Consider Humanism campaign in the states

[Aca]

Humanists Launch Largest National Advertising Campaign Critical of Religious Scripture

(Washington, D.C., November 9, 2010) A national multimedia ad campaign – the largest, most extensive ever by a godless organization - launches today and will include a spot on NBC Dateline on Friday, November 12, as well as other television ads, that directly challenge biblical morality and fundamentalist Christianity. The campaign, sponsored by the American Humanist Association, also features ads in major national and regional newspapers and magazines demonstrating that secular humanist values are consistent with mainstream America and that fundamentalist religion has no right to claim the moral high ground.

more http://www.considerhumanism.org/

http://www.considerhumanism.org/images/AD-Genocide.png


New humanist article http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2010/11/humanist-advertising-campaign-launches.html

For instance, on the subject of violence, the AHA campaign compares the following:

Islam: I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.” Qur'an (8:12)

Humanism: “The American Humanist Association, in support of the creation of a global community, affirms the aim of avoiding the use and distortion of creeds, beliefs, ideologies, and worldviews as a justification for violence (or even for the threat of violence) in pursuit of a goal” AHA Resolution on Global Community and International Affairs, 2008

And on women's rights, these two quotes are contrasted:

The Bible: “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” I Timothy 2 (New International Version)

Humanism: “The rights of men and women should be equal and sacred—marriage should be a perfect partnership.” Robert Ingersoll, in a letter dated April 13, 1878


edit: cant embed the video :whine:

[Aca]

all of the ads here

http://www.considerhumanism.org/ads.php

[Jack Willsson]

You'll get Humanism a reputation for cherry-picking their quotes and being no better than their opponents:

e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_and_Aquila

What you quote:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+2&version=NIV

If that was written by Paul I'm a teaspoon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy#The_challenge_to_Pauline_ authorship

[Politesse]

Reminds me of the Mormon ad campaign a while back; ripe for a bit of parody.

[Jack Willsson]

O.K. there are a few extreme fundamentalists in the world but on the whole here humanists are attacking strawmen. I can't imagine many religious people who would support the alternatives against what the humanist campaign claims is exclusively their position.

What do you hope to achieve by tilting at windmills? :rolleyes:

When it comes to women's rights, are humanists any better than anyone else?

[Daydream]

I hope this movement takes hold. Sometimes I feel so alone in being an infidel.

[Jobar]

If this is tilting at windmills- which I don't think it is- still that's better than killing for the greater glory of God, whatever god is being killed for. (Insert pic of the burning Twin Towers here.)

Another way of approaching this would be to quote two clearly contradictory passages from various holy books, and ask something like "Which holy words do *you* believe?" Then quote a humanist statement on the same topic.

For instance- I've always found the two contradictory genealogies of Jesus to be perhaps the most undeniable contradiction in the NT. Quote the first and last few names from those passages, and then some statement from one of the more prominent mythicists concerning the lack of historical references to Jesus other than the Bible.

Another would be quotes relevant to the 'acts vs. faith' conflict, and then a humanist condemnation of blind faith.

Yet another good approach would be quotes of some of the more enlightened parts of the Bible, and contrast them with quotes from religious leaders of times past and present; not just such things as "Kill them all; God will know his own", but stuff from Falwell and Robertson, too. Follow those with relevant humanist statements.

[Jack Willsson]

I'm an atheist; which says something about my beliefs not what group I belong to. I suppose I'm a humanist by one or more of the definitions too but there seem to be a lot of different definitions.

I can't understand wanting to belong to a "movement". Haven't we learned that movements lead to factions and factions lead to friction.

I don't care if the next person along is an atheist, an agnostic or a theist (etc.) if they treat other people with respect then they deserve to be treated with respect themselves.

[Jobar]

if they treat other people with respect then they deserve to be treated with respect themselves.

Yes, certainly. But there are some- many, I'm afraid- that do not respect us in the least. (Again, remember the WTC in flames.)

The trick is to try to avoid offending the ones who offer us respect, while also condemning the ones who would force the world to follow their dogmas. We have to make clear that people can believe what pleases them- but if those beliefs engender actions which damage or denigrate us, we will defend ourselves. And one of the ways we will do that is to attack the dogmas which are seen to be the root causes of the problem.

[Ozymandias]

The last quote “The rights of men and women should be equal and sacred—marriage should be a perfect partnership” sounds like a lot of hogwash to me. What the hell does "sacred" mean in this context? And why must marriage be perfect?

I usually find Humanists annoy me just as much as Christians.

[Jack Willsson]

The last quote “The rights of men and women should be equal and sacred—marriage should be a perfect partnership” sounds like a lot of hogwash to me. What the hell does "sacred" mean in this context? And why must marriage be perfect?

I usually find Humanists annoy me just as much as Christians.

I think "sacred" is meant as "of paramount importance"
nothing to do with gods. The hifalutin "perfect" refers to the grounds of the partnership not the success of the marriage.

I don't dislike the aims of humanism but spare me the humanist organisation, manifesto, party-line etc. Most of all I don't want to be included in someone else's "we".

[Politesse]

if they treat other people with respect then they deserve to be treated with respect themselves. Does your definition of respect include defamation on public buses, or are you making an argument against the ad campaign, here?

Yes, certainly. But there are some- many, I'm afraid- that do not respect us in the least. (Again, remember the WTC in flames.)How many terrorists do you suppose there are in the world, Jobar? Just give me a rough estimate; how many members of terrorist organizations are there? And how many people who belong to "a religion"? How do those numbers compare?

The trick is to try to avoid offending the ones who offer us respect, while also condemning the ones who would force the world to follow their dogmas.If that is the goal of this ad campaign, it is failing miserably, alienating allies within the religious world and having no impact at all on those few who actually hold these beliefs. It's not as though someone who actually does hate women would get why the statement on the billboard is offensive; the only people who might be offended are those who already agree with you. Most of whom are very probably Christians and Muslims and Jews and Buddhists, going by the numbers.

Since when did humanism own the concepts of compassion and equality, anyway? Those are certainly humanist values, but not exclusively by any stretch of the imagination. The very earliest human societies were profoundly religious, animist people, and there's also plenty of evidence of compassion, gift-giving, and egalitarian social structures in the remains of our first ancestors. Are you going to come along and tell me that a movement which started 400 years or so ago at the most generous suddenly owns these notions that have been at the heart of human psyche and social formation (however oppressed at times) for hundreds of thousands of years? You think your "humanism" is unique in claiming great moral purity, or that everyone who believes differently from you is therefore immoral somehow or prone to immorality? Because that's actually a pretty consistent theme in the exhortations of certain kinds of people throughout history, and they aren't usually the best kind of people.

And one of the ways we will do that is to attack the dogmas which are seen to be the root causes of the problem.You want to criticize a bad dogma? Then criticize the bad dogma. Oppose the oppression of women- millions, billions of every age, sex, and creed will march with you. But blindly criticizing an entire faith tradition is brainlessly unproductive and divisive.

[Jack Willsson]

Well said Poli

If humanists want charity status then a good place to start would be stopping attacks on other faiths that are already engaged in disaster relief etc.

Just get on with being humane like it says on the tin.

[sohy]

The AHA acknowledges that the chosen quotes are examples of the more extreme statements contained in religious texts, as the campaign is intended as a challenge to religious fundaemtalism, as its executive director Roy Speckhardt explains:

“It’s important that people recognize that a literal reading of religious texts is completely out of touch with mainstream America. Although religious texts can teach good lessons, they also advocate fear, intolerance, hate and ignorance. It’s time for all moderate people to stand up against conservative religion’s claim on a moral monopoly.”

The above may be the intent of the AHA, but I don't think the AHA is doing a good job with this campaign. I'm actually a member of the AHA. I like the organization because it's never seemed especially confrontational to me. Now, I'm not so sure. Don't we already have enough confrontational atheist organizations? Not all of us enjoy being confrontational. Some of us would prefer to form alliances with people that share similar values, regardless of the differences in our beliefs. I'm so fucking sick of all the divisiveness in the USA. I'm not interested in promoting even more of it.

I liked the earlier slogans, like the signs that said things like, "Be good for goodness sake." This newer campaign doesn't seem to be heading in a positive direction. I think it's better to be open with individual people about our atheism/humanism, and then try to live by example.

Most of the conservative Xians I know here in the Bible Belt are not really all that different than humanists, when it comes to their personal morality. Not many of them seem to live their lives by literal interpretations of the Bible. I'm sure they exist, but I can't say that I know any personally. Most of the Xians I know don't even read the Bible. Maybe that's a good thing. :D I wouldn't want them to get any harmful ideas. ;)

[Jack Willsson]

Nicely put sohy