live.ethicalstl.org

All my life I have felt— or have known— that the churches I experienced when I was a child seemed "not right." Something about angry, jealous gods just didn't jive with me, even though I wasn't fully aware of it at the time. It seemed so foreign. It almost reminds me of the perspective of this article. Although it is objective and good press for Ethical Culture, it makes the movement seem too foreign of a perspective. I just feel more people can actually connect to it on more relatable terms.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I want more in-depth study on what they mention as just "Others think it is part of a broader shift" in reference to why this belief is quickly growing. This broader shift needs more attention— more examination as to why people are shifting: environmental issues, poverties, starvations, religions as social control, futile wars.....

And, is "humanist" such a foreign term to the masses that it needs quotes? But then again, if I were an objective reporter, I suppose I would explain the Christianity movement this way: They believe that their god is a combination of their "father", the father's mortal and magical child boy, and a "glowing bird" called the holy spirit that all make up a completely unbalanced, masculine god represented as the "holy trinity," which teaches love and humility in rhetoric and scripture but justifies war and hatred in actual historical practice.

But then again, I have a tendency to be naive about the ways of things.