[...] if we want to be taken seriously by Congress, says Secular Coalition for America lobbyist Lori Lipman Brown: You should have seen [...]

I’m going to try to always advance the notion that we are “atheists.” The use of word “nontheist” is jarring - very close to “non-person,” and of course “nothing.” “Atheist” is what our proud forebears carried forth in their admirable lives, atheists is who we are, and the minute you let quibbles about political maneuvering infect the very label of a “movement,” it will retreat into air. Unlike the neo-Buddhist Harris, unlike the religious humanists, unlike the pedantic worriers about others’ tremulousness, I would be happy to see the label of atheist be attached to my name. Look at the civil rights movement, look at the gay movement: what causes consternation in the minds of their oppressors about their labels, they own proudly. I am not a nontheist. I am against, but I am not nothing.

Lori has a job to do and she’s doing it well. Her work is in politics, where you get respect by having numbers.

However, I learned some lessons in the era of resisting the government’s attempt to prevent the people of Vietnam to achieve independence.

I saw many brave Americans stand alone against evil. They did not try to rally multitudes to back them up. They did not seek supporters or allies. They simply took a stand for principle at whatever cost.

There is one weapon of power which nobody can take away from you. That is your ability to withhold your consent from an oppressor. It may take courage. Humanists would do well to forget about pointless discussion of gods and focus on cultivating strong individual human beings.

My diploma from Stanford carries the signature of Julian Ripley. I saw the way this brave man used his body to defy the draft board. He cheerfully accepted thirty days in jail as the price he paid for standing firm. That’s not bad for a man in his seventies. He was strong and brave and acted on principle, ready to pay the price.

I learned about Henry David Thoreau and I met real life flesh-and-blood people who likewise defied the administration over taxes to maintain the war.

It brings to mind Martin Luther, who didn’t wait to try to get a lot of people on his side. He just took a stand, nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenberg Door and said “Here I stand; I can do no other.”

People like these change the world. They don’t need allies. They don’t need numbers. They have courage and commitment. That’s what Humanism needs most.

The question for Humanists is not “What do you say you stand for.” The real question is - “What have you done with your life to show what you stand for by your deeds.”

Comment by Martin White
2007-10-25 18:18:55

…. I’m going to try to always advance the notion that we are “atheists.” …

………………….

Ahem. Excuse me, Martin, but who is that “we”?

You have not been appointed to call all Humanists atheists. You have the right to be an atheist yourself and to enjoy equal rights with all other Americas and Humanists will defend that right.

But you do not have the right to call others atheists unless they give you their permission to call them atheists.

In my case, that permission is denied. I am a Humanist. You can call me a Humanist any time. And this is a Humanist blog, maintained by the AHA. And the AHA is not an atheist organization, it is a Humanist organization.

Any Humanist who chooses to say “I am an atheist” is free to do so. Unless that person does so, kindly refrain from putting words in the mouth of others or speaking as if YOUR identity is THEIR identity. Thank you.

Ah, Francis, you are correct. That “we” is a fictional, illusory “we,” so thanks for clearing that up - how could I be a “humanist” if I have to listen to such querulous, turf-defending nonsense? A blog should be a place where people bat around ideas, but it seems I have offended some “humanist” propriety on your part. You are a “humanist” and not an “atheist,” which is one hell of a trick. Since AHA is, by your - what, official? - definition, “not atheist,” well, then fine, I stand very corrected, and will fortwith resign from any and all financial and intellectual ties with AHA. I also am very gratified to read that all Americans believe in supporting equal rights, especially for atheists - just look at where our secular tax dollars go, and see how much religious indoctrination is embedded in our institutional lives, and then get back to me on that, Francis. As for Lori’s more considered response, you have the right to continue the fine work you do in whatever fashion you wish, but you are dancing over conundrums, one of which is that the prefix “non” is a non-starter.

It is not at all difficult to be a Humanist and to know exactly what that means. The identity of organized Humanism is no mystery; it has been well worked out and very adequately published over its lifetime of almost 80 years. All you have to do is to read the stuff.

Humanism’s roots are in religion, notably Unitarian religion. It is not and never has been theism or atheism. It is not and never has been anti-religious.

The three Manifestos (1933, 1973, 2003) are consensus statements which express what Humanism stands for at those dates. Humanism evolves and so its Manifestos are not intended to be creedal or permanent.

Anybody who wants to tweak Humanism in some particular direction such as toward atheism is free to try to influence the membership and Board but it is the entire AHA, not just a few members, who will decide what Humanism is.

The Manifestos are trademarked documents which officially represent the position of the American Humanist Association. There are many other Humanist organizations but the AHA is the original and the largest in America.

The International Humanist and Ethical Union was formed in 1952 under the leadership of Sir Julian Huxley. Anybody can read Huxley’s books and see Humanism as he envisioned it - not anti-religious but a new religion based on science and suited to the future.

For American Humanism, there is an excellent book “Humanism as the Next Step,” by the Morains, downloadable free from http://www.americanHumanist.org

Humanism is quite unlike the iconoclastic anti-religion position of some atheists. An excellent site for serious opposition to organized religion is http://www.FFRF.org, and I check it every day. But FFRF is not Humanist and does not pretend to be.

Some major elements within Humanism are religious, such as Ethical Culture (see http://www.NYSEC.org ) and Humanistic Judaism.

There are local Humanist groups identified as atheist in Sacramento, Flint MI, and Minneapolis. But there is a church in Naperville IL and a synagogue in Deerfield IL which are recognized Humanist bodies.

These diverse entities are able to work together as Humanists, and hopefully the atheists and others cooperate as members within the diverse family called Humanism and the religious groups too. What unites them all is their immersion in Humanism, and promoting Humanism and not just their own particular worldview.

There is plenty of room for atheism within Humanism, and indeed one very vigorously anti-religious Humanist, Harry Elmer Barnes, was one of Humanism’s founders. Barnes wrote “The Twilight of Christianity” in 1927. The Humanists gave him an award in 1961 and featured him on the cover of THE HUMANIST. But no atheist, or Barnes, was ever authorized to say his view represents all Humanism, or to say Humanism is atheism or that atheism is Humanism.

Humanism is now a well-established and clearly defined position. The IHEU coordinates Humanism on the worldwide scale and recommends that its identity be recognized with a capital “H”. And there is no need to add any adjective. Adding “secular” or “religious” is redundant and tends to weaken and diminish the impact of Humanism.

A final point. Martin is quite correct in saying that ‘the prefix “non” is a non-starter.’ Only a weak and failing position defines itself by denial of some other stronger position. Nobody respects a wannabee. “Non-theist” is a label for self-appointed losers because it implies acknowledgment that we are deviants from a default which is theism. Better to call Christians “non-Humanists” or “the unfree nonthinkers” as against “freethinkers.”

I agree with the sentiment that division over labels is not beneficial. As far as which label is preferred, I would liken it to other types of labels in life. For example, I am a father and a husband. Which one I use depends on the context that I am wishing to describe myself. I am also both an atheist and a Humanist. Which label I use depends on the situation in which I am using a label. In the context of Lori’s work, I have confidence that she will use the term that is most appropriate for a given situation.

On a related note, I used to worry about the day when these various movements might begin to fracture. It is not uncommon for groups to show signs of division as the group grows. I would take the fact that this is happening to the freethought (or choose whatever umbrella label you like) movement as a sign of growth. Now, the important task is for us to be able to work together despite differences of labels, approach, etc. Not only will working together in this manner be more effective, but it will be a shining example to the rest of the world of how people with differences can work together.

There is a saying “How good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.”

It is NOT a Humanist saying. It comes from the Psalms in the Bible.

Humanism, and the freethought movement, enjoys strength through diversity. We do NOT maintain “unity” as a goal.

A diverse population is flexible and alive and evolves. “Unity” too often implies subjugation of dissenting views to an orthodoxy imposed on all by a powerful component.

A movement of “unity” is often brittle. A movement with diversity survives. To be monolithic is NOT a good sign.

North Korea is a society of unity. Stalin’s USSR was a society of unity. The USA is a society of diversity almost to the point of chaos. Which of these do you think is most likely to endure for another fifty years?

The Bible does not teach the virtues of diversity. But the Humanist canon does. The Humanist movement, beginning with the 1933 Manifesto, shows that people can work together productively without sharing identical beliefs.

Too many Humanists of good intentions are still stuck in perceiving the world in terms of the toxic Christian thought that dominates our culture. When we get free from that handicap, Humanists can discover the liberation of placing our faith in diverse human ability to deal with human problems without dependence on any external rescuer. We need not imagine we need to unite in refuting the fallacies of others - such as the god-belief of ignorant fundies.

Let Humanists forget about silly irrelevancies like the existence or denial of it of the so-called God of the masses around us and the dinosaur theology of fundies whose thought is still mired in the Victorian era.

Let Humanists read the three Manifestos and comprehend what our mission is. When we do that, this century will be, as promised in HM2, the humanistic century.

“The Manifesto is a product of many minds. It was designed to represent a developing point of view, not a new creed. The individuals whose signatures appear, would, had they been been writing individual statements, have stated the propositions in differing terms.”

That’s the Preamble to the original Manifesto, 1933. That’s the spirit Humanism needs today. Diversity is our strength.

Francis, you sound like unity can only exist at the macro level. Cannot two groups (or people, for that matter) be unified on one goal and opposed on another? If so, isn’t that still qualified as diversity at the macro level?

Speaking in absolutes across the board sounds very much like the fundamentalists do. I would rather take the specifics of each given situation to determine my stance on each situation. In other words, to me it sounds just as bad to say that we should never be unified on any subject as to say that we should always be unified on every subject. Diversity allows us to find our own stance on any given subject, including this comment thread.

I do think your responses were quite considered, Francis, looking at them, so I regret my intemperate tone. Though I remain wholly unconvinced that humanism (small h) is not atheist, I will grant you your factual history of Humanism’s doctrinal integrity, and say that should be reason for Humanism’s minuscule appeal. Again, you have done me a service, so that I can say with conviction that I am not a Humanist, especially given humanity’s sorry record of societal organization, fatuous and lying record of elite governance, and sustained inability to communicate effectively with requisite self-criticism. Where does that leave me? Now a fully paid-up member of American Atheists.

Humanist Manifesto III(HMIII), Humanism and it’s Aspirations starts “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.” A lot of people define “without supernaturalism” as without God and a lot of people define without God as atheist. So a lot of AHA members are atheists, but not all. So I can agree with Francis that not all Humanist are Atheists although I tend to conflate the two.

I even at times conflate Agnostic and Atheist because I’m an agnostic, but I call myself an Atheist sometimes because I’m writing to a group who will understand Atheist easier than Agnostic or Humanist. I know that’s just laziness on my part. If the conversation continues I’ll explain my Agnosticism and Humanism, but I’ll start with Atheist just to get it out there and be done with it.

I’m curious what you consider Humanisms mission based on the three Manifestos. Is it as summed up in HMIII

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals

Or do you have a different understanding/vision of Humanisms mission? I’d love to hear it if you do. You have an interesting perspective that I think we gain from when you express yourself thoughtfully as you have been here.