Roddenberry and Tolerance
Susan Sackett, current board member of the AHA and former colleague and friend of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, talks about Humanism and tolerance for religious diversity in an interview with Trekdom, a history of Star Trek Fanzine:
“Diversity and religious belief are entirely different areas when it comes to tolerance… [Roddenberry's] non-belief in religious illogic was true to his own philosophy. That does not mean that he did not grant others to the right to their beliefs. He merely commented upon them from his own standpoint… I think because of his high hopes for humanity, he was impatient with the superstitious beliefs that religions do sell. He wanted to see humanity progress, and, as many people today such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens will point out, being bogged down in these petty beliefs (my god can beat up your god and we have only one true way) holds humanity back from greatness. It is too bad he didn’t live to see the beginning of this new enlightenment, this new humanistic movement that is beginning to awaken in this country.”
After utterly anti-religious polemics of the likes of Christopher Hitchens’ and Sam Harris’, this is a refreshing reminder that religious tolerance necessarily works both ways — as Humanists we can’t possibly expect theists to respect the right to our beliefs if we don’t respect theirs. It’s important that we give voice to this truism more often.
Subscribe to Feed
I agree that the petty differences among the religions of the world are preventing humanity from progressing. What is happening right now in our country with the continued encroachment of Christianity has me believing that mutual respect is not very close at hand. I remember as a fundamentalist Protestant the disdain that was voiced and implied torward Catholics and other denominations because “we” were the only ones following the truth. As long as any religion or philosophy teaches its followers that they are receiving an “absolute truth”, the result will be a closed mind and mutual respect becomes a difficult concept to practice. Humanism generally allows the participant to question his or her beliefs and encourages the modification of those beliefs on the basis of new scientific findings. Tolerance is based on personal belief systems. If a personal belief system says that the whole nation has to believe in “one God” in order for that nation to be blessed and holy, then tolerance for other religions or for a biological bias such as gay or lesbian relationships will not be likely. Humanists certainly have the opportuniy to lead the way in tolerance of other religions. It is a difficult task at best when our liberties are being altered in favor of Christian religions. The issue of how Humanism can “reach out” to other people like other religions do has been raised more than once on this blog in the last few months. One way to start is to be able to explain some of the points of the Humanist Manifesto to those of other religions who may asks us about our beliefs.
Fundamentalists rest on answers. But Humanism does not claim to be a set of answers. Humanists are at ease with the ongoing existence of questions.
I say “at ease with,” not “satisfied with.” The Humanist is not seeking ease and satisfaction. The Humanist is on a journey, and chooses to find joy in that journey. Ongoing growth and discovery, not ease, is his desire.
Leonard Woolf says “The journey, not the destination, matters.” The passenger steamships on Matson Lines used to advertise “Getting there is half the fun.”
Fundamentalists are preoccupied with where they think they’re going. Humanists are people who find wonder and joy as well as sorrow not in the great by-and-by but here and now, in this life we are living.
Bob Dylan sings, “he not busy being born is busy dying.” Humanists are people who are busy being born moment by moment.
Fundamentalists talk of being born again, but are mostly into what St. Paul says: “I die daily.” Fundies live in a death cult clinging to hope of life; Humanists live in life with acceptance that death is a part of the process of life.
Fundamentalists have their eyes fixed on the Heavenly City they think lies ahead, as they make their Pilgrim’s Progress through this sad, sad world and its Slough of Despond. But Humanists don’t need any John Bunyan.
Humanists live like Chaucer’s Pilgrims, trading stories day by day as they travel. And Chaucer doesn’t even tell us whether or not his travelers ever get to Canterbury, their destination. Who cares? It’s a fascinating journey, and Humanists are too busy making the most of each day along the way to worry about what lies ahead, or if anything does.
Finally, Kent’s comment (above) closes with a reference to the Humanist Manifesto. I think Humanist Manifesto 3 is a fine document, and I find it astonishing that the AHA seems to make no use of it. Why isn’t the Humanist Manifesto published in every issue of THE HUMANIST? Why isn’t the Humanist Manifesto discussed on this blog? Do AHA’s regular bloggers ever even read the Humanist Manifesto?
Yes, I have read the Humanist Manifesto, as I’m sure all of our bloggers have.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I feel that the reason the HM3 may not be mentioned every five seconds on our Blog can be explained by what you have already stated in your comments: “But Humanism does not claim to be a set of answers.” I feel that can be applied to HM3 as well.
I don’t want to treat it like a Bible, where we have to reference it every time we speak of our ideology. That places HM3 in a rigid, almost dogmatic, form. HM3 is a guide to the Humanist philosophy, not a set of rules that all Humanists must abide by.
The Humanist Manifestos have always clearly repudiated any pretense of being dogmatic or creedal.
1973, HM2, Preface: “Those who sign Humanist Manifesto 2 disclaim that they are setting forth a binding credo; their individual views would be stated in widely varying ways. This statement is, however, reaching for vision in a time that needs direction. It is social analysis in an effort at consensus. New statements should be developed to supersede this, but for today it is our conviction that humanism offers an alternative that can serve present-day needs and guide humankind toward the future.”
Since there never has any claim of creedal status to the Manifestos, it is just flogging a dead horse to argue against a creedal status that has never existed.
It is correct to state that: “HM3 is a guide to the Humanist philosophy, not a set of rules that all Humanists must abide by.” It is also quite unnecessary and redundant for the reason stated above.
But why not let the Humanist Manifesto speak for itself? Here’s HM3 (2003):
“This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe.”
If today’s Humanists would read the Manifesto and refer to it when they claim to state what Humanism is, they would avoid mistakes such as identifying Humanism with atheism (under its weasely synonym “non-theism”). I don’t recall any identification with atheism in any of the Manifestos.
There are many statements of what Humanism is, aside from the Manifestos. There is IHEU’s Amsterdam Declaration and there is the Morains’ book “Humanism as the Next Step” and Julian Huxley’s “The Humanist Frame.” But these are NOT the Humanist Manifestos.
What sets the Manifesto apart is that it speaks officially and formally for the members of AHA who voted democratically to elect the AHA Board. That board, acting for the membership, makes the Manifesto its recognized statement of Humanism, and they have done so. The Humanist Manifesto is what Humanists say Humanism is.
It is folly for Humanists to neglect their Manifesto. Why isn’t it publicized with a quarter page display ad in the WASHINGTON POST? And the NEW YORK TIMES and TIME and THE ECONOMIST? Why isn’t there a distinct separate website dedicated not just to AHA etc. but to the Humanist Manifesto, with feedback and blogging and point-by-point discussion?