Stephen Rohde of the ACLU

Quote of the Month: James Garfield.

A review of Adrian Novotny"s "What it Means to be a Man" by Paul Ricci

"The Road to Reason" by Pat Duffy Hutcheon, reviewed by Dave Silva.

Philosopher's Corner, "Feeling, Thinking and the Pledge of Allegiance" by Juan Bernal, Ph.D.

New & Better George Carlinisms - Humor

The Humanist Bookshelf - A new feature of the AHA

At the August 18th Meeting:

Starting at 1:30p.m.

STEPHEN F. ROHDE

FROM THE ACLU

Stephen F. Rohde is a constitutional lawyer, lecturer and writer. He is the immediate past President of the ACLU of Southern California. He is co-author of Foundation of Freedom published by the Constitutional Rights Foundation and he has written numerous articles and book reviews on civil liberties and constitutional history. He is the author of a new book "American Words of Freedom" which explores the origins, history and meaning of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

He is First Vice President of the Beverly Hills Bar Association, Vice-President for Coalitions and Alliances for the Progressive Jewish Alliance and Vice-President in charge of Freedom of Write-Domestic for PEN Center USA West.

Mr. Rohde received his B.A. degree in Political Science from Northwestern University in 1966 and his J.D. degree from Columbia Law School in 1969. He is senior partner with the law firm of Rohde & Victoroff in Century City specializing in communications, media, intellectual property and constitutional law.

Quote of the Month:

"The divorce between Church and State ought to be absolute. It ought to be so absolute that no Church property anywhere, in any state or in the nation, should be exempt for equal taxation; for if you exempt the property of any church organization to that extent you impose a tax upon the whole community."

--- James A Garfield, 20th U.S. President (1881)

A REVIEW OF "WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A MAN" by Adrian Novotny

By Paul Ricci

We are all indebted to Professor Novotny for his discussion, elaboration and review of his book--as co-author with David Werner--IN THE SHADOW OF THE HUNTER: What It Means To Be A Man (1997, Houghton Mifflin).

The essence of the book deals with the general condition of males in our society today; with their pain, feelings of helplessness and trauma as well as their growth (or lack of it). Professor Novotny points out how what it means to be male, and discussion surrounding their role in contemporary life, has surfaced only in recent years. He points out how discussion relating to ". . .the degree to which males . . .have suffered from the inequities of the present sexist system" have come about in today's society. Specifically, he points out how this inequity was clearly reflected in the 100 million casualties suffered by men--actually boys-- in World Wars I and II. Women, through the Feminist Movement, have already made female inequities known and have confronted problems unique to them. Men must now begin the work that a few men have begun and set an agenda of their own.

The authors feel that "In order to find our way out of what we see as our present dilemma, . . .it is necessary to find new male images--to re-imagine ourselves as males." The book, therefore, focuses on "what it meant and what it means to be a man." In short, "Males have. . .bought into a system wherein they have received economic and political power in exchange for being slain in wartime and being marginalized in emotional relationships. "A few questions that may arise from a Men's Movement today might be: (Quoted from the text)

What can popular culture teach us regarding the present place of males in society?

What remnants are there in modern males of our prehistoric ancestors?

What is the 'natural' state of manhood?

Why are so many male stories filled with images of wounding?

Can we regain our lost maleness?

Each chapter in the book is used as evidence of male inequities as developed over the years, even millennia, and discussed in detail.

The authors begin with an analysis of the WIZARD OF OZ as a reflection of males being portrayed as ". . . as weak, silly charlatans who are incapable of action" which is a "shadow message" of the film. Though some might want to question the literary interpretation of the WIZARD OF OZ by the authors, they maintain the film ". . . presents an uncomplimentary view of males" and even this is an "understatement."

The authors make a spirited and detailed analysis to prove their thesis. They conclude that, "This is not a film that shows males how to act but rather a film that shows women (and men) how males really act. "The film ". . .accurately mirrors a significant aspect of the decline of masculinity in the middle of the twentieth century."

Professor Novotny then delves into the results of an anthropological study of the primal nature of man (Chapt.2) wherein certain natural traits of maleness emerge. Among these are (according to the authors) gregariousness, natural curiosity, manual manipulation of the environment, a hunting and gathering subsistence mode, age veneration, etc. These original hunters and gatherers managed to survive for some millions of years with their way of life while, he claims, "Industrial capitalism is in trouble . . . after a mere 250 years." From this examination of mankind's early growth and evolution--culturally as well as biologically-- we may learn that man is not violent by nature as Hollywood has depicted them in various movies, but that he survived by cooperation and sharing.

Professor Novotny then discussed, from Chapter 3, man's development from a boy to manhood as existed in the hunting and gathering societies over thousands of generations. He discussed in some detail the effect of this rite of passage on modern man. We ". . . retain some of this long tradition of maturation but . . .the ritual underpinnings have been lost in the past several thousand years of 'civilization'."

To avoid making this just another review of "IN THE SHADOW OF A HUNTER", allow me just a few more comments. I recall from the lecture and suggest the reader purchase the book for the remainder of the chapters, and the details in earlier chapters, to see how they are used to examine the male situation in our culture today. The last chapter, the Conclusion, makes suggestions as to what can be done to alleviate the sorry condition men find themselves in contemporary society.

Professor Novotny ends with the three "A"s that typifies the social context for males: abuse, alienation and addiction. That men have been abused in certain situations in our culture is obvious (not the least of which is the attack against males within the Feminist Movement!) as is our alienation from certain emotions--like being told crying is not permitted for men--and in other areas. The addiction seems to be to quantity instead of quality in social relationships.

The Q and A aspect of the lecture/discussion I found quite interesting and many were able to bring in other areas where men have been mistreated (as a group) or unjustly treated as in the laws involving child support which totally favor women. Even when men were found not to have been the biological father of children they were raising in a marriage, they were still forced to make child payments to these children. That men are far more likely to end up in prison than women, also indicates another inequality which appears, in part, to be socially determined and a result of men's alienation in society.

Although this point wasn't raised--to my knowledge--the whole area of sexual harassment, and the laws involved, seems to favor women rather than men. And the whole area of sexual satisfaction and the so-called "dating game" appears to favor females rather than males as another example was explored and discussed. Regardless of the causes of many of these inequities and injustices, they do leave men at a disadvantage, which did not exist thousands of generations ago.

All in all, I enjoyed the lecture/discussion--as I think most of us did-- and, once again, we are indebted to Professor Novotny for taking his time and making the effort to present his controversial views before us.

"The Road to Reason" by Pat Duffy Hutcheon

Canadian Humanist Publications 2001

Reviewed by Dave Silva

Descriptively subtitled "Landmarks in the Evolution of Humanist Thought" this book is a collection of 18 essays about important people and movements in the history of Humanism. Author Pat Duffy Hutcheon is a retired sociologist with a Ph.D. from Queensland College. She was named Canadian Humanist of the year in 2000.

The chapters are arraigned chronologically but stand on their own as individual essays. Hutcheon starts with Buddha and Confucius, explores the history of Unitarianism, goes to Hume, Dewey and Schweitzer and on to modern figures like Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins. Hutcheon ends her book with a perspective on the "Free Will" debate and some personal conclusion about the roll of Humanism in the "Global Village'.

I learned a lot about some of the lesser-known figures such as Omar Khayyam and Harriet Martineau, as well as the existentialism of Sartre and Camus. This is a well-written book, which is not a history of Humanism but provides a wealth of knowledge on the subject.

This isn't an easy read for those without a background in philosophy. I wouldn't recommend it as an introduction to Humanism, but if you regularly read "The Humanist" or "Free Inquiry" I think you will get a lot out of "The Road to Reason".

PHILOSOPHER'S CORNER

FEELING, THINKING and THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

By Juan Bernal, worker in the field

Adrian Novotny might ask: How do you feel about the "Pledge of Allegiance" controversy? As he suggested at our general HAOC meeting on Sunday, July 21, he would be asking us to respond, not by telling him what we think about the controversy, but what our feelings are. I interpreted this as suggesting that when we hasten to express our thoughts, as some of us not-yet-liberated males often do, we're not doing the healthy thing: an open expression of our feelings and emotions. *

So following Mr. Novotny's lead, I might respond by saying that I felt anger and resentment at the majority view that the phrase "nation under God" belongs in the "Pledge" and was disgusted by their emphatic demand that it should not be removed, and that the "Pledge," in the form we have today, should continue to be recited.

But having said that these were my feelings, what else remains? What is the healthy thing for modern males? Are we supposed to express our anger by yelling, or screaming, or pounding the table? This might be therapeutic and result in our feeling better, but what else would this "venting" accomplish? Add to this the fact that the other side has very strong feelings on this issue too, and they can yell much louder and longer than the skeptics can. After all they outnumber us by more than ten to one.

Let me suggest, in my non-liberated-male way, that what we think about the "Pledge" controversy is more important than what we feel. Rather than assuming that modern males do not express their feelings enough, I find that many of them express their feelings enough, and many times without giving adequate thought to what they are doing. I hear yelling and strong expressions of feelings all around me. What I find lacking are attempts to reflect and think rationally about important issues.

None of this should be read as implying that emotion and feelings are unimportant and should be ignored. We cannot ignore them; they're always present, since humans are emotional creatures. Even our attempts to think dispassionately and "objectively" are infused with feeling, emotion, value-assumptions, etc. (I rarely assert anything without emotion!) But if we buy too much into this "post-modern" view that emphasizes expression of our feelings over thinking, we're likely to forget that, as much as possible, our conduct should be guided by deliberation and reasoning. When we do forget this, we are inviting disaster.

So let's restate our initial question: What do you think about the "Pledge" controversy?"

Does recitation of the Pledge in its current form (with the "one nation under God" phrase) in the public schools and at other official, public functions amount to our government's endorsement of religion?

Is it, therefore, a violation of the church-state separation principle of the Constitution?

Or, should we agree with the majority opinion that the separation clause of the Constitution was never intended to deny the majority of Americans their right to express their religious faith; and the view that the "nation under God" phrase is such an expression of religious faith?

How should we interpret the phrase "one nation under God"? Is it an assertion that our nation is in fact a nation that enjoys the blessings and favor of the deity? If so, do we then infer that a patriotic citizen should affirm this alleged "fact"?

Alternatively, is the phrase merely an acknowledgment of our nation's religious culture and history? Is it simply recognition of the cultural and historical fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in a Deity who "blesses America"?

Do skeptics, who find no rational grounds for characterizing our nation as one under God, have the right to demand that the rest of the nation limit itself to a neutral, secular view of our nation? (Simply "one nation, with liberty and justice ..." as opposed to "one nation under God, with liberty and justice ...")

As skeptics and humanists, our first priority should be to achieve clear and rational thinking about such questions and issues. Granted, our feelings and emotions should not be denied or repressed; but the key to dealing effectively with the many issues that we face will come from knowledge, clarity and rational procedure, not a simple "venting" of our feelings.

* None of my comments should be read as criticism of Mr. Novotny's position on these questions, since I am not familiar with his views. His remarks on Sunday simply stimulated some thoughts on the difference between our feelings and our thinking about issues like the "Pledge to Allegiance" controversy.

New and Better GEORGE CARLINISMS

*If 4 out of 5 people SUFFER from diarrhea.......does that mean that one of them enjoys it?

*"I am" is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that "I DO" is the longest sentence?

*Why do we say something is out of whack? What's a whack?

*If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?

*When someone asks you, A penny for your thoughts, and you put your two cents in, what happens to the other penny?

*Why is the man (or woman) who invests all your money called a broker?

*If Fed Ex and UPS were to merge, would they call it Fed UP?

*I thought about how mothers feed their babies with tiny little spoons and forks sso I wondered, what do Chines mothers use? Toothpicks?

*Why do they put pictures of criminals up in the Post Office? What are we supposed to do, write to them? Why don't they just put their pictures on the postage stamps so the mailmen could look for them while they delivered the mail?

*Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things?

The Humanist Bookshelf

The AHA is excited to introduce "The Humanist Bookshelf," a new, online book discussion program. The opportunity for Humanists, and Freethinkers of all types, to form a virtual community that centers on insightful discussion and the creation of new relationships.

The book discussion program has two primary goals. The first is the desire to help better connect the wk community, many of whom live too far from a local Humanist group in which they might experience cot second is the wish to meet the needs of various Chapter members who have requested changes for cross-activities. Drawing on both the social and intellectual, The Humanist Bookshelf will center on a new title drawn from various areas of interest and study. The books will be chosen by mediators, at this time, AHA will take input from participants in deciding what books should be chosen is welcome. We are looking for will not be overly complex, but can still create thought-provoking discussions on our listserve, which will act means of communication between participants.

To join this new and exciting social opportunity, you need to become a part of the AHA's newly created "http://groups.yahoo.com/group/humanistbookshelf/"tirnanistbookshclf' and register for The Humanist Bookshelf If it is you registering onto Yahoo!Groups, there is an easy procedure for you to follow. From there, you will receive the moderator, and then be able to send and receive messages.

* * * Inaugural Book* * *

Title: The Sacred Depths of Nature

Author: Ursula Goodenough.

Publisher: Oxford University Press, mc,

ISBN: 0195136292:

Description: The book is about contemporary scientific knowledge and religious reflections. Goodenough harmonization of science and religion in twelve concise chapters. She addresses questions that all of us. most likely have or will ask: why do we have religious impulses, and how does a scientific understanding account for such "religious naturalism?" She discusses her own experience with unemotional rationalism and argues that science can substantiate a "religious naturalism," and from this can flow "a planetary ethic would make no claim to supplant existing traditions but would seek to coexist with them informing our cultural and religious contexts."