I found this on the way to looking for something else: a paragraph from an early constitution of the “Ethical Union” of the first Ethical Societies in the United States, referred to in a book published in 1896 as being from “a few years ago.” The general aim of the Ethical Movement as represented by this [...]

We are mentioned in this article in the Post: Atheists gather for a holiday they can believe in: Independence Day Glad to get a mention. Our Ethical Society is definitely an atheist-friendly group with many atheists, but we’re not exclusively an atheist group. We’re nontheist in that belief in deities is not required or even important to [...]

As part of the membership meeting in June, 2010, I asked members to remember two incidents this past year that stood out for them in the life of our Ethical Society -- one that they enjoyed, and one that they didn't enjoy so much.

As Memorial Day approaches, I remember that the day was initially created to honor the dead on both sides of a major conflict – the American Civil War – and in that remembering, to re-unite the nation that had nearly split in two. It was not to glorify war, or to justify the rightness [...]

Many of the other Ethical Societies have, somewhere on their building and often near or above the area where the platform speaker stands, some version of the Felix Adler quote, “The place where people meet to seek the highest is holy ground.”  (Felix’s original words actually were about “men” but he did seem to mean [...]

Living in a state where “race” is still a box to fill in on marriage licenses, I’m often reminded how parallel today’s marriage equality issues are, legally speaking. Some of the same arguments are even used (see “Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to This Historian of Miscegenation“). How simple [...]

adapted from Kenneth L. Patton, 1951, revised by Jone Lewis The days of the year have stiffened in ice, and darkness has grown upon the land. The season of cold and early dusk is upon us. The sun has retreated down the sky, the living green has forsaken the earth, and the leaves have fallen. The flowers no longer [...]

adapted from Charles Dickens by Jone Lewis We celebrate the winter holidays once again. Let us open our hearts, let the spirit within us walk abroad among our human neighbors and travel far and wide. Let this season be a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time. May we keep our humor to the last. Let us not be haunted [...]

I took the bus back to WES last Thursday, returning from a rally for DC voting rights (and a celebration of the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, one of my favorites). I don't take the bus that frequently these days, but I always enjoy the experience. Even more so than the metro, the bus feels like the transportation of the people: families, office workers, teens, tourists.

This past Thursday we were joined by a preacher--or rather, by a young man who was definitely preaching. He was sharing his gospel, one I would describe as American conservative Christian. The main message was a personal relationship with Jesus and the possibility of salvation through that relationship.

This isn't my truth, but I wasn't bothered by his sharing of what was obviously important to him. I was more interested, though, in the reactions of my fellow bus-riders. The young man testified for at least 20 minutes, from the time I got on until he got off. The riders, who were I imagine from a variety of faiths and from no faith background, were...tolerant. There were a few sidelong glances, some subtle seat shifts, but for the most part people kept chatting with their seatmates, or reading their books. They sidled past him to get off at their stops, and stood up to let each other sit down, just as bus riders always do.

What struck me, then, was not the unusual situation of a bus ride combined with gospel revival, but the experience of witnessing human toleration for different behavior in a very condensed setting. My guess is that there were plenty of other people on the bus for whom, like me, this man's gospel was not exactly their own. But he wasn't intending to bother anyone with his words, and indeed he didn't. People managed just fine, adjusting their earphones as needed or listening if they cared to. In a time of incivility and division--at least as it's presented in the mainstream media--it was a little window into quiet respect for difference.

That day, the bus got me where I needed to be in more ways than one. So thanks, S2, and all your Thursday afternoon riders.

Good morning and welcome to the New York Society for Ethical Culture. I am delighted to welcome all the humanists who are here for the summer session of The Humanist Institute. Last night we celebrated the graduation of another class, one that I was fortunate to have co-mentored with Dr. Anthony Pinn. Congratulations again to Class XV: Maggie Ardiente, Bob Baehrman, and Ann Fuller!

Language, for humanists, is extremely important. I dare say that words are “sacred” to us. (Take note that I enclose the word “sacred” in quotation marks.) We like to talk almost as much as we like to read, and are acutely aware of the different meanings words have in different contexts. So let me be clear: I am speaking now as an Ethical Culture Leader about an issue that began quietly and locally in downtown Manhattan and has “gone viral,” as the media put it, over the last week.

People are demonstrating right now, in front of a former retail store – the Burlington Coat Factory, against a proposed Islamic Community Center. They say it is a “mosque at Ground Zero” that desecrates “holy ground.” First of all, no New Yorker calls the site of the September 11 attack “ground zero.” It is – and always will be – the World Trade Center. To verify this, take any subway downtown and listen to the name of the stop. “Ground zero” implies war and retaliation for an act of war, what President Bush chose to call a “war on terror.” The World Trade Center is where 19 terrorists chose to fly two planes into two towers filled with people, killing 3,000 of them. We mourn them – all of them. They were our family, friends, and neighbors, and we remember them dearly every time we pass that site.

Secondly, Cordoba House (aka Park51 Community Center) will be two blocks north of WTC in a bustling neighborhood of retail stores, schools, churches and a well-established mosque, bars, and strip clubs. Community Board No. 1 reviewed its proposal for a center with interfaith spaces, reading rooms, a restaurant, gymnasium and swimming pool, and approved it in a 29 to one vote. The NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission unanimously approved it.

Now let’s consider the people who will run Cordoba House, named for the flourishing of Islamic culture in Spain hundreds of years ago. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Daisy Khan, a married couple, are leading figures in the interfaith community of NYC. Rauf has been imam of a mosque in Tribeca for almost 30 years, and Khan is head of the American Muslim Association. Both are strong advocates for women within Islam. They are also Sufis, a branch of Islam at the opposite end of the religious spectrum from the Taliban, Wahhabis, and jihadis.

Those of you who have studied with The Humanist Institute are familiar with Vartan Gregorian’s book, Islam: A Mosaic, Not a Monolith. It is essential reading for everyone, not just humanists. Those cynical politicians and pundits who are exploiting this situation probably recognize the diversity within Christianity but choose to conflate all Muslims. We humanists have also been conflated, and I don’t just mean the differences between religious and secular humanists. (Years ago in Seattle during the G8 Summit, a group of self-proclaimed “humanists” joined the riots that rocked that city. A photo of them appeared in the NY Times, and I remember exclaiming, “They aren’t humanists! No humanist would do that!”) This profound – and, I believe, willful – ignorance incites action on the part of people who need a target for their fear and anger, strong emotions indeed.

And this is an emotional issue. Even a cognitive understanding of the facts cannot overcome the deep feelings we harbor. Nor should it: Human beings employ an emotional intelligence. I understand and empathize with those who feel that the Islamic community center should be moved farther away out of sensitivity to the families of 9/11 victims. But how far is far enough? What distance in terms of geography and theology would be deemed sensitive?

I wholeheartedly support my interfaith colleagues Imam Rauf and Daisy Khan in their Cordoba House venture, which began in the spirit of community and continues in a spirit of courage. To do otherwise would violate my principles as a New Yorker and an Ethical Humanist. New York City, with its roots in a tolerant New Amsterdam, is a cosmopolitan city that celebrates diversity and understanding. Humanism has a long tradition of enlightened reason and compassion. My religious faith is in human beings who find common ground with one another and build a better world upon it for everyone.

At home we are fostering two kittens for the Humane Society for a couple weeks while they recover from colds. One kitten is healing quickly, eating well, boldly jumping around, and growing rapidly. The other one is not doing so well and is smaller, weak, not eating, and generally fearful.

Here’s the thing. Even though I know that the big strong one is the female and the little weak one is the male, I can’t seem to stop referring to the big one as “he” and the littler one as “she.” I think it’s not only due to their relative sizes and attitudes, but because the smaller one has lighter and more delicate coloring.

Little things like this remind me that although I was raised as a feminist and am lucky enough to live for the most part in an egalitarian environment, there are still prejudices in my head that are hard to root out. Do you ever notice yourself making similar assumptions?

The Huffington Post web site has a commentary by an Ethical Culture member who suggests that politicians be judged by their ethics, not by traditional religious labels. Interestingly, though, the writer refers to Ethical Culture as a “secular group.” As I’ll be talking about this Sunday, Ethical Culture is humanist but also a religion, a concept that is clearly confusing for many people, including some of our own members. How can one have a religion that is wholly this-worldly? Why should one bother? Come this Sunday at 11am and I’ll try to address these and other questions related to the similarities and differences between Ethical Culture and secular humanism.

We're trying out some new (well, re-purposed) chairs in the WES library. The new ones are much smaller than the big, clunky ones we've been using...and as I sat in them today I got to thinking about how the big ones kept us just a bit further apart from each other. They even had wheels, so we could make a quick getaway!

There are so many ways we try to keep other people at arm's length. I especially notice this when I'm driving--I encounter so many people on the road, but encased in our own steel boxes I don't really see them at all. And how about buying groceries or pumping gas? We might murmur "thank you" or nod hello, but do we ever actually look into the eyes of the person no more than five feet away from us? The other human being sharing our space?

I came across a wonderful passage about the power of really seeing another person during my summer fiction-reading blitz. Like the best fiction, it starts out with the very particular and becomes a treatise on how to live. I'll leave you with it, from Alexander McCall Smith's wonderful Sunday Philosophy Club series:

"She moved away from the rug shop. A man inside, anxiously waiting for customers, had seen her and had been watching her. Isabel had looked through the glass, beyond the piles of rugs, and had met his gaze. She was sensitive to such encounters, because in her mind they were not entirely casual. By looking into the eyes of another, one established a form of connection that had moral implications. To look at another thus was to acknowledge one’s shared humanity with him, and that meant one owed him something, no matter how small that thing might be. That was why the executioner was traditionally spared the duty of looking into the eyes of the condemned; he observed him by stealth, approached from behind, was allowed a mask, and so on. If he looked into the eyes, then the moral bond would be established, and that moral bond would prevent him from doing what the state required: the carrying out of its act of murder."

This was a particularly hot summer with temperatures soaring to 100+ degrees and cloying humidity, a sweltering combination that kept air conditioners humming and city pools crowded. The political atmosphere was also heated as an issue involving a local community board and the Landmarks Preservation Commission boiled over into the world outside New York City. News of the “Ground Zero mosque” spread like a virus, infecting some people with fear and anger, others with opportunism, and leaving many of us shaking our heads in despair.

Let’s start with the facts. (I’ve been quoting Daniel Patrick Moynihan all summer: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion,” he said, “but not his own facts.”) Park51, as it will be called, is neither a mosque nor is it at Ground Zero. Its sponsors envision a cultural center – something like the 92nd Street Y – with classrooms, galleries, an auditorium, a restaurant, a swimming pool and gym, a memorial to the victims of 9/11, and an Islamic “prayer room.” Housed in a former retail store, it is two blocks north of the World Trade Center site.

Feisal Abdul Rauf and Daisy Khan are a married couple who will run the center. He graduated from Columbia University, wrote a book called “What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America,” and has been the imam of a mosque in Tribeca for three decades, as well as vice-chair of the Interfaith Center of New York. She runs the American Society for Muslim Advancement, which promotes “cultural and religious harmony through interfaith collaboration, youth and women’s empowerment, and arts and cultural exchange.”

Members of Community Board No. 1 endorsed the project 29 to one, and the Landmarks Preservation Commission voted unanimously in its favor. So what’s the problem?

It seems that the farther away from the epicenter one is, the louder and more vicious the protests are. Republicans facing midterm elections, egged on by Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Rudy Guiliani, oppose the “mosque” as a symbolic affront to the victims of 9/11, playing to the fears and anger of people unfamiliar with the situation.

Speaking for many New Yorkers, Mayor Mike Bloomberg harked back to the days of New Amsterdam “where the seeds of religious tolerance were first planted.” “We may not always agree with every one of our neighbors,” he said. “But we also recognize that part of being a New Yorker is living with your neighbors in mutual respect and tolerance. It was exactly that spirit of openness and acceptance that was attacked on 9/11.”

A few days after the mayor’s speech, I received an email message asking, “In light of Islam’s open tolerance of stoning of women, hanging of gays, beheadings on YouTube, etc., what is the position of the NYSEC on the building of a mosque at Ground Zero?” I stared at the computer screen a long while feeling angry and sad, judging the writer, and taken aback by the depth of my emotions. Islam is not alone in violating human rights, I wanted to respond; Christianity has held its own over the millennia. Some people need little excuse to be cruel, and religion often provides it.

But Bloomberg said it best when he concluded, “Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11 and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values – and play into our enemies’ hands – if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists – and we should not stand for that.”

Amen.

Hi everyone. It’s good to be back. I had a great time visiting family and friends in New York, and a great time teaching in NC at the AEU Lay Leadership Summer School. Overall, a great summer.

I wish I had something great to blog about. Does greatly appalling count? Governor Nixon failed to veto a law that, beginning next week, introduces new roadblocks to women trying to have a safe and legal abortion. Most outrageously, every woman in Missouri having an abortion must be given by her doctor a pamphlet including the phrase “The life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.” Yes, our elected officials think they can legislate the meaning of life, a question that has heretofore eluded minds exponentially greater than theirs.

Such a crass show of power to force one religious view on all citizens is ugly enough. Uglier is the ignorance that such a definition of life is a religious opinion, merely one among many, and therefore a violation of religious liberty and the Constitution. Governor Nixon at least should know better. I invite you to remind him.

Hopefully next week I’ll have something truly great to blog about.

Driving around rural Maryland this past weekend, I saw the lowest-key farm stand: a card table on the side of the road, with a plate of tomatoes and a big sign reading "Tomatoes. Pay What You Want."

It was the kind of experience that makes us nostalgic for a simpler time, or a smaller community, where we had that kind of trust in each other. But two ventures happening now--and not in rural Maryland!--make me wonder whether we aren't more trustworthy than we give ourselves credit for.

Panera, the sandwich cafe, has opened a non-profit branch in Clayton, MO where customers are invited to pay what they can (and volunteer their time if they can't pay at all). Here's an article about it: http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2010/05/17/daily21.html. The upshot is that it's working--people are mostly paying what the items go for in a regular Panera, and sometimes popping in a little extra to cover those who can't.

Then I read about a completely free store in New York City, where people are dropping off items they aren't using, and picking up what they need. Here's the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/nyregion/16free.html?_r=1.

The sign at that store reads "Take what you want. Share what you think others might enjoy (not limited to material items)." Seems as though if we try, we can put up that roadside stand anywhere we want.

I've been working this week to get ready for the Big Commit, a marriage equality rally in DC on Sunday afternoon. The rally is bringing together a number of gay rights and advocacy groups, and it will serve as a counter demonstration to the National Organization for Marriage's One Woman One Man summer tour.

I love a rally--the flags waving, the music, the great speakers. But I'm also aware that in the end, rallies aren't going to change the hearts and minds of America. That's what we have People magazine for.

Earlier this summer, I picked up an issue of People (a favorite escapist read for me). One of the human interest stories was about a woman with a rare and difficult to diagnose disease. The article followed her journey from doctor to doctor, the toll it took on her professional life, the light at the end of the tunnel now that she's received a diagnosis. Pretty standard stuff, and of course accompanied by a couple of photos, including the usual shot of the woman in the hospital, hand held by her spouse. Who was a woman.

The fact that this article featured a same-sex couple wasn't even noted; not a single line about their status, their families' opinions about the relationship, nothing to suggest that it was the least bit unusual. Because, of course, it isn't. And that's what gives me real hope: when People magazine thinks your same-sex relationship isn't the interesting part of your human interest.

Here's hoping I'll see you at the rally, and that in a few years we won't have to rally anymore.

I write this post in beautiful weather, but the last few days have been just scorching--especially for those without power. Monday I drove around town doing errands, and I was struck by odd sensation of passing through powerless neighborhoods, with plenty of air conditioning and functioning street lights just across the road. The power grid works, apparently, in mysterious ways.

I was also struck by how patient the drivers were, how everyone brought out their best behavior for a day they knew would be a little hectic. At one of those powerless intersections, I watched as a small, woman police officer, working solo, directed a complicated traffic pattern. Her hand flipping up, then making a fist, then pointing, she looked like a uniformed conductor, leading a silent symphony of obedient musicians.

And then a car pulled up next to me, a delivery vehicle. It stopped a little fast for my taste, and I could see the driver lean out the window and begin to gesture to the police officer. Great, I thought. Here comes the wise guy, thinking he knows best when to go.

The police officer turned to him, and I tensed for the confrontation I could already see coming.

The police officer nodded briskly, and pointed toward the median. The delivery man darted out of his vehicle, and set down the cold drink he'd offered, complete with a straw. They waved, and he got back in his car, ready to follow her next instruction.

Sometimes people are just plain nice. The little tiny drama on Monday morning was a reminder to me not to be so surprised.

At the time of the turning of the year, a question I often get asked by people outside of Ethical Culture is, “What kind of holidays does an Ethical Society celebrate?” Or, sometimes more specifically, “What do you do about Christmas?” When I testified before a judge in Illinois in December,1995 , justifying the Chicago [...]

Years and years ago, when I was ill with a serious kidney infection and sleeping in fits and starts, I left the TV on after tuning into some cable station that had had some relaxing music on it.  As I woke up, I became aware that there was a panel discussion about humanism.  I thought [...]