Greetings. I’m very happy to be a contributor to a blog called “Civil Religion,” which Tim Townsend has defined with help from Rousseau. As a religious humanist, however, I’m not sure what Rousseau would have made of me, as I don’t happen to affirm “the existence of a mighty, intelligent and beneficent Deity” or “the life to come”–but I am passionately concerned with justice, happiness, ethics, and the environment, and what religions can do to promote all these things.
And judging from the recent Pew poll on religious affiliation, I’m not alone. The biggest change in American religious demographics is not that people are switching religions or denominations, but that people are leaving religious organizations altogether. Yet the humanists, agnostics, atheists, and “nothing in particular”ers that I talk to every day are also passionately interested in justice, happiness, ethics, and the environment. (NPR’s “Speaking of Faith” covered religious and secular humanism recently, and their website gives some good resources.)
If any of you are like those in the Pew poll and have given up on religious organizations altogether, or if you never had a religious community in the first place, I’d like to hear your story. Do you consider yourself non-religious? Or are you a religion of one? Where do you find inspiration, ethical values, comfort, community? Tell me your story and I’ll tell you mine.
Kate Lovelady, 38, of Dogtown is the Leader of the Ethical Society of St. Louis, which was founded in 1886 and is currently the largest Ethical Society in the nation. Kate's life partner, Billy Dechand, is a local musician. Kate's hobbies include vegan baking and riding her 49cc scooter. 
To Logus and D. Walker:
I have no problem with your choice of personal beliefs, but what you don’t seem to take into account is the fact that many people do not care what the bible says. You may think that it is important, but for me it is nothing more than primitive, ancient writings by a variety of people, none of whom is any more credible than any other writer of primitive, ancient stories, myths, or opinions. (I am not certainly not speaking for Kate Lovelady or anyone else.) You can list as many books or sources as you like, but none of it is based on science, reason, or historical proof. As a matter of fact, when you use bible verses to prove that bible assertions are truthful, I ignore whatever statement comes after that reference. Those references are irrelevant to everyone except believers who have already convinced themselves of the bible’s truth. In addition, if you think that Christianity has not changed over the last two thousand years, you have a lot of history to catch up on. Again, I don’t have a problem with your personal belief choices, but I would be more inclined to listen to what you have to say if you would please keep your biblical references outside of this discussion.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Also, speaking as to Christianity it was never intended to change. It has not changed, it will always be the same as disclosed in scripture, it was always people who got it wrong and evolved into something that was not Christanity.
Christians were never intended or instructed to partake in the practice of stoning for any reason because Christians at no time have ever been under the Law of Moses or Sinai Law. Christians at all times since Christ are under Grace and not the Old Testament Sinai Law which was God’s covenant w/ancient Israel and not the church. Under Old Testament Sinai Law, stoning etc…was for Israel, it was not permanent, only temporary until Christ and when He arrived on earth grace under Christ surpassed, became superior to Sinai Law. (2 Cor. 3:7-11
Here are two chapters that are excellent in explaining The Law (Old Testament Sinai Law) and The Spirit (Grace Under Christ).
http://www.wcg.org/lit/law/chr-sab/chr-sab2.htm
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RE: CONSCIENCE, THE MAKE-UP OF MAN AS DISCLOSED
We Christians learn through the Word of God that human beings, the whole man is divided into three parts, spirit, soul and body. Thessalonians 5:23., Hebrews 4:12.
BODY, SPIRIT AND SOUL
The soul is the combination of man’s body and spirit, and therefore Scripture call man “a living soul.” The breath of life became man’s spirit. This breath of life comes from the Lord of Creation. Man’s spirit is not the same as the Holy Spirit that you here Christians speak about.
Romans 8:16 demonstrates their difference by describing it as, “the Spirit (Holy Spirit) bearing witness with our spirit (that part of us that allows God the capability to communicate with us).
Due to the fact that the soul is the meeting point of our spirit and body where they are merged, and because of this spirit man holds communication with the spiritual world and with the Spirit of God, both receiving and expressing the power and life of the spiritual realm.
Through the body man is in contact with the outside sensuous world, affecting it and being affected by it. The soul stands between these two worlds, yet belongs to both. It is linked with the spiritual world through the spirit and with the material world through the body. It also possesses the power of free will, therefore is able to choose from among its environments. The spirit cannot act directly upon the body. It needs a medium, and that medium is the soul produced by the touching of the spirit with the body. The soul therefore stands between the spirit and the body, binding these two together. The spirit can subdue the body through the medium of the soul so that it will obey God; likewise the body through the soul can draw the spirit into loving the world (what we Christians know to be sin and evil).
The BODY, SPIRIT AND SOUL HAS THREE (3) MAIN FUNCTIONS.
1. Conscience, this is the discerning organ which distinguishes right and wrong; not however, through the influence of knowledge stored in the mind but rather by a spontaneous direct judgment. Often reasoning will justify things which our conscience judges. The work of the conscience is independent and direct; it does not bend to outside opinions. If man does wrong it will raise its voice of accusation, but we many times ignore our conscience by way of reasoning, this is where we mess up.
2. Intuition, this is the sensing organ of the human spirit. It is so diametrically different from physical sense and soulical sense that it is called intuition. Intuition involves a direct sensing independent of any outside influence. That knowledge which comes to us without any help from the mind, emotion or volition comes intuitively. The revelations of God and all the movements of the Holy Spirit are known to the BELIEVER through his intuition. A believer must therefore heed these two things: the voice of conscience and the teaching of intuition.
3. COMMUNION, this is worshiping God. The organs of the soul are incompetent to worship God. God is not apprehended by our thoughts, feelings or intentions, because God can only be known directly in our spirits.
These things are explain extremely well in a book by author, Watchman Nee, “The Spiritual Man.”
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Logus, I am sorry, I misunderstood where you were coming from. Kate answered your question with much class. Again, I am sorry.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry Kate… my comment was written to Walker while you were writing and posted yours. It was not written as a response to you.
I’d be interested to hear and read some of this research for an evolutionary basis of ethics.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Eh? Why not?!
I’m not critcizing, merely asking. If this place is not for questions, for anyone to not just post their beliefs but to defend them as well as argue for applicable viability, then this blog will not last very long.
If this blog is not geared to me, then who? Or are you specifying anything from Ms. Lovelady? Or the undecided? Am I restricted to conversing with Mr. Lamb and those who post to his commentaries merely because our beliefs are similar or am I not to post in general here because I already have a firm stand in what I believe, between what I believe is correct and incorrect, while still understanding that I have things to learn and that on some fringe issues I might be wrong?
I’ve posted on and off on religiously based message boards for eight years, even being a moderator briefly on one site (left due to computer failure and lack of internet access). This blog is supposed to be a place of discussion. That my original post doesn’t necessarily follow the question posed doesn’t mean that it cannot be answered. Considering the rabbits that have been chased and tangents posts have taken on this site – not to mention any other discussion board – my rabbit is nothing new.
And if it’s to be ignored, so be it. The question and discussion will no doubt be brought up again.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks for your comment, Logus. I hope that other humanists will weigh in, as you highlight some common misconceptions. Ethical Culture and other humanistic groups are not moral relativists. We have been on the forefront of the critical ethical issues of the day, from child labor to civil rights, and we promote human rights around the world.
The question of where we get our ethical values is an excellent one–researchers have come up with some fascinating information recently on how ethics evolved in the human brain and in human communities, which explains why there are so many universals in ethics, across cultures and religions–such as the conviction that causing pain and suffering to others for our own gain is wrong, and that relieving pain and suffering of others is right.
The history of religions is the history of ethics continuing to evolve as humans learn to recognize the rights of others. Most ancient religious texts, while containing much that we still recognize as ethically positive, also have things that have been left behind (stoning of adulterers, for instance). How do traditional adherents make these decisions? The same way I do–they use their conscience, their compassion, their friends and family and mentors, and what knowledge and research they can find. They make the best decision they can, and they learn from it and perhaps change or build on it.
In my interfaith work, I find that we all have much more in common in our basic ethical values than we have differences.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Logus,
Why don’t you first wait to learn what people in this group have to say first. Why are you the first one, who by the way, this blog is not even geared to you, the first to post?
Lastly, why are you responding with criticism towards Kate Lovelady?
Please allow all to feel comfortable speaking and being honest about their views, even if you do not agree with them or have different views so we all can learn about where each are coming from. I am not going to argue or respond back to anything you post concerning this because it would be unfair to this blogger and potential posters to the request she poses to ones who fit into this category.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Upon what can you base your concern? That is to say, on what foundation do you formulate your beliefs, and what happens when you run into contradictions? Right or wrong, every faith and religion has standards which guide them. Walking and learning in those faiths can teach an individual some discernment. But when the standard is yourself or society at large, there is no firm foundation, everything is fluid, and you’ll excuse me if I have little faith or trust in any beliefs that an individual comes to on their own, wherein each person has a faith and religion unto themselves. Moral relativism is easy on the eye. It appeals because it sates the flesh. And while some consistency can be achieved and in that a framework of beliefs about social justice and ethics, at its philosophical and spiritual heart, it’s contradictory by nature, and thus problematic as a foundation by which to live one’s life.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0