24. RESPONSE

Donnafred, if I have used words and ideas which make understanding and discussion less likely on the issue of Humanism as a religion, than I truly do owe an apology to anyone who has been diverted from the issue by my words. I strongly believe that it is okay for Humanists to disagree. However, my goal is to use our disagreements constructively and positively to advance our knowledge and understanding. If we disagree I think we should do it in a way consistent with our philosophy. If I have not, then I have failed in my Humanism.

Along this line, I think it is a mistake to think that Humanism has, will, or can suffer by being legally a religion. Rather, this provides us legal protection and options that we would not otherwise have.

If one has in mind Judge Brevard Hand's ruling, I suggest that we should not take him too seriously. There is no way the negative (book banning) aspect of his ruling can stand on appeal. If it were to, the public school system would be dead.

The core of Hand's ruling is as follows: "...the Supreme Court has declared that teaching religious tenets in such a way as to promote or encourage a religion violates the religion clauses [of the Constitution]. This prohibition is not implicated by mere coincidence of ideas with religious tenets. Rather, there must be a systematic, whether explicit or implicit, promotion of a belief system as a whole. The facts showed that the state of Alabama has on its state textbook list certain volumes that are being used by school systems in this state, which engage in such promotions." (From May 1987 newsletter, Humanists of Colorado, P.O. Box 24172, Denver, CO 80224-0172 from People for the American Way from The Washington Post, 7 March 1987.)

Only a paranoid or person with a hidden agenda could look at the facts and come to Hand's conclusion. None of the books banned by Hand are being used as the result of a systematic effort by a Humanist organization or collection of Humanists.

Hand, himself, has decided what the tenets of secular humanism are and then read past a hundred theistic tenets in each of his banned books to select out his, "tenets of secular humanism." Higher courts can no more sustain this ruling than they have his past crazy rulings.

As for your idea on the value of dictionaries, I agree that they are of prime value in clarifying the meanings of words. However, they can never be the final source when we are exploring ideas and issues. Certainly, it is an extreme error to think that because dictionaries fail to mention that religion is a legal term, this proves it is not. Humanist Counselors, AHA of the Division of Humanist Counseling can perform legal weddings only because Humanism is legally a religion. There are many other similar issues relative to this area.

However, as for your statement that your dictionaries demonstrate that Humanism is not a religion. I come to the exact opposite conclusion. To me, every one of your dictionaries makes it clear that Humanism is a religion. Although, they also say that some religions are based on God and the supernatural, they clearly indicate that this concept is not necessary to have a religion. And, that was my point.

The first definition says it most plainly, "loosely, any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or similar to such a system; as, humanism is a religion."

The second definition requires interpretation. It mentions Buddhism as a religion. Buddhism has no God and actually has a humanistic system of ethics. Also, item #7, "a point or matter of ethics or conscience..."

Your third reference includes Buddhism and Confucianism as religions. Neither of these systems uses the idea of God. Also, this definition specifically mentions atheism and agnosticism as religions. Obviously, these definitions make it clear that Humanism is a religion, too.

You misread my article if you think it called you ignorant. I said, "It is not clear exactly what motivates those individuals who oppose the idea of Humanism being a religion. Part of the issue is mere ignorance." (And, here I was using ignorance in the dictionary meaning, "lack of knowledge, or information." Obviously, this does not apply to you.

You have three dictionaries that define Humanism as a religion or at least define religion in such a way that it is clear that they include Humanism, and yet you say they do not! Something else is going on here.

You describe your motivations. The first is, "making the world a better place for humanity." That position I understand and admire. It is my prime motivation, also. In fact it is my only motivation. Everything else for me comes from this principle.

Your second motivation is, "separation of Church and State." That also seems a wise and Humanist goal. Most Humanists realize that separation of church and state work toward making the world a better place for everyone.

You say that what motivates you to oppose the idea that Humanism is a religion is your motivation of, "separation...of Humanism and Religion." But, that is circular. It doesn't tell us anything new. What is behind your motivation to separate Humanism and Religion? Please answer this question. I truly want to know.

I am sorry that two very important deadlines kept me from answering your letter of disagreement until now. I have taken these last two days to recover and to orient my thoughts toward Humanism... It is not that you "have used words and ideas which make understanding and discussion less likely on the issue of Humanism as a religion." It is that you used bigoted phrases like, "It is not clear what motivates these individuals exactly. Part of the issue is mere ignorance." and like, "They think God has something to do with religion." Which is as silly a statements as I have heard in a long time. Of course everyone knows -- who has studied religion or anthropology or been subjected to our predominantly Christian way of life -- that God and religion are inseparable in common usage.

I still believe that Humanism can and will and has suffered greatly for being called a religion. Have you ever tried to become disentangled from Christianity? I have. I know what it is. I was born into a totally Christian family, to as far back as William Bradford, a direct ancestor. And I know that, if you want freedom to do as your reasoning mind dictates, you stay away as far as you can get, from organized religion.

I think you need to read again your Humanist Manifesto II, especially the paragraph on religion. It is at no time used as a legal term. If Humanism would stick close to its Manifesto, I could be a very good Humanist. I am also an Atheist and take the American Atheist magazine. I am continually amazed at the achievements in the field of Separation of Church and State and of the goal of keeping prayer out of the schools etc., all accomplished by one very dedicated family of atheists without the doubtful help of any church or group of churches whose "Goals are the same as ours." Their goals are not the same as ours. Their ultimate goal is heaven: a state or place of eternal bliss where they will enjoy the company of their Maker and Master while we unbelievers spend eternity in hell. I know this to be true of every Christian I have talked with on the subject. Having heaven for a goal naturally dilutes one's dedication to any cause on earth.

In my mind Humanism is a philosophy, not a religion as in the universally accepted definition of that word. Religion can be used as a legal term, but that is not its primary usage and I am sure you know it as well as I do.

There is an active Humanist group in Phoenix. I have attended their Sunday morning breakfast meetings twice. My daughter went as my guest and has now become active in the group. However, the speaker I heard there was entangled in church business and urged our affiliation, as you have done. I am in a strange and frustrating situation: most of my good friends are avowed Christians. Some may be very silent, unavowed, Humanists or Atheists, but have not declared themselves to me in spite of my articles in the local paper. I am very well-known, liked and respected in this town. So I believe that there are not Humanists here...

I admire the straightforward fearlessness of the Atheists, their self sufficiency and I truly enjoy the Mark Twainish humor of the articles by Jon Murray. He apparently agrees with my son who says, "The only way one can get rid of Christianity is to laugh it out of existence."

Why cannot Humanism be a "non-profit, non-political, educational organization" as are the Atheists, and so have all the benefits that such organizations have. RELIGION is a dirty word, and I am afraid it always will be so, for it is connected in peoples' minds with all the Holy wars of history, the Crusades, the inquisition, the witch burnings, etc. What is wrong with the simple word Belief?

What one believes, with no connotations of God or Church! My belief is Humanism. Human beings and nature working together with the scientific approach toward a better world of peace and love. I still say DOWN WITH RELIGION.

I hope you agree that my mind has been free to see the various elements of the issue. Yours for a better Earth.

Dear Donnafred,
This is in response to your letter of 7/20/87. I appreciate your willingness to share your own personal pain and suffering from your Christian experiences. I can identify with what you are saying. I too was raised a Christian, though fortunately for me, it was not quite as oppressive as your up-bringing. Nevertheless, I suffered many years of confusion and distress as a result of being unable to accept Christianity, but not realizing there were other options. I have not meant in any of my remarks to make light of your experiences or any other person who has suffered from dogmatic religions.

However, I have put my pain and suffering behind me and now want to move on. For me the critical question is how to do that. I see Humanism as a vehicle for dramatically improving the quality of human life individually and collectively.

In response to your comments about religion as a legal term. The legal aspects of the term religion may not be its primary aspect when talking to the "individual on the street." However, when it comes to organizations and performance of legally proscribed activities it is the key meaning. I know, there are humanists who say this should not be the case, but I see no likelihood that this situation will change now or in the foreseeable future. I think, it would be a waste of our limited time, money, and energy to attempt to cause such a change.

Relative to the essence of religion. The things that all religions share and the thing that has traditionally given them special prerogatives in all societies is that they provide the binding force of their society and this is independent of the particular elements of their faith, dogma, or belief system. My hope is that Humanism can provide this kind of binding force to an enlightened society and thereby provide a critical service to today's confused and alienated persons.

To me Humanism is the best philosophy presently available to the human race because it is founded on reason, responsibility, love, democracy and the scientific method. It is subject to scientific examination and testing based on facts, empirical data and scientific disciplines. Modifications are made only when justified by competent study and reasonable analysis of pertinent facts, a religion, on the other hand, may or may not be subject to such stringent standards of review.

Aside from the legal status as a religion for tax purposes, the humanist philosophy can become a religion if and when it is devoutly incorporated into an individual's faith and belief systems. There is intellectual vulnerability in such an incorporation in that the person may allow his/her view to be controlled by a blind faith in the philosophy or, at the other extreme, tailor it to a personal flavor. Changes could then occur under stimulus from "revelation," peer pressure, emotional considerations, and theology, etc. Humanist philosophers would try to maintain a strict requirement for appropriate consensus among the scientific community. The religionist may, conversely, cling to a fondly perceived traditional view while the dynamic humanist philosopher helps to modify the philosophy in various ways and moves it onto an "improved" value system.

It may be a better policy for AHA, as an organization, to maintain its principles within the discipline of a scientific philosophy and allow each individual member the democratic freedom to characterize her/his own personal views as either religious or purely philosophical.

To be intellectually honest (and as a practical matter), it seems wise to keep our scientific (humanist) philosophy free from "religious" jargon which may embrace imprecise language and confusing definitions. The AHA should, as a matter of organizational policy, define its own philosophy as a scientific, naturalistic set of concepts, uncontaminated by beliefs outside its discipline.

The confusion about the meaning of humanism has even spilled over into some of the new English dictionaries which use the word "humanism" as an example for religion. Even lawyers, who should know better, quote footnotes from judge's comments for a tie between humanism and religion. These confusions and inaccurate definitions have been used by those who do not always wish us well.

In order to maintain a strong humanist philosophy as the guiding principles for the AHA organization and its adjacent and supporting agencies, I am prepared to resign as a Humanist Counselor, AHA. Another possible solution might be for religious humanists to resign from a philosophical movement with which they do not agree and consider a religious group that includes their particular bias or set of beliefs.

Dear Chas,
Thanks for your letter of 11 June. I am in general agreement with your characterization of Humanism though, I think, there has never been the kind of agreement of the experts your discussion implies. However, I have problems with your statements about philosophy and religion. It seems to me that a critical point to keep in mind is that Naturalistic Humanism is the same whether it is deemed to be a philosophy or a religion.

What does differ depending on whether we view Naturalistic Humanism as a philosophy or a religion is how we see our organization. Does AHA exist to provide a place for philosophers to discuss ideas and seek intellectual stimulation? Or, does AHA exist to put our philosophy into practice?

I myself do not see a conflict between these two goals. I would hope they could be pursued in the same organization. I think, it would be unfortunate if we pursue the path of fragmentation. We might divide AHA into two new organizations with secular Humanists in one and religious Humanists in the other.

Then we could divide each of these groups into other sub-groups based on other differences of opinion. We could continue this division until we get down to the individual person. Then, perhaps, we could make a further division to take care of people who have different ideas at different times.

However, long before this we will not have an organization. To have an organization requires several people who share some basic idea or ideas and who are willing to work together based on that agreement, without constantly focusing on their areas of disagreement.

I personally, believe in cooperation. However, I also believe in actualizing ideas. I hope that AHA can continue as an umbrella organization with room for a diversity of views. I look forward to working with you to achieve our common goals, making Naturalistic Humanism a force in the modern world.

If you would like to know more about this endeavor visit Science of Religion, or drop a line to