No One Left to Argue With?
In the March issue of the Atlantic, Walter Russell Mead suggests that evangelicals in the U.S. are becoming more moderate as they mature into the mainstream, shedding their more strident tone as their influence grows in politics and society. One example of this, of course, is the move beyond the longstanding focus on gays and abortion, toward “creation care.” This past weekend, writing in the Washington Post (registration required), E.J. Dionne Jr. proclaims the death of the culture wars, not because one side or the other has finally emerged victorious. Instead, as we head to presidential elections this fall, voters simply have too much on their minds — for example, the liberation of Iraq, the state of the economy, the place America stands in the world—and don’t have the time to be worried about “values,” like they could in the past.
It’s too early to tell if this really is the trend both authors see it to be (just between reading this blog and the Humanist, it seems a case can be made that the religious right is not mellowing out that much). But if we grant the authors their assumptions, what does it mean for the humanist movement? Of course, on a philosophical level, humanism is so much more than just a reaction to religion. But when it comes to day-to-day activism in the public square, not only are we out there pushing our worldview forward, we’re doing all we can to push back against most everything the religious right is spewing out. What would happen if evangelicals continue proselytizing on an individual level, but no longer tried to impose their views on the rest of society through legislation? Or, what if they started promoting viewpoints that our movement could support?
Something the humanist movement has never openly and honestly articulated is the ideal role we envision religion playing in society. Do humanists only seek to reduce the influence of the religious right in the public square, ensuring a secular society where religion holds no particular sway? Or do we intend to continue to push, to try and root out religious thinking in society as a whole, and create a world full of humanists? Is the latter even possible? Can religious belief be tolerated in a humanist society, and should it be? Does making common cause with religious believers on shared issues of concern mean an end to the critique of the irrationality of a belief in a god?
This is an issue that we already face as we work with religious liberals on those issues of common concern. But our agreement on various issues are arrived at by very different means, and very different routes. If we truly are facing a trend of a religious right that is more moderate, or of a religious right that is simply less relevant, the question then becomes where does that leave us, and where do we go from there?
Subscribe to Feed
“Can religious belief be tolerated in a humanist society, and should it be?”
Wow. If humanists can’t tolerate religious belief then we have a lot more in common with religious fanatics than I would have thought. You see I thought the ideal society was one in which we are all free to search for meaning in our own way — where each way is respected. As we search for meaning, we will find that we share many values (if not assumptions) with people on different paths. We should celebrate where we can come together and work to promote common values.
If you’re waiting for a world where religious values are not important, you’ll go to your grave waiting. And if you want to encourage people on religious paths to respect your quest, you’ll find it a lot easier if you respect theirs as well.
I disagree vehemently with some of the values and many of the positions of the religious right but that doesn’t give me the right to disrespect their humanity.
“Do humanists only seek to reduce the influence of the religious right in the public square, ensuring a secular society where religion holds no particular sway?”
Yes!
“Or do we intend to continue to push, to try and root out religious thinking in society as a whole, and create a world full of humanists? Is the latter even possible?”
Push and try, yes. Succeed, no.
“Can religious belief be tolerated in a humanist society, and should it be?”
Yes, but it depends on the religion and the doctrine the believer is instructed to practice regarding non believers.
“Does making common cause with religious believers on shared issues of concern mean an end to the critique of the irrationality of a belief in a god?”
Uh, yeah!
“I disagree vehemently with some of the values and many of the positions of the religious right but that doesn’t give me the right to disrespect their humanity.”
BINGO MKB, BINGO! You have just swallowed the RED PILL!
BFBF
I think Humanism can embrace differing religious views provided those veiws concur with Humanist values.
Religions that call for the murder of anyone will not and should not be tolerated by Humanists.
Philosophical ideas like Zionism, where proponents of a particular religion claim to have exclusive knowledge of god’s (however they define he/she/it) will and desires and therefore place themselves and the religions adherents above non-belivers should not be tolerated.
Religions that use their god or beliefs to sanction violence, slavery, oppression by race or gender should also be challenged by Humanists at every turn.
I have yet to find a religion that does not have adherents who participate in at least some of the examples above.
As far as how we live together, well neither Humanism nor any religion deals adequately with that problem. I suggest that one look to libertarian political philosophy for that. If we agree that we can act in any manner we choose so long as we do not infringe on the rights of others then we would all get along just fine.
The battle is not about which world view or moral code is “correct” whether it be Humanism or a religion. The battle is over control of the government for the purpose of imposing one’s worldview on others. In this both religion and Humanism are guilty.
Libertarianism is the common ground should we choose to embrace it.
Anarchism is indeed the foundation of Humanism, as you can see by reading Bakunin, Stirner, Jefferson, etc.
Oh excuse me, you said “libertarianism.” Then O.K., that’s fine, libertarianism is just “anarchism lite,” and the “L” word doesn’t scare people like the “A” word does. Mention “A” and people conjure up images of mad wild-eyed bearded bomb-throwers. Mention “L” and they see clean-cut well-meaning suburban kids calling for lower taxes and holding Ron Paul signs.
But anarchism and Humanism spring from the same root: the affirmation of the inalienable right of the individual to control his own destiny.
Humanism differs from atheism in this: the atheist denies the existence of a god; the Humanist says - I just don’t care; even if a god were to exist, I would not bow to his alleged authority.
The anarchist and the Humanist alike know where ultimate authority lies. It is in the individual human being.
The Humanist does not bow, pray, beg, grovel, kneel or supplicate. The Humanist is a free individual. A model Humanist is Margaret Sanger, who published her newspaper with the title NO GODS, NO MASTERS.
The Humanist is neither master or owner of another but is master and owner of himself. He treats all human beings as his equal in dignity and rights.
The Humanist and the libertarian both recognize the state as possibly a useful servant but never a master. And both repudiate any claim of authority derived from sources outside humanity.
It seems to me that sufficiently educated citizens and our Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution (in the pre-Bushie, noneviscerated forms) are the best starting points for having a society that tolerates others but protects us from the fundamentalist loons now trying to take over everything.
Anyone who thinks that the evangelical right-wing is getting more moderate needs to get out more. And I need to move to their idyllic neighborhood. I am concerned about a society that thinks that the hatefulness of a Huckabee and a McCain is mainstream and appropriate behavior toward others.
I’ve never seen it as Humanism’s goal to root out religion. I believe that we are working towards a society that provides tolerance. That while respecting the rights of the majority also seeks to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
So we must work to respect others beliefs and work to see the commonalities that we all share. This doesn’t mean we can’t challenge people and hope to change their opinions and attitudes just as we should be open to having our attitudes and opinions change by conversation.
I think what is more difficult is balancing the needs of atheist groups we want to work with, with the needs of religious groups we would also like to work with. This is a very challenging place to be.
Jende says:
“Something the humanist movement has never openly and honestly articulated is the ideal role we envision religion playing in society. Do humanists only seek to reduce the influence of the religious right in the public square, ensuring a secular society where religion holds no particular sway? Or do we intend to continue to push, to try and root out religious thinking in society as a whole, and create a world full of humanists? Is the latter even possible? Can religious belief be tolerated in a humanist society, and should it be? Does making common cause with religious believers on shared issues of concern mean an end to the critique of the irrationality of a belief in a god?”
…..
*sigh* There are so many things wrong with this paragraph that it’s hard to know where to start. But O.K. then, I’ll try to take some points one by one.
First, “religion” does NOT mean “belief in a god.” Etymologically, it refers to a binding together. Who cares if the dumb fundies out there don’t know that. And any assumption that the wacko fundie fringe defines Christianity, or that Christianity defines religion, would be quite mistaken and downright naïve.
The Humanist movement (yes, that’s a CAPITAL “H,” Jende, as recommended by the IHEU) - most certainly HAS “openly and honestly articulated … the ideal role we envision religion playing in society.” Anybody who doesn’t know that should sit down with a copy of the three Humanist Manifestos, and also read Julian Huxley’s excellent essay “The Humanist Frame,” and some of the material of such seminal Humanist thinkers as John Dietrich, Edwin Wilson and Burdette Backus.
The Humanist mission is NOT to “root out religion,” whatever that would consist of even if it were possible.
Humanism has NEVER been out to destroy religions, or even necessarily to oppose them. The Humanists are to LEAD religious segments of society, not blindly oppose them but show them a better way and honoring them for things they are doing right and tweaking them in the direction of doing good things.
The Humanist influence on Christianity and Judaism since the Renaissance has been a civilizing influence. In his classic essay “The Prospect for Humanism,” Paul Beattie says:
” … the major world religions have enough humanistic tendencies … to enable their adherents to be receptive to an ever more explicit Humanism. This possibility has not been adequately appreciated by some Humanists. …
“The awareness that the traditional religions may eventually make common cause with Humanism is important because a new religious synthesis is never achieved instantaneously but is always a gathering together of insights and traditions which are reworked and then grafted upon already existing cultural traditions. … Just as the Greek ideals once hellenized the whole Mediterranean world, so Humanist ideals may ultimately transform the world….
“If Humanism can draw out and utilize the humanistic elements in most traditional religions, and if it can sympathetically interpret the beliefs and practices of historic religions, then it could bcome the worldwide religion of the future.”
The Humanists true to Humanism are NOT hostile to religion. As individals they may be anything they like but as Humanists they will express the sentiments of the Manifestos:
HM1: “But through all changes, religion itself remains constant in its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life.”
HM2: “We appreciate the need to preserve the best ethical teachings in the religious traditions of humankind, many of which we share in common.”
HM3: “Humanists are concerned for the well-being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views.”
Do these sound like ambitions to “root out” religion? I don’t think so, do you?