Entertainment

A motivation for many who engage in religious activities is their desire for entertainment. The outcry in the Roman Catholic Church after the reformation of the 1970s underlined this fact. "Old Catholics" begrudgingly attended Catholic churches with stripped down altars, bereft of gaudy statues of saints, some of whom were consigned to the scrap-heap of mythology after centuries of being prayed to. It always intrigues me when I note that this stripping down of Catholic churches was paralleled by the stripping down and destruction of the temples of cinema, whose budgets were hit by the first wave of television's impact on their consumer base.

The rise in Middle-American megachurches paralleled the death of Middle-American town centers in favor of Walmarts and shopping malls. The draw of the megachurch, I believe, is as much entertainment as it is community. As the big movie screens of cinemas shrank in the cinemaplexes, the churches grew, adding light shows, rock bands and raucous sing-alongs, reminiscent of the old music halls and pubs of Britain.

As an irreligious humanist, who is deeply interested in ethically and scientifically based community for human beings, I would very much like to see the Humanist movement take a far different course in establishing its communities. While entertainment is an effective way to raise funds for any cause, it is not an effective way to develop a dynamic and self-sustaining community. Inclusion of all members of a community in the hands-on work of a community, in my opinion, is the key to a dynamic and self-sustaining community.

It takes a nucleus to form a cell. It takes a compact ball of cells to eventually form a complex organism. Eventually, a complex organism contains different cellular types, performing different and coordinated, bodily functions. Similarly, communities start with a core group of individuals who have a vision, a mission. They often are centered on one charismatic leader, a nucleus, who has inspired them to share his/her vision. At some point, that leader decides whether to become a guru of a sect or a leader of an inclusive and evolving community.

Gurus of sects are religious figures, no matter how secular their philosophy may seem. They also tend to be entertainers as well. Their magnetism is their message ultimately. And, ultimately, they all fall victim to aging and death. Their sects tend to fall apart or morph radically when that happens.



Medgar Evers

A secular community-builder is another matter. Medgar Evers is a good example. Even though he was assassinated at 38 by a racist, his example in his work for civil rights as the NAACP field officer in Mississippi inspired civil rights actions long after his death. And his name is associated with the achievement of civil rights for African Americans even today, though he died in 1963. Why is this? Medgar Evers stood for the empowerment of communities to achieve their goals. He did not aspire to a high-profile career as a national civil-rights celebrity. Similar heroes exist in ever secular movement for the advancement of human rights. And, unfortunately, there are all too many examples of those who would ride a movement for their own engrandisement.


The trouble with a reliance on entertainment to fund or inspire a movement is the risk of developing a dependence on media attention or celebrity to attract and motivate its leadership. If Humanism is about building community, then community-building should be the prime motivation for its leadership, not personal celebrity. I would challenge anyone's assertion that celebrity and building community are easily compatible. Celebrities have fan bases, not communities. It is the basic nature of celebrity to be the center of attention. A vital and working community has as many potential centers of attention as there are community members.

As I see it, the job of leading in a Humanist or secular community is the job of building and sustaining a community. If some celebrity comes the way of a leader, that may indeed benefit the community, if the community has its own free-standing identity and purpose. If a leader lends his celebrity in an earnest effort to build an equanimous and self-sustaining community, that effort may be enhanced by the celeberity factor. That contribution, like any other, should be acknowledged by the community. However, I believe it is the responsibility of the secular community, with the encouragement of leadership, to maintain its own identity and work on its own behalf.