This past Sunday we were privileged to have two guests at our monthly program, Joseph Ben-David as our speaker and musical entertainment with The Sticker Dude.
Rev. Ben-David is currently the Senior Minister of the Naturalistic Church of Humanism, and has been a lifelong activist in humanitarian and Unitarian causes. His topic was "Revolution in Humanism: Putting Humanism on the Map."
Joe, as he encouraged us to call him, said we need to act as radical reformers but function within a set of values in order to improve a situation. I view this as a constructive rather than a destructive form of radicalism.
His "nutshell" definition of humanism is an ultimate concern for the human condition in the universal context, including the self, the environment and the cosmos. As he pointed out, a person who has helped humanity is a "humanist" by his definition even if this person is a theist.
Rev. Ben-David defined three types of humanism:
1. Atheism: a radical attack on irrationality, superstition and the political power of traditional religions.
2. Agnosticism acknowledges that there is a lot we don't understand. It encompasses a belief in the scientific method.
3. Theism: how is this possible for humanists, he asked? He sees it as possible if one takes a naturalistic approach to the concept of God. Naturalism includes both the Darwinian "law of the jungle" environment but it also includes a socially positive process wherein animals protect each other and perform positive and creative behavior. (Remember the generous vampire bats I mentioned in my talk on "Rambam's Ladder," who shared their unique type of food with other bats when asked?) Humans have both sides of this naturalism within them.
In terms of the creative process, humans are capable of transcending into a higher environment where values are actualized. Humans have a spiritual capacity to affect society in positive, creative ways.
Humans operate in 3 basic modes: the mode of ideas and rational thinking is the one that has until recently been most cherished by humanists, who often dwell in the realm of thinking. But, we also operate in the mode of feelings, which humanists have often ignored. Third, we operate in the mode of politics.
Reason is basic: we must have rationality and ideas in order not to dwell in chaos. But we must also have a place for feelings and psychology, Rev. Ben-David pointed out. While rationality leads us to science, feelings lead us into the arts, which allow us to understand concepts not expressible in any other way. Third, we must also incorporate politics in the sense that we must actualize.
It is in that actualization that the Humanist Revolution must begin. Here Rev. Ben-David gave us a brief history of the Humanist movement and discussed the introduction of humanist psychology into the movement. He pointed out that we need to encompass the three-dimensional nature of human existence: ideas, feelings and politics, in order to put Humanism on the map and make it attractive to large numbers of people.
In a nutshell, Rev. Ben-David's idea is that we need a humanistic, ethical, naturalistic, unitarian universalist idea of God. We need to find and mobilize people who affirm the God concept in its realistic form in order to engage people to whom that word does mean something. He pointed out that approximately 10-15% of the US population identifies as atheist, but that we need to reach the rest as well.
Accordingly, Rev. Ben-David shared that he has written a highly researched essay, meant to be distributed to academicians, on this humanist concept of "God." At the end of his talk he took email addresses and will send copies of his essay to those who are interested.
I was impressed with the depth of his thinking and the vision of a humanism that will appeal to people who believe in a God but perhaps are not affiliated with a formal religion. Attracting more people to the Humanist movement, and in our particular case, to our small but dynamic Brooklyn Humanist Community, would be a great achievement.
The talk and some questions and answers were followed by songs and sing-alongs with The Sticker Dude. His final song was his "theme song" for the Brooklyn Humanist Community, and spoke of the long, hard time we have been through but that we won't give it up and we have the love of our friends to help us along. Joel spoke some touching words about his feeling of connection to our group, even if he isn't able to attend often. It was so good to know we occupy a place in his heart, as he does in ours.
Our thanks to Joseph Ben-David, his wife Alyson Ben-David who drove him to the meeting and filmed his talk, and to our dear friend Joel, the Sticker Dude. We hope they will all choose to visit us more often.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
BHC's First Movie Night
On Saturday night BHC members and friends gathered at Antoinette and Michael's for our first movie night. We ordered in four types of pizza, snacked on chips and salsa, and chatted until we started the movie at 9.
We watched "Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World." It wasn't necessarily the best movie I have ever seen but it had some very funny moments. While the Muslims (and the Hindus) encountered in the film appeared to be either clueless about comedy or else on a completely different wavelength, the movie also made it clear that the Americans were totally clueless about how to do cultural research.
The main character arrives in India with just about no preparation. He hasn't read up on or studied either the Hindu or Muslim religion, let alone the history of the peoples in that area. He goes around on the streets asking people what makes them laugh. Most of the time they are suspicious and give him a wide berth. Guess what? If someone came up to me out of the blue and asked what makes me laugh, I might run the other way also! And I think I've got a pretty well developed sense of humor.
Since he's a comedian, he decides to experiment on the public by putting on a comedy show and having his assistant record the audience's responses. But the audience is totally unresponsive. His comedy falls flat. It's ethnocentric and some of it is actually an insult to the audience. When he does an "improvisation," the audience eagerly provides suggestions. But he changes them to suit his own idea of a funny improvisation. Not only isn't it funny to them, but it is insulting that he simply ignored their suggestions. I'm surprised they didn't throw ripe tomatoes!
The only people he's able to evoke a laugh out of are a group of hookah-smoking Pakistanis who are supposedly budding comedians. They give him a hit of hashish and he becomes just as high as they are, loosens up and manages to be funny, or at least, to amuse his audience, which seems ready to laugh at just about anything.
In the meantime, his activities, going around and questioning people about humor, are read by both governments as suspicious. When he illegally crosses the border into Pakistan, the Pakistani government beefs up security at the border. In response, the Indian government beefs up security at their border. All this futile searching for comedy nearly results in a war, and our comedian is pulled out of the country for his own safety (when in fact, he's the cause of it all).
Back in Los Angeles he is feted by his wife and his friends, and hailed by them as a returning hero even though he has accomplished nothing and in fact almost set off a war. So the Americans, in the end, are the ones who are really clueless about other cultures and even how to learn about them.
The movie had some great moments, such as the comedian's remark that, "It's okay to bomb, it's no big deal," which is overheard and reported by a Pakistani spy. I got a lot of laughs out of it, and we had a good discussion afterwards over coffee and crumb cake. We stayed out till midnight, something we almost never do anymore, just enjoying a freewheeling conversation with good friends.
Kudos to Michael and Antoinette for pulling this event together on such short notice (we didn't decide to do this until Wednesday). It looks like a movie night is something we definitely have to include in our programming plans.
We watched "Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World." It wasn't necessarily the best movie I have ever seen but it had some very funny moments. While the Muslims (and the Hindus) encountered in the film appeared to be either clueless about comedy or else on a completely different wavelength, the movie also made it clear that the Americans were totally clueless about how to do cultural research.
The main character arrives in India with just about no preparation. He hasn't read up on or studied either the Hindu or Muslim religion, let alone the history of the peoples in that area. He goes around on the streets asking people what makes them laugh. Most of the time they are suspicious and give him a wide berth. Guess what? If someone came up to me out of the blue and asked what makes me laugh, I might run the other way also! And I think I've got a pretty well developed sense of humor.
Since he's a comedian, he decides to experiment on the public by putting on a comedy show and having his assistant record the audience's responses. But the audience is totally unresponsive. His comedy falls flat. It's ethnocentric and some of it is actually an insult to the audience. When he does an "improvisation," the audience eagerly provides suggestions. But he changes them to suit his own idea of a funny improvisation. Not only isn't it funny to them, but it is insulting that he simply ignored their suggestions. I'm surprised they didn't throw ripe tomatoes!
The only people he's able to evoke a laugh out of are a group of hookah-smoking Pakistanis who are supposedly budding comedians. They give him a hit of hashish and he becomes just as high as they are, loosens up and manages to be funny, or at least, to amuse his audience, which seems ready to laugh at just about anything.
In the meantime, his activities, going around and questioning people about humor, are read by both governments as suspicious. When he illegally crosses the border into Pakistan, the Pakistani government beefs up security at the border. In response, the Indian government beefs up security at their border. All this futile searching for comedy nearly results in a war, and our comedian is pulled out of the country for his own safety (when in fact, he's the cause of it all).
Back in Los Angeles he is feted by his wife and his friends, and hailed by them as a returning hero even though he has accomplished nothing and in fact almost set off a war. So the Americans, in the end, are the ones who are really clueless about other cultures and even how to learn about them.
The movie had some great moments, such as the comedian's remark that, "It's okay to bomb, it's no big deal," which is overheard and reported by a Pakistani spy. I got a lot of laughs out of it, and we had a good discussion afterwards over coffee and crumb cake. We stayed out till midnight, something we almost never do anymore, just enjoying a freewheeling conversation with good friends.
Kudos to Michael and Antoinette for pulling this event together on such short notice (we didn't decide to do this until Wednesday). It looks like a movie night is something we definitely have to include in our programming plans.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
BHC's First Social Action
Yesterday members of the BHC embarked on our first social action. Several months ago, our members voted to concentrate on aiding veterans this year. We invited Janeen Thompson, Volunteer Program Coordinator with the Visiting Nurse Service of New York to train us for a one-day phone action, calling veterans in hospice to thank them for their service to their country.
Seven of us attended the training and two others expressed interest in making the calls this Tuesday, Veterans' Day. Ms. Thompson also offered us the opportunity to get involved in a new program. If we sign up for it, we'd be visiting veterans in hospice and presenting them with a certificate officially thanking them for their service. We'd be accompanied by a spiritual leader and there would be a ceremony to thank the veteran.
In the meantime, this is the first step. After this, some of us have expressed interest in attending trainings to visit with the veterans in hospice, and I think we can get a number of people together who are ready to do this project.
Seven of us attended the training and two others expressed interest in making the calls this Tuesday, Veterans' Day. Ms. Thompson also offered us the opportunity to get involved in a new program. If we sign up for it, we'd be visiting veterans in hospice and presenting them with a certificate officially thanking them for their service. We'd be accompanied by a spiritual leader and there would be a ceremony to thank the veteran.
In the meantime, this is the first step. After this, some of us have expressed interest in attending trainings to visit with the veterans in hospice, and I think we can get a number of people together who are ready to do this project.
Friday, November 7, 2008
BHC Book Club Visits "Alternate Community"
For our discussion of Lois Lowry's The Giver, Sheila put up signs on the door outlining the rules of the community, and ushered us in to serve as the "Elders" of the community. We reviewed the pros and cons of living in the alternate community of The Giver.
There were some good things to be said of it. There was no war, no hunger, no unhappiness. No one was diseased or deformed, because such a person would be "released" (euthanized) immediately. Whether this was to spare them suffering was unclear but it was clear that the equilibrium of the community was so delicate that no differences from the norm could be tolerated. Everyone made their best efforts to follow the rules, and everyone was, if not ecstatically happy, at least content with their roles in the community. There was no bad weather, no reason to suffer discomfort for more than a few minutes (minor injuries received immediate attention and painkillers were rapidly administered).
But the price of all this contentment and calm was high. There was no love, no strong emotions of any kind. The same man who appeared to "love" babies could also euthanize an infant without a qualm, and send the dead baby (whose only crime was being born the lower weight of a set of twins) down the garbage chute with a cheery "bye, bye, little guy!"
No one had sex, ever. At the first hint of pubescent desire, adolescents received pills to take for their entire lives, suppressing the "stirrings." Your mate was picked for you, your children and your job were picked for you. Your "parents," who were not your biological parents, didn't even get to choose your name. Regimentation was complete. Throughout childhood, children were given age-appropriate toys, clothing and items, just the same as everyone else. No one had more than the tiniest shred of individuality.
There was no art and no music, for people could not even see colors.
Granted that there are those who live in such abject poverty and suffering that a community like this would seem like paradise to them, but for those of us accustomed to making free choices and to having a full range of emotions, it was a dreary and frightening dystopia.
Only the Giver and Jonas, the Receiver, were able to remember what it was like in the past. Jonas is so outraged by what has been lost that he decides to rebel and to run away, leaving the community to have to bear the brunt of his memories that will be released among them when he leaves. He learns that "release" means euthanasia and that his father is one of the killers. He learns that behind all the pleasantness and cheery dispositions is a terrible, ugly truth.
He runs away before he's planned to, in order to save the life of little Gabriel, the baby his father has brought home at night. Gabriel isn't adjusting well, he cries through the night and doesn't grow well. We'd call this failure to thrive, and in fact, lack of love is the cause of many such babies languishing and dying in orphanages where they are not held, cuddled, and spoken to. Jonas takes to him and discovers that Gabriel, too, is a Receiver, for Jonas is able to quiet him at night by giving him the memories.
I pointed out that there were many biblical references in this book. The community Jonas flees to celebrates Christmas and the lights and the tree are symbolic of the love that is lacking in his community. He is like Adam in that he is "expelled" from the Eden-like community (which doesn't even have any animals other than the fish they use for food). His expulsion begins with an apple and he realizes he is different when he sees the apple "change" -- that is, he perceives its red color although he hasn't even got a name for this attribute.
Jonas and Gabriel are both messengers in the Bible. And at the end, Jonas is fleeing his community, bringing with him a baby who is slated to be killed. And, it is apparently Christmas Eve! So I said that there were strong and deliberate religious underpinnings in this book.
We voted to disband the community because the price of security meant giving up far too much freedom. However, at the end, Sheila assigned us our careers. Bruce got to be a doctor! I liked that. I forget what Jason's assignment was, but I was assigned to keep the records.
This was a fascinating discussion and brought up many related books such as 1984, Brave New World, and Anthem. Thanks again to Sheila for arranging such an insightful discussion and for giving each of us the perfect job!
There were some good things to be said of it. There was no war, no hunger, no unhappiness. No one was diseased or deformed, because such a person would be "released" (euthanized) immediately. Whether this was to spare them suffering was unclear but it was clear that the equilibrium of the community was so delicate that no differences from the norm could be tolerated. Everyone made their best efforts to follow the rules, and everyone was, if not ecstatically happy, at least content with their roles in the community. There was no bad weather, no reason to suffer discomfort for more than a few minutes (minor injuries received immediate attention and painkillers were rapidly administered).
But the price of all this contentment and calm was high. There was no love, no strong emotions of any kind. The same man who appeared to "love" babies could also euthanize an infant without a qualm, and send the dead baby (whose only crime was being born the lower weight of a set of twins) down the garbage chute with a cheery "bye, bye, little guy!"
No one had sex, ever. At the first hint of pubescent desire, adolescents received pills to take for their entire lives, suppressing the "stirrings." Your mate was picked for you, your children and your job were picked for you. Your "parents," who were not your biological parents, didn't even get to choose your name. Regimentation was complete. Throughout childhood, children were given age-appropriate toys, clothing and items, just the same as everyone else. No one had more than the tiniest shred of individuality.
There was no art and no music, for people could not even see colors.
Granted that there are those who live in such abject poverty and suffering that a community like this would seem like paradise to them, but for those of us accustomed to making free choices and to having a full range of emotions, it was a dreary and frightening dystopia.
Only the Giver and Jonas, the Receiver, were able to remember what it was like in the past. Jonas is so outraged by what has been lost that he decides to rebel and to run away, leaving the community to have to bear the brunt of his memories that will be released among them when he leaves. He learns that "release" means euthanasia and that his father is one of the killers. He learns that behind all the pleasantness and cheery dispositions is a terrible, ugly truth.
He runs away before he's planned to, in order to save the life of little Gabriel, the baby his father has brought home at night. Gabriel isn't adjusting well, he cries through the night and doesn't grow well. We'd call this failure to thrive, and in fact, lack of love is the cause of many such babies languishing and dying in orphanages where they are not held, cuddled, and spoken to. Jonas takes to him and discovers that Gabriel, too, is a Receiver, for Jonas is able to quiet him at night by giving him the memories.
I pointed out that there were many biblical references in this book. The community Jonas flees to celebrates Christmas and the lights and the tree are symbolic of the love that is lacking in his community. He is like Adam in that he is "expelled" from the Eden-like community (which doesn't even have any animals other than the fish they use for food). His expulsion begins with an apple and he realizes he is different when he sees the apple "change" -- that is, he perceives its red color although he hasn't even got a name for this attribute.
Jonas and Gabriel are both messengers in the Bible. And at the end, Jonas is fleeing his community, bringing with him a baby who is slated to be killed. And, it is apparently Christmas Eve! So I said that there were strong and deliberate religious underpinnings in this book.
We voted to disband the community because the price of security meant giving up far too much freedom. However, at the end, Sheila assigned us our careers. Bruce got to be a doctor! I liked that. I forget what Jason's assignment was, but I was assigned to keep the records.
This was a fascinating discussion and brought up many related books such as 1984, Brave New World, and Anthem. Thanks again to Sheila for arranging such an insightful discussion and for giving each of us the perfect job!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)