Comment

Comment by Sarah Walton on October 8, 2010 at 1:01pm

The Council for Secular Humanism's sold-out 30th Anniversary Conference is this weekend. If you didn't get your tickets in time, don't fret! You can still experience the conference—some of the talks are going to be streamed live online. http://secularhumanism.org/laconference/live.html

Comment by Dean Smith on September 25, 2010 at 8:58pm

Very interesting stuff!

Comment by Geraldo Cienmarcos on September 25, 2010 at 8:35pm

EMPATHIC CIVILIZATION

this is ssssoooooo Humanist.
It's so good to see a social biological vindication of Humanism.

Jeremy Rifkin investigates the evolution of empathy and the profound ways that it has shaped our development and our society.
This is from a YouTube Channel, RSA Animate, that has lots of neat stuff. (Yes, I said "neat", I just dated myself.)

You Tube Channel. RSAnimate.
The EMPATHIC CIVILIZATION
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g

posted by Gary

Comment by Geraldo Cienmarcos on September 24, 2010 at 2:33pm

MILLENNIUM GOALS

1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2: Achieve universal primary education
3: Promote gender equality and empower women
4: Reduce child mortality
5: Improve maternal health
6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
7: Ensure environmental sustainability
8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development

Source: United Nations
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
International UN Summit
http://www.un.org/en/mdg/summit2010/

See also:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

[Note: There is some international progress and cooperation on the Millennium Goals. This international movement launched by the United Nations has received close to zero publicity in the USA mainstream press.]

Comment by Fred Edwords on September 20, 2010 at 6:35pm

In response to Fred Werther's question:

"Will the online members have access to a forum for AHA or something. Email list whatever?"

Actually, everyone in the world already does have such access. There are two opportunities:

The Discussion Forum at http://secure.americanhumanist.org/Page.aspx?pid=218 and the "Rant & Reason" blog of the Humanist magazine at http://blog.thehumanist.com/ .

Comment by Geraldo Cienmarcos on September 20, 2010 at 4:38pm

Dear John D.,

It's more than an opinion for me, it's my deeply felt conviction and I know it's not a conviction that is always taken seriously or understood or shared by many Americans. In fact, I would guess only a few. I can accept that some feel there is sometimes a moral justification for military or violent foreign intervention.
So I really don't want to get into a pretense of a rational discussion on one side or the other... except...

consider Kant's categorical imperative of "what if?" .

The world might be a more peaceful place if our first priority was, fair trade, peace, cultural exchanges and diplomacy.

I'm not going to post anymore on this subject, I leave the topic to others if they choose to participate. I've never found there to be a logical resolution. We would just keep going is circles of "what if...?" etc.

Propaganda aside for justification of military interventions, I would agree that we (in this case the USA) have a right to be secure in our borders. But by UN Charter, that is the right of every other member nation as well.

PS.: I don't think drones launched from the state of Colorado to Afghanistan, makes the USA any more safe in it's borders.

Gary

Comment by Geraldo Cienmarcos on September 20, 2010 at 4:06pm

Dear John D.

You said, "Don't fight a war unless you have a very solid plan to win it quickly and secure the peace quickly."

Your statement is a statement of military strategy of goals, expectations and outcomes. I think the moral high ground is NOT getting into a war when it is unnecessary.

I don't care to get into an argument about just wars or just "preemptive strike." But unless all HONEST diplomatic measures have been exhausted and an attack has been clearly made, we should choose peace. A humanist friend in my area has said, and I think it wise, "I'm against violence and war, except to stop violence."
Clearly our justification to attack on Afghanistan and Iraq did not meet that moral criteria. Interesting, that the pretext was originally to capture Bin Laden. Remember that? We didn't capture Bin Laden, and many people more informed than myself suspect that was not the real motive for our intervention in Afghanistan.

peace,
Gary

Comment by Susan Stanko on September 20, 2010 at 3:54pm

What say ye liberal Humanists now... ?

Looks like generalization to me.

Comment by Geraldo Cienmarcos on September 20, 2010 at 3:50pm

Dear Fred Edwards,

regarding, "... the pro-war article by Jende Huang is taken out of context. It appeared beside an article against the war by Michael I. Niman ("Would You Buy a Used War from This Man?") ... "

Yes, I remember the two articles side by side. I feel that Humanism is a progressive philosophy. All the Humanist Manifestos of AHA state that to be the case and all advocate peace and diplomacy over war whenever possible. I felt it was important to remind people that there were Humanists who were taken in by the justifications for war. So, I included that reference as a cautionary tale.

Overall, I'm grateful for the more liberal stance and concerns that the editors of Humanist Magazine have taken up.

-- Gary

Comment by Fred Edwords on September 20, 2010 at 11:44am

The Internet doesn't discriminate. The free online membership will be for all who sign up. It just isn't live yet.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 38
• 39
• 40
• 41
• 42
• …
• 45
• Next ›
• Page