Fifteen years…
Chances are that not many would have given a small band of
atheists with a liberal social agenda much hope to last very long as a
functioning organization in a city with a strong, 300 year-old Catholic tradition,
or in a state situated nearly in the center of the Protestant Bible Belt spanning
the southern United
States. This would have to have been a pipe
dream that wafted away quicker than the pungent smoke they were sharing,
right?
Well, wrong. The hypothetical skeptic would have
passed over a deeper look at the message that served as the core principle
of the organization, and negligently underestimated the dedication and,
quite frankly, chutzpah of founding father Harry Greenberger and the
devoted brothers and sisters around him at the beginning. Had the agenda
been specious or the organizers easily discouraged, the prognosis of
failure would have been correct, but the combination of leadership and purpose
made success a fait accompli—nearly everything was right for this marriage
made in…well…New Orleans.
The one-two combination of people and purpose, directors
with a directive: what a concept. The symmetry is elegant, but at the same
time can be insidiously satisfying—an End, a state of zero energy, motionless
poetry. It need not be, and there seems to be no one involved with the group
ready to relax on past positives....and counting.
***
Let’s borrow from that dualism, that two-tiered approach which got us to this point in our history and apply it to a model
for reevaluating the motivations and goals of the organization and how best
to proceed in implementing its chartered mission and approaching other “issues”.
The work is on two fronts: the promotion of the Humanist
ideology, which is based on our local chapter’s Statement of Principles,
Humanist Manifestos I, II, and III, along with general regulations and by-laws
that are in place pertaining to our unique group, including outlines of decorum
in public or participating in open or closed social media discussions. The
objective is recruiting new members; the method is education through
public or private broadcasting (television and radio), news outlets (newspapers,
print and online), social media postings, personal blogs, printed handouts,
appearances at social gatherings and participation in community
voluntarism.
That in itself would be enough to keep even the more
industrious of any group knee-deep (at least) with projects and activity,
but there is that second pier of responsibility that must be engaged if the
first standard of purpose is to have any hope of maturing and manifesting
itself in the future.
There is a justifiable and growing concern that religious
fundamentalist interests are gaining a widening sphere of influence
and the gains in political power that can come with it. This is the
metaphorical second pillar of our self-justification, our raison d’être. This
is the dirty part of our job, the negative part, the part that has to do
with challenging and opposing bad ideas. This is where we must “just say
no” to proposals for mean-spirited restrictions on basic human rights, and
when it is the part of our job to expose the danger of an irrational fear
of science and the fallacy of placing unflagging reliance for guidance on
patriarchal documents and credos from cruder times. This is may be the harder
part. Hard, but doable.
While IRS regulations prohibit non-profit 501(c)(3)
organizations from endorsing (or opposing), or contributing to, or working
for particular candidates; there remains a certain flexibility that is
allowed when it comes to lobbying for or against legislation. We can
likewise have allies at the national level that are assuming the principle
leadership role given their larger funding bases. The Bill of Rights in
our Constitution has served us well generally, but some of the loose and
vague provisos therein can and have been interpreted by biased judicial
bodies unsatisfactorily. There has been a spate of unfavorable decisions
lately on corporate “personhood” in matters of religious and campaign
liberties, but at the same time more favorable decisions concerning
opening marriage rights to everyone.
It has been said that the particular faith maintained at the
base of Christianity is problematic in the sense that that it is “not only
faith beyond reason, but, if need be, faith against reason” (1). The
same evaluation would apply to Islam. This is an unacceptable. Our
values, expressed in Manifestos or privately held, must include a call for
an serious condemnation of fundamentalist religion, at least those based
on savage and authoritarian texts, whether that condemnation be through civil
debates, public outrage, mockery, or rude disrespect, as long as it is
directed to the idea, not the person, in any available format or setting
and at any opportunity. Calls for religious pluralism and tolerance must
be cross-examined and disregarded if they offer no solutions for the likelihood
that some of their own are destined to assume prophet status
and create an interpretation of the truth based on a novel reading of
what is basically a mythology.
Together, we can do this.
Happy Anniversary, NOSHA!
Happy Holidays, Y'all!
~Marty Bankson
November 30, 2014
1. Barrett, William, Irrational Man (New York: Anchor Book
Edition, 1990), p. 92.
