than swings at it.  The same causes are now creating a different response from him.  And this is called adaptation – where the same causes create a different effect.  And we humans are known to be great at adapting.   If the same causes always created the same effect, then there would be no adaptation and we would be deterministic automatons rather than free moral agents making choices.

When the ballplayer decided to work on overcoming his immediate reactions, he was exercising his free will.  He made the observation that to develop, he needed to change.  And so he worked on changing and thus succeeded in overcoming. 

So it is with us humans who consider ourselves “morally responsible”.  We can elect and choose what our reactions will be in the future and are free to choose to change.  Free will is defined as free to choose to change those immediate reactions.  We cannot exercise free will in the immediate “NOW”, but we can exercise free will by working and taking time to learn to overcome those immediate reactions.

When it comes to people who commit crimes, the same applies.  Perhaps they were not free moral agents at the time of their crime, but in the past, if they had known that they would respond in a particular violent way, they had a responsibility to change their immediate reactions.  They could have changed but didn’t and so their crime was in not taking control of their lives and changing when needed.  If a person knows that he has a violent temper when drunk, then he has a responsibility to avoid that scenario.  And, as Tom mentioned, our justice system should be set up to help these people overcome their immediate reactions which are anti-social.  Rather than let the reactions remain the same and just incarcerate them, we should help them so that when they are returned to society they have changed their old immediate reactions.  They should be trained to overcome these anti-social reactions so that the same set of circumstances in the future will not result in a violent manner as it had in the past.

And those of us who can’t resist that chocolate cake, or who find ourselves spending money selfishly when we say we want to give it to charity, can work on these natural and immediate reactions (through behavior modification?) by exercising our free will of what kind of humans we will become.  We are NOT marionettes. 

David Kimball

Enough is Enough

Book Review by David Kimball

“Enough is Enough”   by Rob Dietz and Dan O’Neill

As the authors say in their Preface, “Enough is Enough was conceived as a collection of policy proposals for achieving a prosperous, but non-growing economy (known as a steady-state economy)”.  So it is an apologetic for steady-state economics.  (“Apologetics – the discipline of defending a position through the systematic use of information. Wikipedia)  As such, it deals with ecological economics at the macro level and integrates all the systems necessary for a global approach.  The book argues for a paradigm shift from the current approach of “A larger economy implies progress” to an approach where “Enough is better in order to sustain our ecosystem”.  It defines economics as a means of controlling all the systems within our ecosystem rather than define economics strictly in terms of the managing of the scarce resource of only money.

Part I raises the “Questions of Enough”, Part II the “Strategies of Enough”, and Part III “Advancing the Economy of Enough”.  This book does a good job of sounding the alarm that there are many problems with the current economic systems.  What is different about this book from the many other books that also sound the alarm regarding the issues of Sustainability, is that it tries to present the problems and the solutions to these problems with a label – “steady-state economics”.  So it sounds as if it alone is sounding the clarion call for solutions and doesn’t give credit to the many other Sustainable causes such as Triple Bottom Line Accountability, Conscious Capitalism, Natural Capitalism, Shared Value Capitalism, Creative Capitalism, B Corporations, etc.  Of course, this is a problem shared by all of these approaches who try to limit themselves by attaching a label if they present themselves as “the” solution rather than “a” solution.

This book is meant to provoke (in a good sense) discussion around its own policies and provide fodder for discussions around the policies of governments and corporations, but it totally ignores the NGO and grassroots sector.  It is written in an informal style and although there are many facts, figures, charts and references to economic terms, it is written to be understood by laymen. 

It does a good job of describing our current culture in terms of consumerism where we want “more objects, more food, and more resources such as energy” where we should be creating, instead, a culture which values “doing, being, and connecting”.  Because our planet is finite, we cannot consume indefinitely and so it is our responsibility to see what and how much we should consume in order to be sustainable.  Sustainability can be defined as “What do we need to do today to assure that we will be just as viable in 50 years?”  To answer the question of “How much can we consume”, they quote Herman Daly:  “(1)  Exploit renewable resources no faster than they can be regenerated; (2) Deplete nonrenewable resources no faster than the rate at which renewable substitutes can be developed; and (3) Emit waste no faster than they can be safely assimilate by ecosystems.”  The book does a great job of expressing the problems we face not just in terms of ecological sustainability, but also social sustainability and personal values.

It is acknowledged that reducing our wants only applies to those who already have enough so that some poorer societies will need to go from an Undesirable Degrowth State first to a Desirable Growth State while we richer societies will need to go from an Undesirable Growth State first to a Desirable Degrowth State.  Only then can we can all reach the goal – a Steady State Economy (SSE).

Several strategies are presented for passing through these States to reach the point of SSE.  The first strategy is to limit the use of materials and energy to sustainable levels.  Because we are already beyond the “Safe Operating Boundaries” of three of the seven identified planetary processes - Climate Change, Biodiversity Loss, and Nitrogen Cycle – we need to cut back immediately.  These cutbacks may be by direct interventions such as bans, rationing, tradable permits, or “cap and share” or they may be by indirect interventions such as ecological tax reforms, or conservation of natural areas.  This cutting back should be done in a way to assure that we achieve a more equitable distribution of income and wealth and should include a comprehensive monitoring system.  What is needed in changing to these States is heavy cooperation across all levels of governments.  Governments need to experience a paradigm shift from one of competition and control to one of collaboration and cooperation.

It is important to stabilize population through compassionate and non-coercive means.  Since this issue is tied to divisive topics such as poverty, reproductive health, women’s rights, immigration, and cultural religious beliefs, this strategy needs to be dealt with not only politically but also culturally with the key being the empowerment of women.  Another recommendation for this strategy is to change immigration policy to achieve equal levels of immigration and emigration. 

Another strategy is to achieve a more favorable distribution of income and wealth (or assets).  The key here is to put control of companies, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations into the hands of the people who work in them, use their services, or live in the communities affected by them.  This is known, in other approaches, as creating a paradigm change from focusing on the shareholders to focusing on all of the stakeholders. 

Probably one of the most controversial strategies addressed in this book is to reform the monetary and financial systems.  It is evident that the current system is broken and needs to be fixed.  But if there are to be limits on economic growth, then there should be limits to debt and limits to investments.  The book promotes a neutral international currency that is not controlled by any single country or group of countries. 

As stated above, we need a comprehensive monitoring system to replace our GDP as the GDP does not measure the values of our culture – only the output of our society.  It suggests a measurement called the Gross National Happiness (GNH) monitor which is currently being used in a few areas.  The four pillars of GNH are the promotion of equitable and sustainable socioeconomic development; Preservation and promotion of cultural values; Conservation of the natural environment; and the Establishment of good governance.

The next strategy is to secure meaningful jobs and full employment.  I was pleased to see the authors recommend looking at the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC which included the Work Projects Administration - WPA) that brought us out of the depression.  It states that guaranteed jobs are included in Article 23.1 of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN UDHR).  (However it did not mention that although the United States had ratified the political section of the UN UDHR, it had refused to ratify the social section which includes this right.)  The book gives good examples of less-work societies by presenting the European work-time policies which are much more favorable to the workers than here in the US.

The last strategy presented is “Enough Business as Usual:  Rethinking Commerce”.  Instead of placing the ROI to shareholders as the highest value, businesses need to address the value they create in the social and environmental sectors.  This is to have the businesses driven by purpose to the ecosystem and society rather than duty to the shareholders.  There are several business models already in existence in the US such as the Low-profit Limited Liability Company (L3C) and the B-Corporation where dividends to shareholders are limited and where the purpose is for the community or wider public interest. 

After describing these strategies, the book details what is necessary to advance the Steady-State Economy.  One of the biggest ways is to change consumer behavior to seek personal values rather than status.  The goal of the management of a society should be to provide the resources (time and opportunities) for each member to achieve a state of “well-being”.  For members in our society to achieve well-being, instead of relying on consumerism, they should strive to connect, be active, take notice, keep learning, and give.  Politicians and the media should be held accountable to consider the “constant growth of GDP” paradigm and consider the paradigm of a steady-state economics.    I would include a call for controls on the lobbyists and the influencers of Congress as needed for such a transformation. 

Since this transformation is global, it requires all the nations to work together as one nation cannot address these issues as an isolate.  The book discusses the need for the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization to be democratized and work together collaboratively. 

The book does a good job of identifying several problems with our current economic system driven by consumerism and the goal of “more growth”, and also does a good job of providing a lot of food-for-thought for several solutions.  However because these strategies are presented in one, all-unifying package of steady-state economics, it is difficult to see how these strategies could be applied piecemeal, or along with other approaches, or from the micro-level of a nation to say nothing about an individual or a civil service/grassroots organization (CSO).  It is evident, though, that the problems we are currently experiencing today are of such a magnitude that the solution needs to be a complete transformation rather than just a fix.  It would be great to see some dialogues on steady-state economics where these as well as other approaches could be discussed and especially if they could lead to some deliberations on actions. 

David Kimball

Do We Humanists “Worship” Darwin?

Remember, “If you ask the wrong questions, you never have to worry about the answers.”  This is one of those unanswerable questions because there are so many definitions of “worship” that there is no definition for “worship”.  The Old Testament Jews had many prophets (Major and Minor Prophets) but they didn’t “worship” any of them.  The New Testament tells of John the Baptist as a prophet, but he was not worshipped.  Jesus was worshipped as being both a man and a god even though he never wrote anything.  However the Muslims treat Jesus as a prophet and not to be worshipped.  Muslims claim to worship only Allah, yet they worship the words of Mohammad and Mohammad is raised to a level where no “graven images” are allowed of him – just like the Old Testament has a commandment against “graven images” of their worshipped god.  The Buddhists tend to almost worship the words of Buddha and some Buddhists do worship the Dali Lama.  And Hindus worship many gods.

Rather than ask if we Humanists “worship” Darwin, perhaps we would do better to ask ourselves, “Do we place undue emphasis on Darwin?”  There is no question that Darwin was a ground-breaker and a leader in changing the paradigm from contemplating things of an intellectual or religious model to basing beliefs on observation and predictability.  And it is evident, more so in the United States than other countries, that many people still would rather base their beliefs on supernatural models rather than on the scientific model.

Although Darwin was very instrumental in promoting the scientific model, he wasn’t the only one.  There were other ground-breakers who came before him and after him.  Spinoza was a ground-breaker in basing things on observation.  With the new observatory at his time, the academic community started basing their study and beliefs of the structure of the universe on observations through telescopes rather than using intellectual models of the universe.  The same with Galileo and Copernicus.  And these men, some would say, were responsible for the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment which got Western society out of the grasp of the Catholic Church as the sole source of Truth.  A good example of such a ground-breaker in the 20^th Century would be John Dewey.  He did a great deal of ground-breaking in the realms of philosophy, psychology, aesthetics, sociology, and education by observing the dialectical process in all these areas. 

And today, there are many scientists who are breaking ground in the workings of the mind through observations of functional MRIs (fMRIs) so that instead of dealing with intellectual models of the mind like Freud, Jung, James, etc. had to do, scientists are now basing their models on observations.  Scientists like Pink, Pinker, Gardner and many others are coming out with new deductions of the workings of the mind from observations at a dizzying rate today. 

So although Darwin should be exalted as a special person, I’m not sure that he should be exalted above these other ground-breakers.  I personally don’t feel that we should even define evolution only by what Darwin has said.  There have been so many new ways to observe through carbon dating, DNA, genomes, fMRIs that I’m sure that if Darwin had been able to study and use these tools, he would be using different terms and phrases for his observations.  We need to allow Darwin the opportunity to grow and “evolve” his own theory of evolution.  We should quote Darwin when he says something that is a neat way to say it, but we should not quote him as an authority.  Not today.  To allow his words to become cast in stone as if from a mountain does him great disservice. 

And we should never allow the Extreme Right to use the term “Darwinism”.  There is no such thing as Darwinism.  Whenever the extremists use the phrase “Darwinism vs Creationism” they are framing the discussion in an unfair way.  The issue is “Science vs Creationism”.  There is Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, Muslim, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. but there is no such thing as Darwinism.  Darwinism is not a religion, Darwin is not a person who is worshipped, and Darwin’s words are not to be quoted as an ultimate authority. 

I, personally, am a little uncomfortable with proclamations of “Darwin Day”.  I would feel more comfortable with “Science Day” and I would be for holding that on Feb 12 in honor of Darwin’s contribution, among many, to the science model of obtaining knowledge.  The Science Model is so much more than Darwin, and even more than Evolution.  The Science Model also includes observing the universe, observing the microscopic world including atoms and sub-atomic elements.  It includes observing the body, observing the development of life in the womb, observing the mind, and even observing the climate changes around the world.  All of these, and more, are allowing us to build our knowledge based on observations rather than theoretical or religious models.  And to me, all of these ground-breakers should be exalted and revered. 

David Kimball