The New Humanism Conference at Harvard #2 - Day 1 - deeds not creeds

The Hyatt conference venue

The Great Hall in Beijing

The day began oddly with a sort of secular prayer.
Awaiting us on every chair was a copy of a little booklet A Benediction for Life. When we were assembled the proceedings commenced with a reading by a Humanist Rabbi, (I think it was Robert B. Barr of the congregation Beth Adam,) and he then asked us to all recite some short piece from the booklet.

I think these comments on another blog describe very well some of the feelings this elicited in some people:

"...on Saturday morning, there was also a “benediction” to give homage to those who weren’t able to be there with us because of their passing. It was led by a (secular Jewish) Rabbi. There was also a poem that everyone was told to recite together. While there was no mention of God or the afterlife in any of this, it turned off a lot of students.
Some of that came from the “stench of religion” that Rebecca alluded to. One friend also said that she didn’t like being told to recite words along with the crowd. She hadn’t had a chance to read through them for herself beforehand to see whether or not she agreed with what was written. That mentality of going-along-with-the-crowd instead of thinking-about-what-you’re-doing is what drove her away from religion in the first place."
http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/04/23/the-new-humanism-conference-recap/

I also noted a comment on another blog from someone who felt uncomfortable with such euphemisms as "because of their passing" when what is actually meant is, because they had died!

***************************

Then we were addressed by Ambassador John Loeb Jnr (note: his father was one of Harvard's major benefactors who in 1993 provided an endowment towards funding the Humanist chaplaincy). He spoke on a subject which made me reflect on the way the enlightenment and the founding of the United States encouraged a ripple effect of empowerment. It maybe also provided some context for the treatment of religious language and liturgy in the US. In this instance the impact was revealed in a little known letter dated August 21, 1790 by George Washington to the Hebrew congregation of the Tuoro synagogue in Newport Rhode Island. In it George Washington wrote:

" The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the excercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. "

Greg Epstein also presented John Loeb Jnr. with an award for his philanthropic endeavours in leading the $10 million dollar restoration campaign for the Touro synagogue in Rhode Island. Also in his talk John Loeb mentioned his father and Corliss Lamont both of whom have Harvard as a commmon denominator. John Loeb Jnr's father and Corliss Lamont (note: Ned Lamont, Corliss's nephew, would be speaking to us later in the evening) were in the class of '24.

"...two Harvard graduates, class of 1924—friends once, who grew apart. John Loeb amassed a fortune in banking and over time donated more than $70 million to the University. Social and political activist Corliss Lamont was a founding member in 1941 of the American Humanist Association and one of Ferrick’s earliest supporters at Harvard. [JK note: Tom Ferrick is Greg Epstein's predecessor and Harvard's first Humanist chaplain]. In 1993, when John Loeb read an article the Harvard Gazette ran about Ferrick and the small remittance he survived on, he was moved to endow the chaplaincy, telling a New York Times reporter, “The humanistic approach to deeds, not creeds, appeals to me.” Lamont caught the Times piece and picked up the phone and called his old adversary. A year later, the two met at their seventieth reunion."

For more see - http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/050554.html

I have also come across comments from someone a little unhappy at how the students were being treated at the conference and at the degree to which she felt we were all being made to genuflect to the rich and powerful Harvard alumni.
"Rant about the Humanist Conference" http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80208

The discussion continues in the forum and some of the criticisms are moderated.

************************

A Cameroonian moment

Earlier this year I visited Cameroon to attend a Humanist conference which was not without some 'challenging' episodes. I hadn't anticipated any 'Cameroonian moments' at this event. However the next item had been publicised as an appearance by the economist and Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen. We were sitting in another unhelpful environment. This time not one heavy with religious symbolism but neutral and aesthetically sterile to allow the imposition of a corporate identity suitable for whichever business or organisations were holding the conference. It reminded me of a scaled down version of the great hall in China. On the large screen in front of us we were not confronted with the great man himself but with a video interview. It was a hard task to maintain concentration but it was a concentration worth conjuring, for Professor Sen's detailed exposition of some of his subtle ideas regarding Indian humanism were very satisfying. I had brought with me a copy of his book "Identity and Violence" in the hope that he might sign it. However his being present in only two dimensions wouldn't allow for that. Maybe we should have been informed that he was not going to speaking live. Maybe we were and I missed it. I am sure it was good publicity and that some people who attended did so in order to see professor Sen. (I hope that the reason that Professor Sen was reduced to two dimensions was not due to ill health but no one told us that this was the case.)
Unfortunately the next speaker Professor Tu Weiming , who gave us an exquisitely researched and painstakingly detailed, but of course necessarily brief (but not too brief) overview of Confucian Humanism, delivered his address in a manner no more responsive to his audience than had been Amartya Sen's, although Profesor Weiming's reason for this was less apparent. The audience sat and attended as best they could. Yesterday had for many of us been a late night! I felt lightheaded and slightly bruised. I think my symptoms were compounded with some jet lag. I was disappointed though that everything this morning had taken quite so long thus squeezing the time available for what promised to be a very interesting panel discussion. Anyway once Professor Tu Weiming had received his award for Outstanding Achievement in Humanism, we moved on...

**********************

Toward an Abrahamic Humanism

Heard the one about the New Humanist Jew, Muslim and UU?

The three panelists were Rabbi Sherwin Wine, Salman Rushdie and The Reverend Dr William Murry. Rabbi Shirwin Wine 2003 American Humanist of the year and founder of Humanistic Judaism began and delivered a tour de force of a speech packed with humour, wit and reason.
Rabbi Wine's fast-paced accessible style is both beguiling and deceptive for he is a formidable intellect. He has been responsible , I note from a wiki article, for founding or co-founding a number of very significant organisations the Humanist Institute, the International Association of Humanist Educators, Counsellors, and Leaders and Americans for Religious Liberty . His style of delivery had us all laughing but at the same time he was the first to actually address the real clash of perspectives which was highlighted by the conference and in particular some of the pre-publicity. He drew a distinction between what he termed the 'aware secularists' and those he described as the 'secularised'. The latter were people who engaged with each other and with the problems of everyday life in a secular way, not giving much thought to religion.
The 'secularised...' said Sherwin Wine "belong to us but we don't know how to reach them'.
The 'aware secularists' gather at 'meetings of the wounded'. They have been hurt by religion and he satirised them by evoking the image of their meetings at which they simply repeat the mantra 'There is no God', 'There is no God'.

" Hatred or indifference, between the two", he asked, "which was worse? Do you understand!"

I noted that Rabbi Wine had this unusual oral tic. He punctuated his talk liberally with the phrase 'Do you understand!' but not as a question but an insistence. Only a Jewish/Yiddish intonation could squeeze the full nuance out of the phrase. I often wish that I could make people understand by insisting they do!
I wish I could remember any of the jokes Shirwin Wine told. They were good. But at least I remembered some of what he had said which to my embarrassment is not the case with the next speaker. I hope I will be able to get hold of a transcript because I am sure what he had to say was interesting but the Reverend Dr William Murry admitted that he had a hard act to follow. I think I drifted off and that's what happens sometimes. ( I have now found the folliwng in the journal Harvard University Gazette online - "Unitarian Universalist minister emeritus William Murray, a onetime Southern Baptist who turned to humanism at age 44, said there are seeds of humanism in the Christian tradition going all the way back to the Old Testament, with its idea that humans are made in the image of God.")

However Salman Rushdie had a number of factors working for him (and against him) and these kept my attention.

[An aside - someone mentioned that Greg Epstein was in a class that Huntington (he of the clash of civilisations fame) taught. There you go. Huntington was a Harvard professor and (at the time of the 'Clash', was, I believe, director of Harvard's Center for International Studies. This was thought by some to have contributed to the coverage by publications such as The New York Times and The New Republic.]

**************************

Messages from outer space

Back to Salman Rushdie. He had been listening patiently to his co-panelists and seemed genuinely amused, interested and intrigued. I saw him taking notes. For those who have never heard him speak Rushdie is a very accomplished public speaker/lecturer with a good sense of humour. Actually Rushdie had made an interesting point the previous evening regarding achieving the appropriate and effective tone of voice in writing. He had learned, he said, that often the more serious the subject the lighter the tone required to deal with it effectively.
So Rushdie shared with us some jokes told by Muslim comedians.
The one where some terrorists go into a camping store to look at rucksacks and one of them puts a rucksack on and turning his back to his companion says "tell me, honestly, do you think my bomb will look big in this?"
Or another which apparently Rushdie heard within a very short time of 9/11. This comedian was doing a show in New York and was commenting on the fact that 9/11 involved so many deaths that probably one way or another everyone at the venue knew someone, or knew someone who knew someone who had lost their life. He then lowered his voice and added confidentially,"actually I knew several of the terrorists!"
How well these work in print I am not sure but Rushdie timed them perfectly and people were laughing heartily. He had amply ilustrated his point which was that comedy solves problems that nothing else can get to. He referred to it as "recognition comedy", seeing the absurd in human nature. Rushdie's talk was very carefully crafted. He alone addressed the issue of Abrahamic Humanism and demolished the notion that any thoughtful secular humanist of Muslim background would like to see Abraham as a suitable focus for humanists. He reminded us that Abraham was reported as having shown scant regard for the welfare of Hagar the mother of Ishmael. I can't recall the details but Abraham certainly doesn't come out of the story as a great role model. Of course Rushdie is a writer and maybe some would say he's taking the text too seriously. Most people, whether religious or not, are often quite oblivious to whether a name or title conjures up an unsuitable metaphor.

Rushdie was advised that at some point he was going to be interrupted.
We hadn't been told this but Rushdie had although I think it was only moments before he started speaking. Anyway he remained wary and spoke frequently of expecting to be interrupted at some point by messages from the stars. What happened was...

(to be continued)

p.s. Someone posted a video extract of Salman Rushdie speaking on the first night http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpgbkOpq4Ks