In his inaugural address, President Obama recognized the different groups that make up America. Not everyone was pleased.

With that one line, the president “seems to be trying to redefine American culture, which is distinctively white,” said Bishop E.W. Jackson of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Va. “The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as white, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are.’”

The majority of Americans are white and our founders expressed white European values, so we must be a white nation, right?

Oops, I seem to have misread the original quote. The real wording was:

With that one line, the president “seems to be trying to redefine American culture, which is distinctively Christian,” said Bishop E.W. Jackson of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Va. “The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christians, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are.’”

Let’s look at ‘that one line’ that offended: “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers.”

Is Jackson saying that American culture is defined by whichever group is largest, and that we should ignore any and all minorities? Of course, Obama didn’t mention culture, only the nation. Looking at the individuals who make up our nation, there are most definitely Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, and nonreligious citizens. Looking at the more abstract concept of ‘nation’, our governing principles dictate that we are a secular nation.

No matter how you look at it, America is not a Christian nation any more than it is a white nation. It strives to be secular just as it strives to be colorblind. When Michael Newdow tried to remove the words “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, many dismissed it as pointless. How would people feel if the phrase were “One white nation under God”? Declaring America to be a white nation or a Christian nation is incorrect and marginalizes the millions of good American citizens who are not in the majority.

As a guest on the popular conservative Christian radio show ‘Janet Parshall’s America,’ Jackson commented: “Obviously, Jewish heritage is very much a part of Christianity; the Jewish Bible is part of our Bible. But Hindu, Muslim, and nonbelievers? I don’t think so. We are not a Muslim nation or a nonbelieving nation.” He’s right about that. We’re not a Muslim nation or a nonbelieving nation. We are a nation made up of a diverse group of people, organized around secular principles. And that is one of the best things about us.

President Obama’s inaugural address has received both praise and criticism from freethinkers, the former given for his mention of nonbelievers in the speech, and the latter for making mention of a god several times, including his reference to “the God-given promise that all are equal…” I was happy that he chose to include nonbelievers on his list, and I don’t much care about references to a god, which seem to be standard in political speeches in this country. Much more problematic was Rick Warren’s fiercely sectarian and divisive invocation, but so many words have been written on that already that I care not to revisit it.

I was struck, though, by several important elements of humanist thought that were included in the inaugural address. Therefore, without purporting to give a complete review of Obama’s speech (which I was lucky enough to witness from the National Mall, part of the 1.8 million or so people that braved the cold to see it as close to in-person as possible), I’d like to point out a few important ideas from it that to me show promise (with all the appropriate caveats, of course!) for the new administration. I’m speaking, as a lifelong humanist, from the perspective of what humanism means to me, and what its implications are for how we should behave in society.

1) Responsibility

While Obama’s speech certainly was laden with a lot of language to the effect of “America is really great!” (as I would expect from any inaugural speech), I was really struck by the following passage:

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

Pledging to address poverty and environmental degradation around the world is significant, but to me, Obama’s acknowledgment of the USA’s (and the rest of the rich world’s) disproportionate use of the globe’s resources is especially notable. For too long this discussion was suppressed in mainstream politics.

Compare that statement to this passage from Humanist Manifesto III:

We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

This notion of global responsibility is an important tenet of humanism. The borders of the nations of the world developed over time for reasons that are mainly arbitrary (and certainly not god-given nor somehow predestined). Our compassion for humanity should not stop at our own borders, nor should we be indifferent to the global consequences of our consumption. That may seem obvious, but eight years of the Bush administration marginalized any question of global responsibility when addressing resource usage. It is gratifying to see this idea given national prominence by none other than the president.

2) Service and self-fulfillment

Obama stated:

What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world; duties that we do not grudgingly accept, but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task.

Obama is endorsing a key tenet of humanism here: that service for the greater good is an end in itself, a source of individual fulfillment, and a responsibility that individuals share. He certainly wasn’t renouncing the American capitalist system’s focus on individual advancement and consumption, but he nevertheless gave this important humanist idea prominence.

3) Pluralism

In the passage now being lauded by freethinkers for its inclusion of nonbelievers, President Obama stated:

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

I was happy that he included nonbelievers on the list, but more important to me is the entire passage. Diversity is a strength, not a weakness; I take umbrage at the oft-expressed idea that humanity will be perpetually embroiled in conflict because of cultural or religious differences. President Obama states here that those lines that divide us can nevertheless be overcome, not in spite of the diversity of humankind but rather because of it: because our essential humanity is palpable, and because we share common challenges. It would be naive to think that this will happen tomorrow, but he sets this unity out as something attainable, something we can see happening in the diverse United States, even when much progress is left to be made.

The last sentence of that passage does strike me as potentially problematic. While America certainly should work in concert with other nations to promote peace around the world, it will all depend on the course of action taken to do so. Many argued that the war in Iraq was somehow going to promote peace; certainly we need no stronger reminder that we must always think critically when a US president tells us that he has a plan to promote peace. But embracing diversity and acting out of responsibility towards our fellow human beings certainly is a good start.

Do we have a humanist president? Only time will tell if Obama’s presidency embodies the humanist values that we support. As activists committed to furthering these values, our duty is to press on, to continue to push the Obama administration, Congress, and our state and local governments to do what is right on the issues that matter most to us. With a world steeped in conflict, and our own nation in crisis, the humanist message of responsibility, service, and respect for diversity and interconnectedness is more vital than ever.

Should humanists (and in particular the AHA) bother themselves with God?

The first sentence of Humanist Manifesto III states that

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

And in an ideal world, we could just sit down and start discussing how we want to treat each other, how we want to govern our society, and how we find meaning in life – without mentioning the supernatural. But in the United States today, it doesn’t go smoothly. Using a couple other lines from Humanist Manifesto III, we start saying “Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis” and millions jump up to interrupt with: “and revelation!” We say “Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience” and we get interrupted with people saying “No, they’re derived from studying scripture!”

An integral part of advocating a viewpoint is showing that opposing, competing views are incorrect. If we believe that the only ways to gain knowledge of the world are “observation, experimentation, and rational analysis”, then we must explain to people why we do not believe in revelation. If we believe that ethics is based on human need and interest, we must explain why we believe it has nothing to do with the will of a supernatural being. The reason we must engage with those ideas is that people still believe them.

While the majority of people in America – and almost all of the people with political power – believe in God, then the idea is an important one to address. If we care at all about what other people do and what other people believe, then we must engage with their beliefs.

To kick off yet another “John Stuart Mill Appreciation Year” for me, here’s another portion of On Liberty:

[A man] is capable of rectifying his mistakes, by discussion and experience. Not by experience alone. There must be discussion, to show how experience is to be interpreted. Wrong opinions and practices gradually yield to fact and argument: but facts and arguments, to produce any effect on the mind, must be brought before it.

Hopefully, wrong opinions about reality and morality will yield to fact and argument. But there must be discussion.

Did you catch it? In his inaugural speech?

“…we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers.”

This is the first time nonbelievers have been explicitly referenced in an inaugural address. We’re finally a force that can’t be ignored in Washington.

Watch the clip here (it’s about 2:50 in)

It looks to me as if Israel should pull back to earlier borders and stop oppressing non-Jewish people. Their actions are understandable but not excused when we reflect on the fact that countries (and people) react badly when they’re attacked and feel scared.

It looks to me as if Palestinians should stop targeting Israeli civilians and hiding in hospitals and schools, which leads to the death of their own people. Their actions are understandable but not excused when we reflect on the fact that countries (and people) react badly when they’re desperate and feel oppressed.

I don’t mean to imply absolute equivalence – one side might be more immoral than the other – but I hope to point out that each attack brings about an escalation and retaliation. If that were the only factor, it would be extremely difficult to bring about an end to the cycle of violence. But, of course, there are other factors reinforcing the cycle.

Many people believe that God promised the land to them.

Many people (especially in America) will not support a compromise because of things they believe about end times.

Many people in the conflict commit terrible acts because they believe that God permits – even encourages – them to harm others, regardless of protests from human rights organizations and the international community.

We could work within a religion, trying to persuade adherents that their texts should be interpreted differently. “If you look at your texts this way, the land isn’t promised to you!” “If you look at your texts this way, women should have equal rights!” “If you look at your texts this way, you shouldn’t deny your child medicine!” But that approach only highlights the fact that religious morality is an anchor holding back society’s progress.

For centuries, people believed that the bible condoned slavery. Somewhere along the line, opinion shifted and we began seeing slavery as an immoral act. The Bible was the same; it was only our society’s interpretation and moral values that had changed. Many resisted because they thought they had a greater authority – God’s word – that slavery was moral. And such authority overrules the mere thoughts and opinions of society. As society made valuable progress towards equality, we couldn’t just press onwards. We had to go back and convince people that their religion should be interpreted differently.

Does anyone really believe that God decided to wait until 1978 before “revealing” to the Mormon Church to stop discriminating against African Americans? Or did they finally accept that discrimination was wrong, and had to ‘revise’ their teaching? I’d rather not wait for some future Pope to finally proclaim that we were interpreting things wrong, and that of course condoms can be used to stop the spread of AIDS in Africa!

So yes, we could try to persuade people to interpret their religion in a different way. But that’s just tugging the anchor along with us. It helps… but I would prefer to let go of the anchor.