WITH the festering crisis of white Christian nationalism, a minority group has become the unwelcome American hegemony.
America’s power is more mistrusted and more reviled in more places worldwide than it has ever been in its history.
What has diminished over the past few years has not been our power itself; IT iS the perception of that power engaging the dimensions of the world.
One global dimension is leadership. For many global citizens, both allies and ENEMIES, the news that the era of supremacy is over may reveal more relief than regret.
Interesting
I would say that
-Supremacy and leadership are not the same. Supremacy is economic, military, and cultural. Leadership is something more. Let’s say an ability to inspire and lead.
-
US leadership has not been absolute in the past. During the cold war, USSR disputed it and not always unsuccessfully. And, after the fall of USSR, very fast, China and Russia disputed it and with success. The best proof is the way most countries don’t support West in the Ukrainian crisis.
-
US supremacy is in question today, as US economy is challenged.
-
US leadership is challenged as Liberal and democratic values are challenged in many countries, and that may be the most problematic.
Your words are a little confusing.
What I see is a global political system, where private corporations, with their ‘fiduciary responsibility’ to Profit’s Über Alles have become more powerful than governments themselves.
These corporate leaders have been in the process of a hostile takeover of governments for a few decades with a tragic success rate, along with hideous cascading consequences that most won’t recognize until the Tsunami hits.
Thank you for your comment.
One global dimension is leadership. For many global citizens, both allies and ENEMIES, the news that the era of supremacy is over may reveal more relief than regret.
Perhaps my words are confusing to you, is that the reason for your judgmental reply?
I am a 78-year-old pale male but not stale American Humanistic Theorist. I have heard the words “fat ugly American” and other disparaging epithets for a long time. Instead of perpetual denial, I am saying it is time for Americans to reconsider how to move towards a modern world class country.
I am not suggesting they are the same. Thank you for your reply.
I didn’t think I was being judgmental, I was confused, still am.
Who’s supremacy do you mean? How is it “over”?
Boy, that sure sounds like an insult. What’s that all about?
What “theory” are you talking about? Can you describe it?
Do you think there are people in other nations who might have good reason to resent certain types of Americans they are forced to deal with?
There is an amazing amount of denial going on, which kind are you thinking of?
Dear Citizen, I don’t want my words to be confusing. Can you offer me advice on the clumsy statement? Thank you
Not sure if a third perspective will help or hurt. I know saying “I’m confused” can sound like judgment, but sometimes, you just gotta go with it. CC’s questions seemed legit.
During the Trump years, there was talk of how America was no longer the leader of the free world, but I’m not sure that was ever defined very well anyway. We argued about being the “police of the world” before that. Even with the renewed bonds of NATO, the members are still the descendants of the expansionist colonizers, and also mostly white. Any reduction in that “supremacy” has been slow and requires the cooperation of the ones with the power. So, yes, it’s good news, a relief, but when it will be “over” is still up for debate.
Rereading my questions they are a ‘good faith’ effort to get a little more information. Isn’t this forum about trying to express yourself, perhaps even swaying a few, here and there. We easily misread each others intent and I’m guilty as anyone of misreading others and finding hostility where it ain’t, so I try to catch myself and try to do it constructively. That’s what that up there is about.
You came here making some statements that I find rather confusing and inconsistent. I was trying to figure it out. If you go down that list of questions, why not give it a try. We don’t have to like each other to have a civil construction discussion.
1 Like
You and Lausten are absolutely right! I apologize for my snarky reply.
I am convinced that Humanism and Christianity will continue to decline, and we need moral and ethical guidelines. That is why I have been working on a new paradigm of Humanism that respects all religions or no religion at all. Of course, various religions are helpful to some people I am writing a website to explain my theory of AMH Humanism. I need to ask some critical thinkers to review my work in progress, you two are a couple of the best I have met in this forum.
1 Like
I thank you for the compliment.
What do you think of the proposition that our gods are created by our selves?
And how does that work into your ideas
When I was deconverting, it appeared that I was just hanging on to religion when I said it might have something of value. I’ve stuck with that though, long after I passed the point where it seems there is no going back.
I don’t think humanism, in and of itself, respects all religions. As far as I can remember, no Humanist Manifesto states anything about respecting religion- not the first, second, or third or even fourth, as I recall. I think that is up to the individual humanist as to whether or not they have respect for any and all religions. I, myself, do not respect all religions or rather, I don’t respect how some humans practice their own religions.
Hi Mriana, I remember when you first introduced yourself. That was the first time I ever heard the name Mriana. I commented then that I thought the name was pretty.
Citizens Challenge commented that my words were confusing, Lausten agreed. Your comment underlines how right they are.
Had lunch yesterday with an old friend and retired editor for a large Chicago publisher. I asked her to read my statement, she did and started laughing as she said, “it’s terrible”.
She went on to say there is a trend that the increasingly educated population is tired of reading in print that they are collectively wrong! She asked me a few questions and I admitted my statement was angry.
She asked, “at who”, I first said Republicans, then I said, myself. I was angry that I didn’t know there were so many autocratic leaning Americans. I am angry our democratic experiment is being challenged so seriously instead of spending more energy on scientifically updating the American experiment.
I am startled by the extent (pale, stale, male politicians are embracing “In God We Trust”
I have listened to the advice and comments and removed the statement from my site and will get help to rework the clumsy statement.
Now Mriana, thank you for your comment, and here is my reply:
I know that traditional humanism does not acknowledge supernatural events or the human soul.
As you say, “as far as “I can remember, no Humanist Manifesto states anything about respecting religion”, not the first, second, or third or even fourth”
The first Manifesto, published in 1933 was essentially an afront to the New York Christian leadership who was implying the Church was the source for morals and ethics. The signers of the first Manifesto were saying to the Christians that they did not own the corner of the market on morals or ethics.
Felix Adler was also still active in the 1930s with advancing the Ethical Culture movement (which did not happen). There are a few Ethical Society cultures acting as half-way houses for those leaving the religious experience. They all do good work with their platform framed in Christianity and struggling to get by.
Even before the Renaissance, humanism was popular in scholarly circles, but not everyday citizens except for ancient Greece. Humanism needs to be a national movement but will never achieve it in any of its various styles.
That is why I am working on creating a new paradigm of humanism based on scientific postulates of human evolution and taxonomy of the human species.
I agree the individual human chooses their cognizance of religion or none at all. We are in the digital age and some of us are still analog.
Thanks for your comments.
1 Like
That was a long time ago. Thank you.
Me too! (sorry, I didn’t mean to sound like the “Me Too” movement)
This is correct.
St. Louis has an Ethical Society and they did have a podcast that enjoyed. Last I knew they stop doing the podcast.
Humanism is for everyone, thus why there is Humanistic Xianity, Humanistic Judaism, etc. IMHO, although many secularist will disagree with me, one can be a humanist and a Xian (ie Bishop Spong, Don Cupitt, Sea of Faith, etc). I was a Spong follower and learned about the U.K. SoF as well as another group, I think Australia, related to SoF. Then I became a humanist, because I just could not believe in a deity created by humans and developed more naturalistic views.
I think what you want is something like SoF. https://sofn.org.uk/
They also have a FB page too: Sea of Faith Network | Facebook
I haven’t been a part of the Spong/Cupitt groups in over 10 years now, so they may have changed. There are more SoF groups in Australia, NZ, and more. Just do a search for them.
This is interesting- Quakers have one: https://nontheist-quakers.org.uk/
I have some respect for Lutherans and Episcopalians, but the Fundamngelicals and other extremists Xian groups, I have no respect for because of how they treat humans, including their own. I have no respect for Islamic extremists either. Both psychologically and sometimes physically abuse members or allow abuse to happen. I do have respect for most Taoist and Buddhists. I can also appreciate Hinduism, but I don’t take it seriously. I enjoy reading Gnostic texts and commentary on them, but again, I can’t take it seriously. I can appreciate N.A. beliefs even, but I don’t agree about a Great Spirit (Wakan Tanka). I don’t poke fun of N.A. beliefs though.
Hey Mriana, thanks for your interesting reply. A difference in my concept of AMH humanism and all other notions of religion that I have read about is, in a nutshell, AMH Humanism is a theory based on a testable hypothesis:
- No evidence of any creation event in the 4.5 billion years of planetary history. Human evolution is absolute it is not an argument.
The Biblical Creation stories are popular, some people still believe them verbatim.
We are living in the digital age; they are still analog. The evidence is species either evolve or go extinct. - Overwhelming evidence that human species has evolved as the other extant species of the planet have also evolved.
- Humans possess a biological link with animistic experience explained on my site, too lengthy for this comment.
Georges Cuvier is regarded as the father of paleontology. Not so long ago, he convinced a skeptical scientific world of the reality of species extinction. Previously, species were thought to vanish, among other useless theories. - A taxonomic position of the human species in the order of primates. The species is also a member of the Great Apes.
AMH Humanists know they were born with the heritage of physical and spiritual traits from our ancestors who lived with ever-present spirits and gods during their time on Earth. AMH Humanists gain the posture of confidence knowing how they fit in the scheme of things.
Mriana, I’m impressed with your interests. Spong/Cupitt
Today, the public reputation of Christian ethics has crashed, amidst far too much
evidence of great unhappiness and truly malignant human relations within the
churches. There has been too much child abuse, rampant misogyny and
homophobia, and reflex fear and hostility towards new technical and scientific
developments, especially in medicine and genetics. In some places, there has
been too much collusion with nationalism. It is not surprising that public bodies
are no longer quite so keen to have church representatives on ethics committees.
Don Cupitt
Reforming Christianity p. 4.
Don Cupitt sums it up from my point of view.
Well, the Episcopal Church was my last stop before becoming a humanist. I met Bishop Spong before he retired and even wrote him, with him replying to me a time or two. So, I guess you could say Bishop Spong influenced me on my journey out of religion. The only difference is he stayed and I left because I couldn’t believe the mythology any more.
Now Fr. Tom Harper is also another one. He said, “Religion is mythology, misunderstood.” I think this is the video he said it in.
The first thing I lost belief in was hell, but the Anglican/Episcopal Church was my way out of the mythology, thanks to these guys, though I’m not so sure they’d like to hear they lead one to not believing anymore. Of course, I did a lot of studying of religion before I “lost faith in faith”.
Now with all of that going on and working closely with a female priest as a lay minister, what do you think one learns? Respecting religious beliefs isn’t one of them. Appreciating the various mythologies was one of them. First humans practiced animism, then humans anthropomorphized their gods. Religious thought/belief was all part of the evolution of humans explaining what they couldn’t explain at the time and now we have science, lots of science, so we really don’t need a myth to explain the unexplainable. It mostly something people cling to out of fear- fear of death, fear life, fear of danger, fear in general. Many people can’t deal with the fact we won’t ever see our loved one’s again, so they cling to the human idea of an afterlife, That and there is often abuse of one sort or another in the churches, whether it is physical, mental, or sexual. There are numerous examples, but I’m sure people have heard some of them.
Good on you. If it ain’t hurting you ain’t learning. Accepting tough love, that goes far, you’re gonna have fun here yet.
If you want to learn a bunch about the idea of evolution and how the idea(s) evolved you might consider Daniel Dennett’s “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea”. {I do contend that he misses an important ingredient in his first chapter}, but the rest of it is a great telling, along with a bibliographical treasure trove to other solid, substantial information about developing evolutionary understanding.
If you aren’t familiar with the literature, this is a great introduction, with plenty of pointers.
Beyond that, given that I have a very different background, one of no religious indoctrination, simply a gentle introduction to Christianity, then being trusted to figure it out for ourselves (siblings), we have different assessments and conclusions.
Here’s a collection of idea I put together today, I’d be curious of your assessment.
The theory of AMH Humanism contains a biological connection to the spirit of animism. It occurred a couple of hundred thousand years ago when we were first emerging as a brand-new species, we were like babies with baby brains that were busy developing synapses. *(Modern babies produce enough synapses by the time they are 2 years old to get into trouble by the time they are 3 they have produced all the synapses they will need in a lifetime.) *
Our first generations of predecessors required tens of thousands of years to create enough brain development (creating first time synapse structure) for us to have new ideas. we were slowly migrating our cognizance of “not knowing what anything was”, to the 2-year-old modern baby. About 2 thousand years ago we were at the 3-year-old level entering the Common Era.
Today we are 22 years past the CE and are entering the digital age.
Right now is a perfect time to launch a “born again”, style of humanism that appeals to the average citizen by respecting their right to choose a religious experience or none at all.
The focus of the new paradigm of Humanism is to support the continuing success of the human species and preserving moral and ethical guidelines into the future,
