Read The Eloquent Atheist Webzine
Humanism and UUism: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly
by Marilyn Westfall
Presented at the 2007 American Humanist Association Conference
Portland, Oregon

( Download an MS Word file for printing )
 

Welcome to you all, and thank you for coming. I hope you’re enjoying the conference thus far, and I certainly hope you find my presentation today to be informative. In putting together my lecture, I’ve been trying to distill the information I’ve gathered for about seven years, regarding Humanism and UUism. I’ve read any number of sermons and articles, contributed to Internet chat groups and boards, read the Web diaries or “blogs” kept by UUs and others interested in the changes taking place within UUism. I was part of a group known as the UU Infidels, who for two years attended UU General Assembly, sponsoring an information booth and also putting together a presentation for a 2005 session at G.A. entitled “Unitarian Universalism: A Place for Atheists?

This is supposed to be a break-out session about the good, bad, and ugly regarding Humanism and the UUA, so let me begin with the good news. I was fortunate to connect with many humanist UUs at this conference, some of whom still have strong humanist churches or fellowships. Others want to keep a strong connection between Humanism and UUism, and are willing to work to make this happen. Also, since I’ve been on the AHA board, I’ve been in contact with humanists in UU churches, some of whom also have AHA chapters or affiliates, and I’ve been impressed with the organizing, networking, and coordination of events that has gone on. Congratulations to all these wonderful people for their successful efforts to support both Humanism and Humanism within the UUA. Finally, if you plan to attend the UUA General Assembly this year, which is also in Portland in about two weeks, the HUUmanist group will present three lectures. On Friday Rabbi Sherwin Wine will talk about “A Jewish Perspective on the Future of Humanism,” and for Saturday two talks are slated. The first is by Rev. Bill Murry about his book Reason and Reverence (I’ll discuss more about Murry’s book later in my lecture) and the second lecture will feature Dr. Carolyn Porco, leader of the imaging team on the Cassini spacecraft. Please attend these lectures and support the HUUmanists, and also please talk to David Schafer, who is the president of that group.

Before I proceed with my talk, I want to ask how many of you here are UUs?

Now, let me ask another question, which will prove relevant to my lecture. Are there people in the audience who WERE and no longer ARE UUs?

UUism certainly has changed in the last decade, hasn’t it? I would venture to say that humanists have been the people most negatively affected by the changes that have taken place. This isn’t to say that the news for humanists is entirely glum, but let’s just face facts about certain matters. As I said, this is a presentation about the good, bad, and ugly of UUism and Humanism, so here is the “bad” (and we’ll get to the ugly in just a bit, and then on to the good). In 1998, about ten years ago, in a survey done by the UUA, 46 percent of UUs self-identified as humanists. These days, that number is likely down. My source for information is the recent “Commission on Appraisal” performed by the UUA.

The “Commission on Appraisal” project conducted surveys and in-depth interviews of UU clergy and laity; it also distributed a questionnaire that covered many topics. The commission issued its report in 2005, and according to the data, the trends showed that UUism was drifting away from Humanism and into what some have called “vague theism.” This was especially true among the organization’s leadership—and foremost among ministers. The surveys, interviews, and other data were translated into a volume entitled Engaging our Theological Diversity.

I invite you to turn to your handout, which might help you to sort through some of the numbers I’m about to read. First of all, among clergy who filled out the Commission questionnaire, only 20% described their orientation as humanistic. Too, among this 20% there were further distinctions: “hyphenated humanism” is the way these distinctions are described in the report. The adjectives used to describe humanism of the ministers were these: mystical-humanism, God/transcendent-humanism, Christian-humanism, or process theology-humanism (this last includes “god,” but not a god of omnipotent and authoritarian powers; this god, instead, is in relationship with creation: viz: “It is as true to say that God creates the World, as that the World creates God.”).

Given that only 20% of the ministers self-identified as humanists, it shouldn’t surprise us to learn that they also had a weak affiliation with the UU source of humanist teachings. There are five sources for the tradition of UUism (these are included on the handout); and in the survey of ministers, humanist sources ranked 5th out of the five sources. The complete wording of the humanist source is as follows: [We covenant to affirm and promote] “Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.” The highest-ranked source, by the way, was the first: “Direct experience of transcending mystery and wonder …”

Also in the Commission report, there is a noticeable split between the way ministers and “lay people” responded to the questionnaire. As one example: 81% of the clergy reported that they had had a “mystical experience,” while 58% of the polled UU membership admitted to this experience. Overall, however, the numbers supposedly added up to this conclusion:

[T]here has been a shift in Unitarian Universalism away
from a humanistic center to a more eclectic mix of philosophies
and theologies. […] Some fear this trend, while other celebrate
it. Among the ministers surveyed, 39% said their congregations
had become “more spiritual,” 26% “’more diverse,” 19% “less
humanistic,” [my emphasis] and 15% more comfortable with “religious” language.

By the way, I’m not very pleased with the way the data were reported and written up for Engaging Our Theological Diversity; none of the questionnaire data are there, and I would like to see the numbers for myself. In the report’s write-up, the inputs from ministers seem to get a lot more attention and a lot more space in print than the inputs from us lay people. And the questions that were posed, at least those I read, seemed slanted toward the use of god terms. The commission report does at least mention the atheists among UUs, under the section heading “Do We Believe in a Transcendental Dimension?” There is a paragraph addressing “the powerful center of faith” and “God” and the “Eternal,” and other “ultimate” terms, which concludes with the sentence: “Several respondents expressed a strong opinion to the contrary: ‘The core of my faith is that there is no God.’”

Now, had I been asked to fill out a survey for the Commission on Appraisal, my opinion about transcendence would have been “there is no god,” and perhaps, to boot, I could have thrown in a Woody Allen joke: “Not only is there no god, but try getting a plumber on Sunday.

I’m not meaning to sound flippant or petulant or whiny—which are complaints often leveled at humanists (at least in my experience) when they comment on the trends in UUism. I am trying to add at least a touch of levity in relating what is tough news if you’re a humanist, a religious humanist, an atheist, or all of these—and someone who wants to remain a UU. And, too, I’m attempting to speak with candor. And candor is more than merely blurting out an opinion; it’s rather speaking from deep conviction, and from a sense of necessity, and from what I hope are the facts—as best I can perceive them. I sincerely hope, in other words, to make some helpful suggestions, and perhaps some correctives?, to the course I see UUism following. I don’t mean to attack UUism in this presentation; rather I want us all to appreciate why UUism has changed in ways that makes it difficult for many humanists to remain members.

Humanists and atheists have contributed what I think are helpful opinions over at least a five-year span, regarding the direction UUism is taking. Many of the conversations about concerns and hopes for UUism have been occurring on Internet chat sites, or message boards, or blog sites. For a very good example, let me turn to a blog site by “Philocrites” (please check your handout for an address to this blog site). Philocrites is, outside of “virtual” life, a fellow named Chris Walton; he is executive editor of the UU World magazine. For those of you who are not UUs, the UU World is comparable, in many ways, to the Humanist magazine; it serves as a mouthpiece for an organization.

From the blog site for Chris Walton, a.k.a. Philocrites, here are excerpts of an exchange between Chris and a recent UU seminary graduate named Matthew Gatheringwater. Others also added comments, but I don’t want you to be confused and overwhelmed by keeping all the strands of conversation in order; you can read the blog for yourself; its Internet address is in the handout. Let me say one thing more about Matthew Gatheringwater: he was the lone atheist in his class at Meadville Lombard, which is a premiere seminary for Unitarian Universalists. I believe Matthew graduated from Meadville Lombard in 2004. Now if you like, turn to your handout to follow along as I read from Philocrites’ blog. You’ll notice that Gatheringwater is very concerned with two things: first of all that the UUA is retreating into the past by embracing Christian theism; and second of all that UU humanists will no longer be comfortable in their congregations:

Gatheringwater: The COA [Commission on Appraisal] reports a shift in emphasis toward this kind of theistic orientation with the congregations of the UUA. […] I have to wonder how you see an echo of the last century’s Unitarian theology as “wonderfully emergent and fresh” instead of, well, just old. If we envision liberal religion as a communal quest toward spiritual truth that makes progress [my emphasis], what is so wonderful about a demographic shift back to where we were a hundred years ago?

Chris Walton: (And for the sake of time, I’m leaving out portions of the exchange): “[W]onderfully emergent and fresh” has often been exactly what people have experienced in the rediscovery of the old…. The past, seen through fresh eyes, can be profoundly new.

Gatheringwater (who is, by the way, sympathetic to diversity and Christianity) responds: …I think the concerns of non-theist humanists is different from the concerns of Christians: Liberal Christians have a larger number of religious communities with which they can identify than do non-theists. To the extent that this is true, I think it lends a greater urgency to the concerns of UU non-theists.

Gatheringwater also expanded on his concerns in another blog site called “Tipping Points” (and the reference to this blog site is also in your handout). In this blog, Gatheringwater addresses the likely future for UU non-theists, like himself, given the current trends. He mentions doing a history research project at Meadville Lombard that led him to discover the writings of a Unitarian Christian minister who had left the religion when Humanism was in ascendancy. Gatheringwater asks himself and his readers: if a Christian left during a paradigm shift in UUism, during which humanism became vital, and I—a religious humanist atheist—sense another shift going on toward “vague theism,” how long will I be a UU? What’s my “tipping point?” “Would I find,” he says, “that I’d prepared for ministry to a faith which no longer existed?” Furthermore, he reflects about his time at Meadville Lombard:

My school used to be notable for innovations in religious humanist theology. We used to be at the forefront of efforts [to] reconcile science and religion [my emphases]; now, visiting scientists reported that seminarians lacked basic scientific education. Humanist was a word often used in a derogatory sense in my UU classes and it was more often than not preceded by adjectives like “old”, “crusty”, “corpse-cold”, “bloodless”, and “unfeeling.” It was creepy to hear people use expressions like, “the congregation is waiting for the old humanists to die off before it changes the order of service.” It was more popular among students to be a Universalist … than a Unitarian, a feeler than a thinker, a prophet than a pastor, a theist than an atheist, and anything but a humanist.

Well, as I said, this a presentation on the good, bad, and ugly, and we’ve moved from the bad to the ugly. Ad hominem attacks are usually ugly. I won’t, and I don’t think I need to, say anything more about the remarks that Matthew’s classmates made. I am not here to demagogue and to rile an audience. But it is very important that we know what has been said “behind the scenes” in order to grapple with the problems we’re facing.

As humanists, when we confront problems, we usually ask Why—

why this, why now? Why would ministerial students, who are training to be pastors, after all, make such derogatory comments? Where do these attitudes come from? Certainly our U.S. culture, especially under the current administration, isn’t exactly a bastion for Humanist principles, such as reason, liberty, individual rights, and scientific evidence…but I digress. We’ve been studying the Commission of Appraisal and the report Engaging Our Theological Diversity, so let’s stick with that text, for a moment, as a place to begin to understand what’s at issue for Humanism and UUism. There’s another excerpt from the report in your handout. Apparently a consultant named John Cobb, a Christian process theologian, was asked to critique UUism, and he made some statements that have a direct impact on us:

Today the limitations of Enlightenment mode of thought and of
social organization are becoming more and more apparent. Whereas
progress in the past two centuries has meant increasing the role of
Enlightenment principles in our religious life, today it means
something quite different. The dualism, the individualism, the
rationalism, and the empiricism of the Enlightenment have all
failed us.

Unitarian Universalists have freed themselves from pre-Enlightenment baggage precisely by committing themselves to the insights of the Enlightenment. But now it is just those partial truths whose exaltation in theory and practice is destroying us. Can Unitarian Universalists find the resources to criticize the resources by which they have lived?

Once again, just a reminder, John Cobb, who made these remarks, is a “Process Theologian.” As I said before, Process Theology does conceive of a god—an ultimate—that is relationship with nature, and as much shaped by nature as it shapes nature. Process Theology itself was addressed on the questionnaire produced by the Commission on Appraisal (you can find this information on the handout): among respondents, 60% of UU laity found process theology useful, while 82% of ministers did. Notice that there is a 22 point difference, and the report takes notice of this gap, saying, “Process Theism was more controversial among lay respondents.” If Process Theism or Theology indeed translates into an admission that the Enlightenment has “failed us,” then I should hope it would be controversial among UUs. But I’m not even certain that the UU laity is aware that Process Theology comes with this much baggage. In the text of Engaging Our Theological Diversity, the remarks made by Cobb are under the subheading: “Outgrowing the Enlightenment World View,” so it’s obviously a serious challenge—to “mature” (theologically at least) beyond the Enlightenment, which is being placed before UUs.

You can see why humanists UUs might especially suspect this call to a radical change. Why is it necessary and ethical for us to “outgrow the Enlightenment?” Again, where does such an idea come from? How does it get into the essential substance of the UU movement? Let me return, momentarily to the remarks made by Matthew Gatheringwater, the atheist-religious humanist and graduate from Meadville Lombard. If you remember, he commented on the school’s and his classmates’ lack of concern with “progress” and science. “My school used to be notable for innovations in religious humanist theology. We used to be at the forefront of efforts [to] reconcile science and religion” [my emphases]. For Matthew, UUism is “a communal quest toward spiritual truth that makes progress.” Innovation, progress, science, leadership that is future oriented: all these are associated with the Enlightenment, and these are concerns that humanists embrace. But it would seem, also from what Matthew said, that few UU ministers being educated in this century are invested in these concerns.

This is getting thick, and we’ve been digging into a variety of information, so let’s take a breather for moment. I’d like to play a round of word association. I’ll throw a word, and just tell me the first thing that comes to mind. Creationism. Fundamentalism. Neoconservatism. How about Postmodernism?

Just for your “enlightenment”: UUs all likely reject the first three “isms,” but they do not reject the last. In fact Postmodernism is philosophical basis for much of what is taught is university courses, and it seems to have been embraced by many UU theologians.

What do these “isms” all have in common? None of them is friendly to the Enlightenment and to progress. For those of you who don’t know much about Postmodernism, I’m sorry to say that I can’t go into details about it here. It’s a complicated theoretical position that includes semiotics, Marxism, feminism, psycho-linguistics, cultural criticism and other strains of philosophy and analysis. What concerns us for now is that Postmodernism critiques very harshly the Enlightenment. An example of why Postmodernism attacks the Enlightenment is included in the handout:

Postmodernists have hammered hard at the illusion propagated by modernist theorists that science would ultimately generate truth and, thereby, a better world for one and all…. Indeed, if modernity was supposed to ameliorate social problems, then why, after approximately two hundred years of enlightening scientific development, has global misery actually increased? Postmodernists have a ready answer to this question: because the promises of the Enlightenment were lies.

Far from achieving the Enlightenment’s philosophical goals, postmodernists maintain that science has sustained a long-standing project to exploit people everywhere…. In other words, the Enlightenment is a western European invention that is permeated by a variety of significant biases (e.g., patriarchy, racism, Christianity, rabid industrialism, etc.). Thus, despite pretensions of objectivity, Western cultural biases have thoroughly tainted every aspect of modern “progress…” [my emphasis].

See: Flawed By Design: The Virtues And Limitations Of Postmodern Theory
Timothy McGettigan
Department of Sociology
University of Southern Colorado
mcgett@uscolo.edu

The Postmodernism described by Tim McGettigan seems to have found its way into the future planning for UUism. Included in the report Engaging Our Theological Diversity is a section on Postmodernism and why it should be adopted as a strategy by UUs. The report includes the opinions of Daniel Adams, a Presbyterian Theologian who has written scholarly articles on postmodernism and contemporary trends in theology. According to the report, Adams has said that “one of the most significant trends of modern culture, the secularization of society, is starting to be reversed. Partly this is because the ‘false gods’ that replaced theism (he names communism, nationalism and progress as examples) have clearly failed.” In an article for CrossCurrents, which you can find on the Web (and the information is in your handout), Adams points out that some Postmodernists deem the Enlightenment to be nothing less than “intellectual terrorism.” Adams does not say that he agrees that opinion; rather he’s explaining the cultural critique offered by Postmodernism.

Finally, what GOOD can we Humanists do for UUism (and the USA) by re-engaging with the Enlightenment? How do we answer Postmodern criticism?

Two Recommended books:

Reclaiming the Enlightenment, Stephen Eric Bronner

"The idea of progress was always [for the Enlightenment’s authors] less about the eradication of subjectivity and the domination of nature than the possibility of personal liberation, popular empowerment, and overcoming the spell of myth and nature. Progress is an inherently rational idea. But it does not call for belief in the omnipotence of reason, the superfluous character of passion, or the existence of an objective solution to every problem. […] The issue … was not the discovery of absolute truth but the establishment of conditions in which truth might be pursued” (p. 29).

By the way, Bronner appeared on a radio show, WBAI-NY’s “Equal Time for Freethought” and addressed issues of economics and the Enlightenment, in regards to social justice, and he said:

“If it is true that the Enlightenment opposed the arbitrary use of power by institutions which act as they want, without any regard to the public good, [one] should concern [oneself] with the arbitrary powers that capitalistic institutions exercise. To that extent, the move towards a commitment to social justice and democratic socialism is fundamentally connected to the Enlightenment, and not an abstraction.”

Read the text that became the introduction to the book.


www.barryfseidman.com/

Especially for UUs, Reason and Reverence: Religious Humanism for the 21st Century, William R. Murry (Murry will appear at this year’s General Assembly with the HUUmanists)

“Humanistic religious naturalism encourages individuals to recognize and use their own creativity and power and to develop their own unique abilities. It holds that individuals should respect themselves as persons of dignity and value … and it encourages them to fulfill their potential. It also acknowledges humankind’s limitations. But, aware of the progress humanity ahs made in its many millennia of existence, it continues to have hope for the future and to believe in the human potential for good” (p. 77)

Handout (This was given to most attendees at the workshop; the audience was so crowded that I ran out of handouts.)

Engaging our Theological Diversity

Among clergy who filled out the Commission questionnaire, only 20% described their orientation as humanistic. Too, among this 20% there were further distinctions: “hyphenated humanism” is the way these distinctions are described in the report. The clergy identified as:
• Mystical-humanist
• God/Transcendent-humanist
• Christian Humanist
• Process-theology Humanist
(This last includes “God,” but not a god of omnipotent and authoritarian powers; this god, instead, is in relationship with creation: viz: “It is as true to say that God creates the World, as that the World creates God.”).
***

There are five sources for the tradition of UUism:
• Direct experience of mystery and wonder
• Words and deeds of prophetic men and women
• Wisdom from the world's religions
• Jewish and Christian teachings
• Humanist teachings
(The full wording of the source of Humanist teachings is as follows: [We covenant to affirm and promote] “Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.”)

In the COA's survey of the UU ministers, Humanist sources ranked 5th out of the five sources, in personal significance.
***
The report reached this conclusion: "There has been a shift in Unitarian Universalism away from a humanistic center to a more eclectic mix of philosophies and theologies. […] Some fear this trend, while other celebrate it. Among the ministers surveyed, 39% said their congregations had become 'more spiritual,' 26% 'more diverse,' 19% 'less humanistic,' and 15% more comfortable with 'religious' language."
***

Matthew Gatheringwater (Meadville-Lombard seminary graduate, the only atheist in his class; self-identifying "religious humanist"): The COA [Commission on Appraisal] reports a shift in emphasis toward this kind of theistic orientation with the congregations of the UUA. […] I have to wonder how you see an echo of the last century’s Unitarian theology as “wonderfully emergent and fresh” instead of, well, just old. If we envision liberal religion as a communal quest toward spiritual truth that makes progress, what is so wonderful about a demographic shift back to where we were a hundred years ago?

Chris Walton: (And for the sake of time, I’m leaving out portions of the exchange, which you can read in its entirety on the web site referenced on the handout): “[W]onderfully emergent and fresh” has often been exactly what people have experienced in the rediscovery of the old…. The past, seen through fresh eyes, can be profoundly new.

Gatheringwater (Who is, by the way, sympathetic to diversity and Christianity) responds: …I think the concerns of non-theist humanists is different from the concerns of Christians: Liberal Christians have a larger number of religious communities with which they can identify than do non-theists. To the extent that this is true, I think it lends a greater urgency to the concerns of UU non-theists.
See: www.philocrites.com:80/archives/002094.html
***

In another blog, Gatheringwater writes:
My school used to be notable for innovations in religious humanist theology. We used to be at the forefront of efforts [to] reconcile science and religion; now, visiting scientists reported that seminarians lacked basic scientific education. Humanist was a word often used in a derogatory sense in my UU classes and it was more often than not preceded by adjectives like “old”, “crusty”, “corpse-cold”, “blood-less”, and unfeeling.” It was creepy to hear people use expressions like, “the congregation is waiting for the old humanists to die off before it changes the order of service.” It was more popular among students to be a Universalist … than a Unitarian, a feeler than a thinker, a prophet than a pastor, a theist than an atheist, and anything but a humanist.

See: www.coffeehour.org:80/archives/002105.html


Unitarian Universalism & The Enlightenment:

Today the limitations of Enlightenment mode of thought and of
social organization are becoming more and more apparent. Whereas
progress in the past two centuries has meant increasing the role of Enlightenment principles in our religious life, today it means something quite different. The dualism, the individualism, the rationalism, and the empiricism of the Enlightenment have all failed us.
Unitarian Universalists have freed themselves from pre-Enlightenment baggage precisely by committing themselves to the insights of the Enlightenment. But now it is just those partial truths whose exaltation in theory and practice is destroying us. Can Unitarian Universalists find the resources to criticize the resources by which they have lived? –John Cobb, Process Theologian

RE: “Process Theology” From respondents to the Commission on Appraisal questionnaire: 60% of UU laity found process theology useful, while 82% of ministers did. According to Engaging Our Theological Diversity, “Process Theism was more controversial among lay respondents.”
***

Postmodernism’s attack on the Enlightenment:
Postmodernists have hammered hard at the illusion propagated by modernist theorists that science would ultimately generate truth and, thereby, a better world for one and all…. Indeed, if modernity was supposed to ameliorate social problems, then why, after approximately two hundred years of enlightening scientific development, has global misery actually increased? Postmodernists have a ready answer to this question: because the promises of the Enlightenment were lies.
Far from achieving the Enlightenment’s philosophical goals, postmodernists maintain that science has sustained a long-standing project to exploit people everywhere…. In other words, the Enlightenment is a western European invention that is permeated by a variety of significant biases (e.g., patriarchy, racism, Christianity, rabid industrialism, etc.). Thus, despite pretensions of objectivity, Western cultural biases have thoroughly tainted every aspect of modern “progress…”
See: www.theoryandscience.icaap.org/content/vol001.001/05mcgettigan.html
Timothy McGettigan
Department of Sociology
University of Southern Colorado
mcgett@uscolo.edu

Theologian Daniel Adams, on Postmodernism, Religion, and the Enlightenment (Important to note: Adams does NOT say that he agrees with this analysis—he’s simply explaining the Postmodernist view)

The fourth major theme is a strong anti-Enlightenment stance. Some postmodernists even call the West's attempts to make its values universal intellectual terrorism. Taken together, praxis and a strong anti-Enlightenment stance involve a rejection of the West, an attractive perspective for Islamic scholars. There is in postmodern theology a decided turning away from the Enlightenment tradition with concurrent attempts to recover the insights of traditional cultures.

See: www.crosscurrents.org/adams.htm

How do we answer Postmodern criticism? 2 Recommended books:

Reclaiming the Enlightenment, Stephen Eric Bronner
“The idea of progress was always [for the Enlightenment’s authors] less about the eradication of subjectivity and the domination of nature than the possibility of personal liberation, popular empowerment, and overcoming the spell of myth and nature. Progress is an inherently rational idea. But it does not call for belief in the omnipotence of reason, the superfluous character of passion, or the existence of an objective solution to every problem. […] The issue … was not the discovery of absolute truth but the establishment of conditions in which truth might be pursued” (p. 29).

By the way, Bronner appeared on a radio show, WBAI-NY’s “Equal Time for Freethought” and addressed issues of economics and the Enlightenment, in regards to social justice, and he said:

“If it is true that the Enlightenment opposed the arbitrary use of power by institutions which act as they want, without any regard to the public good, [one] should concern [oneself] with the arbitrary powers that capitalistic institutions exercise. To that extent, the move towards a commitment to social justice and democratic socialism is fundamentally connected to the Enlightenment, and not an abstraction.”

See: www.barryfseidman.com/

Especially for UUs, Reason and Reverence: Religious Humanism for the 21st Century, William R. Murry (Murry will appear at this year’s General Assembly with the HUUmanists)

“Humanistic religious naturalism encourages individuals to recognize and use their own creativity and power and to develop their own unique abilities. It holds that individuals should respect themselves as persons of dignity and value … and it encourages them to fulfill their potential. It also acknowledges humankind’s limitations. But, aware of the progress humanity has made in its many millennia of existence, it continues to have hope for the future and to believe in the human potential for good” (p. 77).

Contact Marilyn





 
Google
Web www.theinfidels.org
The Talk of Lawrence