Teaching opportunity in Africa

The Atheist Alliance International (AAI) is partnering with its affiliate, the Kasese United Humanist Association (KUHA), to provide the opportunity for between 4 and 6 volunteers to spend two to three months this fall, beginning September 1, 2010, in Uganda teaching children ages 6 to 12 years at the Kilembe Valley Humanist Nursery & Primary School. Candidates are not required to have a teaching certificate or degree in education to be considered for this opportunity. Applicants ARE required to submit a $250 participation fee with their application, be at least 21 years old, have a current passport, have at least an Associate’s Degree from an accredited institute of higher education, and sign a waiver of liability. The $250 participation fee will be used for the first month's expenses in Kasese  or returned to applicants not accepted to participate in the program.

Round-trip travel to Uganda will be covered by AAI. Training and all teaching supplies will be covered by KUHA, and KUHA will provide meals and lodging. Volunteers are being asked to cover their own meal, lodging and travel costs ($2/day for bus between guesthouse and school) and any entertainment costs  while in Kasese.  Such expenses are estimated to be US$500 per month, so for the three-month period, those costs are expected to total US$1,500.   However, if financial support is a problem, let us know as some support stipends may be available for those in financial need.

Schooling is privately funded in Uganda, it is not provided by the government. Most schools are run by local religious groups. The Kilembe Valley Humanist Nursery & Primary school, founded by local humanists Mr. Bwambale Robert and Mr. Baluku Yusuf, is the first secular school in the Kasese District of Uganda. The school is a project of KUHA. The curriculum is designed to provide education based on the foundations of humanism and science.

 

Candidates are not required to have a teaching certificate or degree in education to be considered for this opportunity. Applicants ARE required to be at least 21 years old, have a current passport, verify that they are in agreement with the values of humanism and science, have at least an Associate’s Degree from an accredited institute of higher education, and fill out an application for a background check along with a $250 participation fee to cover processing and other costs required to participate in this program.  (The $250 participation fee is refundable for applicants not accepted to participate in the program.)

 

Volunteer teachers will be co-teaching, with professional teachers attached to the school, primary school students 7 - 13 years of age in a variety of subjects, including mathematics, reading / writing (english), social studies, science, agriculture, arts and crafts, and "religious" (humanist) education.  The educational level of the classes will be Primary 2 - Primary 5, the equivalent of 2nd - 5th grades in other countries.  Classes will be held five days a week, Monday through Friday, with weekends off.  Classes are held from 8:30 am to 3:30pm with mid-morning and lunch breaks.  Volunteer teachers will be given 5 days of training before the start of the term on September 6, 2010.

 

AAI volunteers will be housed together in a secured residential unit directly in the town of Kasese with bedding, running water & toilet.  Meals will be provided by KUHA.  The Kilembe school is about 10 kilometres away; teachers will be taking private bus transportation from their Kesese residence to the Kilembe school each day, costing USD$2 round trip.  All program costs, including round-trip travel to Uganda, lodging, meals, and teaching supplies will be covered by the AAI Foundation and KUHA.   Volunteers are encouraged to bring additional spending money for personal use while on assignment.

 

KUHA is also seeking donations to fund school tuition for 34 orphaned and needy students. The cost is $30 per student per term, or $90 for the entire school year. Donations made to AAI to cover these costs are entirely tax-deductible. Additional information about the school can be found online at http://www.kvhumanistschool.blogspot.com/

 

The application may be downloaded here; or you can request one from info@atheistalliance.org. Completed applications with deposit must be received by July 15, 2010.  If you are interested in this opportunity, please fill out an application and e-mail it to vicepresident@atheistalliance.org, or mail it to AAI at 1777 T Street NW, Washington D.C. 20009. If you are e-mailing your application, please pay the $250 fee online at the AAI merchant account site .  You may also mail your application to AAI, 1777 T Street NW, Washington D.C. 20009.

 

If you have any questions regarding this opportunity or the AAI Foundation, please e-mail Patty Guzikowski at vicepresident@atheistalliance.org.

A word from the other side: Christianity with Church/State sep. is evil

The head of Faith2Action and the author of "The Criminalization of Christianity" has written a column that exemplifies the opposition to the humanist positions quite well.  It begins:

The "separation of church and state." I could be reading from the constitution of the former Soviet Union, a decision by Ruth Bader Ginsburg or a fundraising letter from the ACLU. But instead, I'm repeating a philosophy of "Christian" groups like Discernment Ministries and their website, "Herescope."

and continues to the thesis of the unacceptability of non-crusading Christianity:

In the 1950s, when Darwinism was allowed into the school system, these "Christians" sang their hymns and did nothing. When the Supreme Court ripped out the right to pray in schools in 1962, they sang their hymns and did nothing. In 1973, when the Supreme Court ordered the recognition of "freedom" to kill innocent children, they sang their hymns and did nothing. Apparently "Onward Christian Soldiers" wasn't on the song list.

After citing several examples of Christians deferring to secularism (the title of this post is not an exaggeration, there is the usual reference to the Nazis), the piece concludes:

To those who still believe that we should stay out of the cultural war, I have a question: How is that working out for you?
We now have two generations who are lost in the lies of humanism, evolution and homosexuality, facilitated into fornication and abortion, trapped in pornography and devastated by divorce. Congratulations.

Humanists need to read this entire article because it shows what we are facing:  hang-ups and prejudices masquerading as righteousness, a sense of victimization when things only go 95% your way, and a complete reliance on revealed truth (it's up to reality to change to meet that truth, not the other way around).

Today's light reading: religion and health

"Advances in the Conceptualization and Measurement of Religion and Spirituality: Implications for Physical and Mental Health" American Psychologist, Vol 58(1), Jan 2003, 64-74:

From the abstract: Empirical studies have identified significant links between religion and spirituality and health. The reasons for these associations, however, are unclear. Typically, religion and spirituality have been measured by global indices (e.g., frequency of church attendance, self-rated religiousness and spirituality) that do not specify how or why religion and spirituality affect health.

Some surveys have shown a link between religion and good health.  Not if you find yourself on the wrong side of a religion, of course, but for many people who lead otherwise safe lives, the religion can, in some cases, lead to better health.  Some large percentage of disease incidence correlates with lifestyle (diet, stress, etc.), and religion can regulate that lifestyle. 

A series of studies of Seventh-Day Adventists, for example, found an increased lifespan for practitioners.  This is probably due to the healthy diet that the religion commands.  The increased lifespan of men, 7.3 years, over that of women, 4.4 years, may be an indicator that the diet is reducing risk factors that affect men more (e.g., heart disease).  Another study in Utah found that Mormon men live 7.3 years and Mormon women live 5.8 years longer than non-Mormon residents of that state.  Again, the causes may be lifestyle factors such as tobacco, alcohol, diet, and stress.

These results are not counter to humanistic belief.  Religion is about human psychology, not supernatural forces, and religion does offer help to some.  Others can find those benefits from non-religious sources.  And religion comes with a lot of baggage in order to get those good effects.

Will the "Spiritual But Not Religious" movement challenge religion?

A recent article on CNN asks, "Are there dangers in being 'spiritual but not religious'?"
The article points out:

The "I'm spiritual but not religious" community is growing so much that one pastor compared it to a movement. In a 2009 survey by the research firm LifeWay Christian Resources, 72 percent of millennials (18- to 29-year-olds) said they're "more spiritual than religious." The phrase is now so commonplace that it's spawned its own acronym ("I'm SBNR") and Facebook page: SBNR.org.

 The primary danger is to the established clergy, who need followers.  Their response is that they hold the keys to morality:

"Being spiritual but not religious can lead to complacency and self-centeredness," says Martin, an editor at America, a national Catholic magazine based in New York City. "If it's just you and God in your room, and a religious community makes no demands on you, why help the poor?"

But many see religion as practicing "self-centeredness", and this type of grandiosity and sense that the religious establishment knows better can be a turn-off. 

As rationalists, we see the "SBNR" movement as a natural outgrowth of increasing communication and transparency in civilization.  We can now say confidently that your prayers will not heal you or your family members, will not stop earthquakes, and they will not alleviate your financial difficulties.  Supernatural miracles collapse under the light of modern inspection.  There is no booming voice from the heavens telling you what to do and there never will be.  And the mythologies of religion can be recognized as fitting within the framework of ancient tales to amuse and instruct.

There is still room for religious thought, such as Deism (a supernatural intelligence as a grand clock-maker who set the universe in motion and then stepped back), and for the "SBNR" movement.  But running your life by the dictates of an organized religion (a back-story that's fantasy, endless rules that derive from that fantasy, a professional class demanding respect and obedience) seems increasingly futile.

Compulsory religion in the military

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is working to oppose the Christianization of the armed forces in the USA, a process which has increased significantly in the past decade.  They spurred an investigation at the Air Force Academy in Colorado that found, for example:

Among other things, it revealed that the commandant of cadets taught the entire incoming class a "J for Jesus" hand signal, that the football coach had draped a "Team Jesus" banner across the academy locker room, and that more than 250 faculty members and senior officers signed a campus newspaper advertisement that proclaimed: "We believe that Jesus Christ is the only real hope for the world."

A group member writes:

He calls it the "fundamentalist Christian parachurch-military-corporate-proselytizing complex," a mouthful by which he means holy warriors in contempt of the constitutional barrier between church and state.

 

And Weinstein is absolutely right!  I really like the last paragraph in this article, too.  And I thought this reader comment was excellent: 

 

I am currently an Air Force officer, and was previously enlisted in both the Air Force AND the Army. I can attest to the need for Mike Weinstein's work. I consider myself a secular Christian, however the degree to which fundamentally Christian religiosity pervades the military is abhorrent to me as an officer, a civil libertarian, and an American. I fully and enthusiastically support an individual's right to observe their religion, except where it compromises the capability of the military to execute its mission.

I support Mike's work, for there IS a pervasive and large fundamentalist Christian element in the military, which retains attitudes and creates an atmosphere that, unless changed, I fear will create a day that mission planning will devolve to the inanity of "God's Will will see us to success". While I say that only half in jest, the basic point is that religion, by its very definition, involves relinquishing reason and logic to faith, ergo abandoning critical thought on matters controlled by one's faith. If the overwhelming majority of serving Christians were able to remain open-minded and critically thinking on topics spoken to by their religion, rather than dogmatic, there would be far fewer issues created by religion in the military than there are. Unfortunately, dogma usually prevails.
I would contend that the degree to which Christian proselytizing is both tolerated and tacitly encouraged by fundamentalist Christian officers and NCOs within the military creates an atmosphere of intimidation, and chills the airing of candid perspectives on issues - which is vital to successful policy development, mission planning, and daily operations - for fear of somehow offending the religious sensibilities of more senior personnel, with the attendant negative impact to one's career. Such an atmosphere fully compromises every other facet of effective military planning and operations, and we as Americans, tax-payers, and possibly relatives of, or actively serving members of the military should be not be willing to tolerate any compromises that may potentially cost us treasure and blood.

Targeting San Diego's judge positions

A coalition of Christian groups are campaigning to replace four San Diego judges with candidates that believe their take on religious dictates.  We recommend that San Diego residents read the entire article.  But as a summary:

"We believe our country is under assault and needs Christian values," said Craig Candelore, a family law attorney who is one of the group's candidates. "Unfortunately, God has called upon us to do this only with the judiciary."
The challenge is unheard of in California, one of 33 states to directly elect judges. Critics say the campaign is aimed at packing the courts with judges who adhere to the religious right's moral agenda and threatens both the impartiality of the court system and the separation of church and state.

The campaign also brings together many threads passing through the Christian right:   the USA, government and all, used to be strongly Christian;  Christianity and Christians are under threat; the emerging freedoms are a form of national decay;  Christian values are the same as the current right-wing values;  the way to return the USA to perceived glory is to use their take on Christianity as a base for governing.

Needless to say, such a position is counter to humanism, which looks only to Earthly facts and reasoning for direction.

Will religion fall by the wayside as societies advance?

Comparing the degree of religious belief between countries shows some interesting results, but does it also show future trends?  One survey from a few years ago suggested a link between religion and IQ:

When he broke down the statistics, he found a strong link between intelligence and faith. Countries with a lower national IQ tended to have the most believers.

Although there were exceptions, with the most notable being the USA, perhaps due to an origin in heavily religions immigrants.  But the measurement of national IQ is at best a vague proposition.  

A more concrete metric is national development, which includes income, education levels, standard of living, etc.  This article points out a clear scale of disbelief stretching from the nearly total religious territory or sub-Saharan Africa to the secular societies of northern Europe.  Why does religious belief decline with development?  A possible factor is that people in such societies feel less fear and uncertainty about the future, and don't need whatever hope they can grasp.  Another possibility is that these people have other coping mechanisms available for life besides religion:

Even the psychological functions of religion face stiff competition today. In modern societies, when people experience psychological difficulties they turn to their doctor, psychologist, or psychiatrist. They want a scientific fix and prefer the real psychotropic medicines dished out by physicians to the metaphorical opiates offered by religion.

The upshot of the trend is that a faltering of belief is inevitable as the world advances.  That development, however, is not inevitable.  When will Sudan be like Sweden?  When will even the Appalachians be like Chicago?  But as humanists we maintain that all people have the ability to think rationally, and we present our viewpoint to all who are interested.

A humanist argues against euthanasia

The essence of humanist thinking is to look to Earth-based reasoning when confronting the questions of our lives.  The arguments produced may not be particularly convincing, but they at least rely on more evidence than the say-so of a a preferred holy book.  In this article, a humanist and atheist argues against legalizing assisted suicide, apparently because doing so would bureaucratize a personal situation and devalue life for those facing challenges:

The legalisation of assisted dying would replace love with law. It would put an end to ‘mercy killings’ carried out by caring families and compassionate doctors and replace them with state-sanctioned killings. [...]

[...] Secondly, legalising assisted dying would be bad for people who want to live, too. [...] This effectively sanctions suicide as a response to personal hardship, and gives a green light to hopelessness.

 And the conclusion:

The fact remains, however, that only a minority of people in pain choose to end their lives; the majority think life is worth living. But the views of the very active minority of pro-euthanasia campaigners are likely impacting on the way the majority of people experience their lives, possibly making them feel like a burden – a social, financial and environmental burden – if they choose to continue living. And as a humanist, I am also opposed to any undermining of the majority’s quality of life by a tiny minority of campaigners.

Letting go of religious dogma in Black America

The powerless and downtrodden have often been fodder for proselytizing, and Blacks in America and Africa were subject to intense missionary work, received both voluntarily and involuntarily.  This has had a lasting effect:

Within this incredibly religious culture, black Americans are the most devout and routinely rate at the top of every index that measures religiosity. It's difficult--if not impossible--to divorce religion from black culture. We can hardly get on the bus without invoking or thanking Jesus that we'll make it to work on time.

 But the African Americans for Humanism conference, held last week in Washington, is a step to relaxing that tradition and introduction rationality.  Despite the significant cultural pull to remain religious, the reasoning on display is familiar to all humanists:

[...] Not believing in the Judeo-Christian God is no different than not believing in Thor or Poseidon or Osiris. Someone told me that there's this God, but once I learned to question, I understood that the God I was told about--and the stories about that God--were no different from the mythologies of any other people who created stories to explain their worlds.

 And the conclusions are also the same as elsewhere, although applied to a new setting:

A common thread throughout the conference was the conviction that African Americans need to do a better job at thinking critically and challenging the ideas put before them. Donald Wright, author of The Only Prayer I'll Ever Pray : Let My People Go , explains that his book calls "for blacks in America to critically examine their loyalty and dedication to religion, and to begin adapting a lifestyle centered on rational thinking. It is time to break the chains of mental bondage caused by religious dogma.

 (The lengthy comments section to this article has the usual arguments:  not believing is as much a leap of faith as believing, the atheistic are as dogmatic as the theistic, etc.)

Scientism: the really one true religion

An old argument:  a lack of faith is just another religion.  Here is one sighting:

Margaret Somerville, director of the Center of Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University, recently called secularism “The most encompassing religion that functions as a basket holding all the other [secular faiths],” in an article she wrote for The Montreal Gazette.

One of those faiths is "scientism":

Some examples are humanism, atheism, scientism and moralism which all have adherents bound through a common belief and ideology.
Somerville said they are harmful when, as Richard Dawkins does with scientism, they are used to deny any space for spirituality and traditional  religion in the public square and replaced with secularism, according to The Montreal Gazette.

 Is scientism [fortunately the spell-checker doesn't recognize "scientism" as a real word, may it stay like that] a faith on equal footing with other religions?  A close reading of scientific history reveals that many scientific discoveries were driven by hunches and dogged adherence to unproven ideas.  The idea that everything is composed of tiny atoms, for example, was largely a matter of faith until the early 20th century.  Ernst Mach (of Mach One, the speed of sound, fame) was a prominent 19th century scientist who refused to accept atomic theory due to his strict rules of verification.

But science does eventually demand evidence.  That is why "scientism" is the one true religion.  Its gospel is true in the literal sense:  observations, measurements, repeatability.  Who knows how many ideas, hunches and theories had some acceptance and then fell by the wayside because in "scientism" faith has its limits.  There's no two-thousand year grace period in science. 

This is why "scientism" is the only religion that belongs in the public square and is the only religion that should guide public policy.