Cults, especially those of a destructive nature, seem to abound in our time. From Japan to Texas, their violence has wrecked havoc on innocent, needy and confused people. The Unification Church and Scientology exemplify the power of unscrupulous cults to seduce, by the thousands, the uncritical and credulous. How can vulnerable and unsuspecting people learn to think for themselves?

We will ask our friend, Steve Hassan, when he addresses the Harvard community and all humanists in the area on Sunday, Feb. 27 at 2:00 pm in Rm A of Harvard's Science Center (corner of Oxford and Kirkland Sts). You know him from his acclaimed book, Combating Cult Mind Control , and his unremitting crusade to help those caught up, as was he, in the grip of illusion and deceit. He has founded the Resource Center for Freedom of the Mind, "dedicated to upholding human rights, promoting consumer awareness and exposing abuses of destructive groups." Our Chapter has long applauded his work and happily brings him back for an important update. The talk's title is from his new book and you will have the opportunity of ordering it on the lastSunday of the month. You are urged to visit his website: www.freedomofmind.com and examine the full scope of his educational and interesting work, which he calls 'preventive education.'

His approach is not the stressful, media sensationalized 'deprogramming' way but a non-coercive manner that is legal, respectful, and effective, directed to the families of cult members. Mental health professionals, educators and law enforcement officers have also benefited from his seminars. Hear him, question him, and enjoy a social hour afterward in the Science Center.

In the meantime, visit: http://www.freedomofmind.com

"THE PSYCHOLOGY OF BELIEF:
WHY RELIGION SEEMS TO WORK"
PROF. K. LIVINGSTON -- MARCH 19

Our speaker in March understands better than most of us how the mind operates and why we make some very crucial decisions. Why some of us stay and others of us leave the faith of our parents is one of his interesting preoccupation’s. A psychologist, Prof. Kenneth Livingston teaches at Vassar College in its Cognitive Science Program which he founded in 1979, (the area of study in which he earned his Ph.D here at Harvard in1977). He has been a member of the Advisory Board of the Objectivist Center for the last five years. He lives in Poughkeepsie, NY. Epistemology, neuroscience, and robotics are general fields of interest to him. We will enjoy getting into his mind.

Preparing for his talk, he writes: "The literature in psychology is replete with studies claiming to show the psychological benefits of an active religious life. A careful examination of the research on which these claims are based reveals serious flaws in both the method and the logic of interpretation of these studies. Nevertheless, there appears to be some validity to the claims made on behalf of participation in religious life. If the benefits do not actually derive from the influence of a supernatural deity, what is their source in the real world? What objective facts about reality have the major religions managed to incorporate into their systems of belief and practice, to the benefit of their adherents? What can we learn from religion about the psychology of happiness and well-being?"

Plan to join us on Sunday, March 19, at 2 o’clock in Rm. A of Harvard’s Science Center, Cambridge. After the Q and A we will have some refreshments and explore the consequences of what we have heard.

AT HAM’S ANNUAL MEETING
OFFICERS ARE CHOSEN
AND MONEY ISSUES RESOLVED

Members of the Humanist Association of Massachusetts re-elected the present slate of officers for the next two years: President, Joseph Gerstein, Treasurer, Eleanor Babilkian, Secretary, Robert Price, and Executive Director, Tom Ferrick. Serving on the Advisory Council will be Peter Denison, Sylvia Gerhard, Dorothy Harrigan, Tom Larkin, Richard Radtke, and Frank Weaver. It is hoped that this Council will eventually form a new board of directors for HAM.

Members also agreed on a budget for this year, 2000, amounting to $8400.00. Tom Ferrick admitted with regret that, through inattention, contributions in 1999 had fallen $1200.00 short of the anticipated goal. This means that in the spring we will ask everyone to add to their yearly tax-deductible gift, and also help us find new members. Lists of American Humanists and subscribers are likely joiners once they hear about us.

Next year we will have new categories of giving, including Benefactors at the $500 level. And we’ll be suggesting that members might include the Association in their wills. After all, if Humanism is the framework of one’s understanding of the world, if it represents one’s basic view of life, a long term investment in its future seems reasonable. Several members present said that they had already made this determination.

The meeting ended on an educational note. Tom Larkin of Bedford, a former county commissioner and school counselor is a recent graduate of the Humanist Institute in New York, sponsored by the AHA, the Ethical Societies, and religious humanists. He recounted an uplifting learning experience. For three years he spent several weekends immersed in philosophical and sociological study there in the Big Apple, making wonderful new friends and enlarging his world. For HAM members who are so inclined, you may contact him through T. Ferrick, 617.547.1497.

February 17 is the anniversary of the execution of Giordano Bruno, the humanist "heretic", by the Roman Catholic Inquisition, in 1600.

ANOTHER GEM FROM OUR LIBRARY
"AMERICAN ETHICS AND THE VIRTUOUS CITIZEN"
BY ROBERT GRANT

Last December Robert Grant gave a one day seminar based on this book and all participants found it stimulating. As he is a lawyer, not a philosopher, he gives an interesting, and I must say, fresh, slant on ethical issues. He is speaking to men and women in their capacity as citizens, and thus ;is putting stress on public morality rather than our internal moral decisions. Because it is designed to go with a course or workshop, it is not the kind of book that one would read from cover to cover like a mystery story. Rather it should be read slowly, the various parts pondered over, and preferably it should be read with a group so that the various issues he raises can be discussed and thoroughly threshed out.

After the introduction he has several sections titled respectively: equality; the social contract; human rights; secular ethics, freedom of conscience and religion, and separation of church and state; and public morality and the right of privacy. Not all of the text is Grant’s. He gives extensive quotes from philosophers and statesmen such as John Locke, Thomas Paine, and Mario Cuomo. In addition he quoted from eight landmark Supreme Court decisions on issues of equality, privacy, and other rights. The oldest court case concerns Peter Zenger who was fighting for freedom of the press, while the latest one (but the first one mentioned in the book) concerns Paula Jones’s right to sue a sitting President.

In one of the most interesting innovations in his book, Grant at the end of each selection issues a short statement first giving what he calls his personal obligation, and then his personal virtue. The obligation is what he as a citizen owes to society. The personal virtue is more complex, for it is something that society cannot compel him to do, but which as a citizen he does feel that he should do. In the section on equality, for example, his personal obligation is to respect others as human beings. The personal virtue is to have a feeling of kinship with others. This is more than just respect; it is the willingness to actually help other people when they need it. The thrust of these obligations and virtues is to treat others fairly and with consideration, and also to constantly improve oneself.

In each section Grant gives a brief history of the issue, peppered with appropriate quotes. The section on secularism, while short, gives some information I had never realized, and gives me just what I need to argue issues of church and state with the religious right people who claim there should be no such thing. It is amazing how much information Grant has packed into a book of only 186 pages, and as he has an extremely detailed table of contents, the reader will have no difficulty finding the passage she seeks. This book would be a marvelous addition to a high school level Unitarian Sunday School, or for Ethical Culture, and yet it is sufficiently sophisticated to be used by intelligent adults as well. It is truly a worthwhile book.

Peter B. Denison

Earth Day 2000 is a Humanist holiday - celebrate it on March 20!

BEWARE THE SHIBBOLETH

I don't usually find much reason to make citations from the Judeo-Christian Bible in these pages. However, on this occasion, those unfamiliar with the odd polysyllabic word in the title must needs refer to a passage in Judges 12:4-6. Herein is described a password that was used by the Gileadites as a test to detect the fleeing members of the defeated Ephraimite army who could not pronounce the sound 'sh'. Such a test could of course also detect the many Bostonians who are r- challenged and even under threat of death could not park their cars in Harvard Yard.

The connotation of this word has broadened to include the following definition: a test word or pet phrase of a party, sect, etc., (Random House Dictionary).

Which brings me to the shibboleth 'faith-based' as in 'faith-based organizations.' This sounds benign enough. We all understand such organizations to be what any reasonable person would refer to as 'religious organizations.' However, this latter adjective, which has served universally and well for over 200 years to describe such organizations (and justified hundreds of billions of dollars of tax deductions by contributors to organizations so designated) has suddenly become inaccurate, or, to be more precise, inconvenient. Why? Because it is coincident with a term in an awfully important section of the US Constitution generally referred to as 'the establishment clause.'

Here it states, as precisely and explicitly as James Madison could express it, that the legislature should make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof. But it says nothing about subsidizing, remunerating or payola-ing faith-based organizations. I am all in favor of voluntary conversions. But I do have a problem with double-talk, cant and obfuscation. I say let's let the legislature give all of our money that it wants to faith-based organizations, but simply let those organizations which then will no longer fit under the descriptor 'religious' give up their 'religious' tax exemptions, since, obviously, they are no longer 'religious' organizations, but 'faith-based' organizations and therefore no longer covered by the designation 'religious.'

To those of you who might be feeling that this is 'just semantics,' don't underestimate the power of the symbolism of speech. Hitler was careful to use the word 'Peace' multiply in just about every speech he gave during the 30's. He knew the drill! This shift to the 'faith-based' descriptor is conscious and calculated and was probably verified many times over by focus groups as causing less alarm and more warm and fuzzy feelings than the ́religiousî terminology, as well as less conflictual feelings about constitutional encroachment. During the development of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, one wily Scot was quoted as saying 'Beware, less presbyter be but priest writ small.' That is exactly what these revisionists want and hope: that 'faith-based' is 'religious' writ small enough to be invisible and by this ruse to insert the camel's nose under the constitutionally-prescribed secular tent. And we had better beware, because 'faith-based' IS but 'religious' writ small. So if you hear it used or see it written, please red-line it and set the record straight.

What about that other shibboleth of the 'faith-based' right, secular humanism? According to the 'faith-based' right, this, conversely, IS a religion! and it is a religion that is being taught routinely in the public schools. The time is probably not far off when non-believers in doctirnaire, theocratic Christianity will be referred to as 'card-carrying secular humanists.' Most of us would be amazed to find out that experimental science, mathematics and an empiric approach to history and knowledge are now 'religious'pursuits and that failure to post somebody's (guess who's) version of the Ten Commandments or teach somebody's (guess who's) version of a creation myth constitutes the teaching of the secular humanist 'religion.'

Yet another shibboleth: 'character education.' For this euphemism you can read 'classroom inculcation of Judeo-Christian (i.e., biblical literate) morals in the public schools' with a fair conviction of accuracy. I think non-believers can, without the posting of such simplistic cannards well understand that the complexity of the admonition 'thou shalt not kill' might refer not just to your obnoxious pillar-of-the-church brother-in-law or a fertilized ovum, but also to standing by while genocide of half a million Africans occurs in Rwanda as well as the electrocution of numerous innocents occurs under the mantle of our overtly inequitable legal system, etc., etc. Again, be aware of the symbolism of speech inherent in 'character education.' It sounds benign and commendable; we would all like our children to develop good character. Some of us do not accept that the Catechism is the way to go, however.

And what the hell is a presidential candidate doing with an advocacy of phonics in his platform???? Talk about the arcane. What's his position on the number of gallons that ought to be used for each flush? (The less water, the more block-ups occur! take your choice). Perhaps he ought to advocate for the adoption of the Australian system: 2 buttons, 1 gallon for urine, 2 gallons [Imperial, of course] for feces. 'Phonics' is another shibboleth, another buzz-word, another coded sop to the reactionary, theocratic right that is hell-bent on the destruction of what it considers to be the liberal, secular humanist, educational establishment.

Is this legitimate discussion of the most effective way to teach children to read, (something clearly subject to determination on objective grounds), really an appropriate arena for politization in a presidential campaign. Watch out! Another shibboleth.

So, keep your eyes peeled for shibboleths and never fail to expose them to the bright light of day, which, as in the case of bacteria, will hopefully have a decontaminating effect.

Joe Gerstein

THE HUMANIST AND VALENTINE'S DAY     

Humanists have heroes, but no saints. For us, the legend of St. Valentine is a nice story. It reminds us that Christianity, for all its terrible shortcomings, is right to extol love most highly. So it is Valentine's example, not his powers of intercession, which deserve emulating. More important is this modern celebration of Love; it's not to be ignored. Wont you agree that we humanists should pay as much attention to the emotions as we do to the intellect? And shouldn't we place love first and foremost among them? Physical love, contary to St. Augustine, is a beautiful thing, if wild and imperious at times. The love that is less tempestuous, empathy, caring, which the Greeks called agape , is an emotion we are capable of dispensing any hour of every day. It can infuse most actions and lighten most tasks. Often it is catching, and relationships are strengthened. So we humanists, who rejoice in all our emotions, do not hesitate placing kindness at the top. Without realizing it, we are celebrating the oneness of humanity when we sense the feelings of others. In the long run, it's not enough to think intelligently, we've got to connect emotionally, we must care.

From your Editor