https://www.ftsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/September-October-2021-Ezine.pdf
 
I think most people identify more with a religious denomination than with a theology. People reflective enough to recognize they can no longer adhere to beliefs they grew up accepting can often justify to themselves why, nonetheless, they should remain part of a religious community. They find numerous reasons not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Many have friends and family who they don’t wish to hurt. It might be too painful to break openly from a religion just for not believing any of its most sacred doctrines. Humans want to be part of a community. Traditions and rituals often provide much of this. Some wish to actively participate in the good deeds of a religious fellowship and then try to moderate the conservative views of their more fundamentalist members.

https://www.postandcourier.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/letters-patriotism-is-more-than-symbols-its-about-improving-our-nation-for-everyone/article_697b6ab8-d4e5-11eb-9dd0-0f336c12a206.html 
 
A Wednesday letter writer said that people who show disrespect for our country should leave. The writer singled out an Olympic athlete for protesting, former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick for taking a knee during the national anthem and U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar for a tirade against the United States. 

What the writer doesn’t realize is that some of us who love our country feel an obligation to try to correct some of our problems and make our country better. Doing that may require bold gestures and actions. In taking a knee, Kaepernick was protesting against police brutality. He asked, “Isn’t this lethal racism every American’s problem, and aren’t we letting down our flag by not fulfilling its promise?” 

Waving the American flag is not necessarily patriotic. Were the flag wavers at the Jan. 6 riot in the U.S. Capitol patriots? 

I’m bothered by those who link patriotism with saying the Pledge of Allegiance, standing and singing “The Star-Spangled Banner” and deifying the American flag. These are examples of symbolic patriotism. What we need more of is substantive patriotism to improve our country in tangible ways. This could include serving on local school boards, volunteering at soup kitchens for the homeless, staying informed on issues and voting. 
​
Using our First Amendment right to criticize our government in the hope of improving it is patriotic and important. Symbolic patriotism is easy, and often mindless; substantive patriotism is what can make a country great. 

https://www.ftsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/July-August_2021_FS_Ezine.pdf
 
This is a bit of a trick question, since Mormons consider themselves to be Christians, while most Christians don’t consider Mormons to be Christians. It’s also unfair to stereotype such large classes of people. And there are considerable differences between liberal and conservative Christians as well as between liberal and conservative Mormons. Nevertheless, I’ll make my case for Mormons. I certainly don’t condone their anti-gay and anti-atheist positions. I also don’t give any credibility to the Book of Mormon, which states that after Jesus died, but before he went to heaven, Jesus stopped in the United States—in Missouri. When Jesus returns, he will again go to Missouri. How do we know? Because this story was allegedly chiseled in Egyptian hieroglyphics on gold plates and buried in Palmyra, New York. In 1827, the angel Moroni supposedly led Joseph Smith to the gold plates and a magic stone. When Joe put the magic stone into his hat and buried his face in it, he was able to translate the gold plates into English. 
 

​https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=301086078312951&ref=watch_permalink

​I’m going to give a Zoom talk to a Connecticut group, Humanists and Freethinkers of Fairfield County, on Monday, May 10 at 7PM. If you are interested in participating, check their newsletter. 
https://mailchi.mp/de52984c3d0e/hffc-newsletter-2021-may?e=4bf74bd9d4 
 
It mentions that you can register for the talk here. 
https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZMtd-6upj4oGN1S2zP5EueMYrHtVnjfu-w2 

https://in-sightjournal.com/2021/04/22/free-of-charge-8/
 
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I want to take an interlude session into unifying evolutionary ethical frameworks as exemplified in part, in Humanism. Some religions ignore the parts of brutality, cruelty, bigotry, and supernatural superstition, only focusing on the Golden Rule. Some turn into postmodernist philosophers, they ramble off into incoherency and don’t make any sense, while puffed up and self-proud as a cock (rooster) on a dunghill. What are some of the paths Humanism could evolve into the future?

Dr. Herb Silverman: It may be true that just about all religions have some version of the Golden Rule about treating others as you would want to be treated. And a version of this can also be found in almost every ethical tradition, with no gods necessary. In my Jewish tradition, the first century BCE Rabbi Hillel was allegedly asked by a prospective Jewish convert to teach him the entire Torah (Hebrew Bible) while standing on one leg. Hillel replied, “That which is hateful to you do not do to your neighbor. The rest is commentary.” 

Some equate the Golden Rule with the rule about loving your neighbor as yourself. The problem arises with who we consider our neighbor. In the Hebrew Bible, neighbors were the “chosen” people, other Israelis. Jews were supposed to kill outsiders on their way to the Promised Land. Today in America, many White Christian Nationalists view only their fellow Christians as neighbors and so justify discriminating against non-white immigrants. 
​
Another problem with the Golden Rule is that some people may not want to be treated as we want to be treated. Our values may be so different that the Golden Rule makes no sense. For instance, some fanatics have no aversion to death, so the Golden Rule might inspire them to kill others in suicide missions. For humanists to live by the Golden Rule, we mustempathize with other people, including those who may be very different from us and might want to be treated differently.
 
When you mentioned “dunghill,” I thought of Thomas Jefferson, who in many ways (but not all ways) was a humanist. As he correctly pointed out, there are some words of wisdom in the Bible, but I agree with Jefferson when he referred to them as “diamonds in a dunghill.” 
 
When you ask for paths where Humanism could evolve in the future, I think Humanism is a philosophy that is continually evolving. That’s why we have had three Humanist Manifestos, and will undoubtedly have additional “manifestos” as we learn more about how better to live ethical lives, along with new scientific discoveries.
 

​https://www.ftsociety.org/2021/04/16/may-june-2021-freethought-society-fs-ezine/
 
Many people tell me they wouldn’t mind if I were an agnostic, but that I shouldn’t be so arrogant as to be an atheist. I used to call myself an agnostic because I could not logically prove whether a god exists, so I took the agnostic position that the existence of a god is unknown—and perhaps unknowable. I was without belief in any gods and thought it highly improbable that any supernatural beings exist. When I learned that this view is consistent with atheism (without a belief in any gods), I became an atheist. So, my "conversion" from agnosticism to atheism was more definitional than theological.In reality, depending on how terms are defined and their context, I can accurately call myself an atheist or an agnostic, as well as a humanist, secular humanist, secular Jew, freethinker, skeptic, rationalist, infidel, and more. 
 

https://in-sightjournal.com/2021/03/01/free-of-charge-7/
 
Scott Jacobson: Fundamentally, what is the difference in a philosophical stance representing evolutionary changes even to ethical founding documents compared to others declaring foundational texts as complete and comprehensive for all time with nothing ever capable of edit, as in Quranic theological orientations – can’t edit it - akin to the necessity of acceptance of the resurrection of Christ in Christianity? In short, what makes foundational evolution of an empirically informed ethic better than an unchanging asserted morality in centuries-old texts?

Dr. Herb Silverman: Evolution made it possible for us to become Homo sapiens (humans), though my DNA shows that I am 3% Neanderthal. Charles Darwin felt that a difference between Homo sapiens and other animals is our moral sense. He said that our enhanced ability to cooperate may be the most significant distinction between us and our closest evolutionary relatives. Such cooperation, along with concern for others and a sense of fairness, may be the basis of morality in humans. Since evolution works so slowly, I don’t think we can relate evolution to how moral behavior differs in humans today, often based more on philosophical or theological differences. 
 
You ask why our empirically informed ethic today is better than an unchanging, asserted morality in centuries-old texts. Science is empirical and thrives on disagreement and on a willingness to question assumptions critically, while we search for evidence until a consensus is reached. Centuries-old texts, often called “holy” books, were written by scientifically ignorant men. Their ideas of ethics included discriminating against gays, not allowing women to have responsible positions, punishing blasphemers and heretics, and advocating for holy wars. Tying our principles to unchanging, dogmatic religious text makes no sense. Morality, to us, involves using available evidence to help decide what actions might be for the greater good of humanity. We base our ethics on what we learn from human experience, which includes the efforts of thoughtful people throughout history who have worked toward achieving their ideals. We also know that some of our values might change as our knowledge and understanding advances. 

Jacobsen: For those points brought forward, “sport or physical activity, non-human intelligence, the environment, and non-Western sources within the humanist tradition,” what seems like the relevance of each to the potential next edition of the declaration?

Silverman: I’ll address your question of “sport or physical activity” here. The other parts (non-human intelligence, the environment, non-Western sources) are asked about in your other questions, so I will answer those later. 
​
Regarding sport or physical activity, I think we should encourage people to remain active for as long as they can. Playing sports, preferably non-contact, can be fun and help us keep a sound mind and body. At 78, I no longer play sports, but I exercise a lot. I walk a few miles every day with my wife, Sharon. We also lift weights or swim several times a week. What I don’t like to see are so many people who only watch others play sports. When a professional player on their favorite team hits a home run or scores a goal, they congratulate each other, as if they themselves deserve credit for it. Being active in sports (and in life) is beneficial; being passive is not. 

https://www.ftsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/MarchApril-2021-FS-Ezine-for-Distribution.pdf
How do we differ from religious people in this pandemic era, when as of this writing over half a million Americans have lost their lives to Covid? Since you are reading this, you haven’t died from the virus, perhaps because you listened to science rather than to unfounded conspiracy theories. In dealing with death, we know that human life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% mortality rate. Yes, we are all going to die someday. We are fragile creatures who have been dying from the moment we were born into a universe that has no purpose. I feel “blessed” that I’ve been alive for 78 years. I have no memories of the other 13.8 billion years the universe existed without me. The same will be true when I die, hopefully not for many years. I was not in distress before I was born, and won’t be in distress when I’m dead. ​

There is no purpose of life, so we all need to find purposes in life. Regarding purpose, I am guided by a quote from Robert Green Ingersoll:
“Happiness is the only good.
The time to be happy is now.
The place to be happy is here.
The way to be happy is to make others so.” 

​I was on a weekly radio show from California State University, based in Santa Barbara. You can listen to it here. 
 
https://soundcloud.com/user-873816943