29. HUMANISTS OF SEATTLE RESPOND (6/20/87)

Dear Art:
I want to sincerely apologize for the fact that it is likely that you will not see the enclosed letter until you arrive at the conference in Montreal. We very much regret that the timing has resulted in this probable outcome.

I presented your March 13th letter to HOS at the April 16th board meeting and received instructions from the board concerning our reply of April 17th. After our April board meeting, we received a copy of your March HC,AHA NEWS, as well as the April newsletter of the Humanist Community of San Jose. Both publications carried your article, "Humanists in Quandary About Religion." These were presented at our May 14th board meeting, where a long discussion resulted in the HOS board's unanimous decision to compose the enclosed letter to the national AHA board of directors. After composition, the board felt that the rough draft of this letter should be read, discussed and finalized at our June 18th board meeting before mailing.

To my knowledge, this is the first and only letter that HOS has written to the AHA national board. (There were two previous chapters of AHA in Seattle prior to 1979, and I have no knowledge of their communications with the AHA national board.)

Sadly, timing regarding the 1987 AHA Conference in Montreal (and the national board meeting which takes place there) was then such that we have barely made it "under the wire" with the enclosed letter expressing our concerns. We hope that this communication reaches you before you leave for the conference yourself.

Art, the HOS board feels strongly that this is an issue which must now be openly faced, discussed and dealt with by the AHA national board and that the outcome of this dialogue will be crucial to the future of our national association. It is obvious that you share this feeling.

Whatever the future holds, I feel I want to include here a message to you.

We do not doubt that you hold foremost the best interests of the Humanist movement. We do not doubt that your actions, sentiments and positions are vary carefully considered and worded. We know that you have devoted the better part of your life to the Humanist movement in the United States and to the AHA. We admire and respect your years of dedicated service to the Humanist principles which we all share.

We so sincerely hope that we may retain the bridges of our shared ideal instead of building walls between us.

s/Barbara F. Dority, President
On behalf of the Humanists of Seattle

Dear Mr. Doerr and AHA Board of Directors:
This letter is the product of months of introspection and escalating urgency of circumstances. It represents the unanimous convictions of the Board of Directors of the Humanists of Seattle (HOS).

As some of you are aware, HOS is experiencing a banner year. Most of the publicity we have received this year, which includes Op-Ed pieces, feature stories, etc. (and a phenomenal increase in membership), are the result of taking well-planned advantages of the media blitz about "Secular Humanism" since the recent court rulings in Tennessee and Alabama. This opportunity has greatly extended our influence in the freethought, activist community of the Northwest. HOS has also committed to the realization of a very ambitious goal -- we intend to open a Seattle Humanist Center by 1990. We are now convinced that this dream we have nourished for many years is a realistically attainable goal.

By overwhelming majority, HOS has always rejected any sort of "religious" label. Our strong stance in response to the above-mentioned court rulings is that we are the notorious "Secular Humanists" and that "Secular Humanism" is definitely NOT a religion.

We have found that our position entails two problems:

1. AHA's "religious" standing with the IRS: We understand the advantages of this classification, including the "ministerial" standing of Humanist Counselors, AHA. However, we strongly urge you to consider the overwhelming disadvantages, especially in light of current legal and political events. We feel it is imperative that action be taken as soon as possible to change this classification.

First, however, we wish to make clear that no one applying for membership in HOS who calls him/herself a "religious Humanist" is ever denied full membership and rights. We are certainly not advocating that this policy be altered in any way by HOS or AHA.

We are aware that some religions have no central god-concept, and that the term "religion" has a dictionary definition which requires no god-referent. That this is true is insufficient reason to declare the non-theistic philosophy of Humanism and/or Secular Humanism a "religion." Even without a central god-concept, "religions" still include a corpus of doctrine, which we consider inimical to Secular Humanism, and open-minded and evolving philosophy characterized by a spirit of free inquiry, wherever that inquiry may lead.

We believe that calling Humanism and Secular Humanism "religions" creates boundless confusion in the public mind, a mind which, in the Western world, does not realize that "religions" even exist without god-referents. In an effort to be clear to the press and to the public, we vastly prefer terms which are not misleading, such as "life philosophy, moral outlook, world-view, nontheist attitude or stance." We have even been known to freely use terms like "agnostic" and "atheist" with impunity. These terms accurately reflect the views and convictions of an overwhelming majority of the members of HOS, who cannot in conscience identify in any way with "religion" or define their philosophy as such. HOS feels strongly that the time has come for AHA, its Division of Humanist Counseling, and other affiliate bodies and chapters to assert that we have a right as citizens to conduct marriages, funerals and other rites with full protection and authority of law without being required to define ourselves by the term, "religious," the very requirement of which is, in and of itself, an establishment of religion, in violation of the First Amendment and Article 6, Section 3 of the United States Constitution.

2. We are astonished to find ourselves and our position under attack from Art Jackson, Executive Director of the AHA Division of Humanist Counseling. We have received both direct communication from Jackson as well as more detailed diatribes against our position written and published by Jackson in both the HC,AHA NEWS and the newsletter of the Humanists of San Jose (both of which he edits).

It is our understanding that AHA chapters are autonomous in their internal affairs, free to do their own public relation, conduct press conferences and in general reflect the views of their own members, limited only by the requirement that they conform to the AHA Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. It not our understanding that we are required to state that we are, even in part, "religious," or a "religious organization." Thus, we have felt free to define ourselves as a secular organization. (And, Judge Brevard Hand notwithstanding, no dictionary in the world defines "secular" to mean "religious.")

Please correct us if we are mistaken in these understandings, upon which we have based our actions: the Division of Humanist Counseling, its TROIKA, Executive Council or Executive Director have no authority to dictate definitions to us or to any other humanist chapter or body. NOR do they have any authority to judge, criticize, interfere, dictate, arrogate authority or condemn the views of chartered chapters of AHA.

Jackson writes the following to HOS: "The persons who say that Humanism is not a religion are at best misguided. Their hearts may be in the right place, but their brains and behavior are working for a limited, emasculated Humanism."

Heretofore, we have lived quietly and tolerantly with the "religious" pronouncements of many of these Humanists whom we had considered our friends. Apparently, our cordial reply to Jackson's letter only served to fan the flames of his ire. It would seem from his article "Humanists In Quandary About Religion" in the March, 1987 HC,AHA NEWS that because we did not immediately see the error of our thinking and the total righteousness of his, he could not imagine what "motivated" us except "ignorance." "However," he continues, "ignorance can be overcome with information, but some of these individuals appear not to be able to benefit from information."

In this article (printed also in the HCSJ newsletter), Jackson says "an effort is being made to push for the idea that it is not alright for another AHA member to consider Humanism their religion," and "Those of us who have felt that there is room in AHA for all points of view on the matter must re-examine this assumption. Can AHA remain an umbrella organization for person s holding varying views on Humanism?"

HOS has never said nor implied that "it is not alright for another AHA member to consider Humanism their religion." In fact, we stated clearly in our reply to Jackson that, "We are aware that everyone in AHA does not take this [secular] position. The only rational method we have found to cope effectively with this diversity is for chapters to deal autonomously with these complex issues according to the collective ideas of their membership." We apologized for any unintentional offense we might have caused him to feel. We stated that we would "be even more careful in the future to speak clearly for HOS and to use qualifying terms like 'some' and 'most.'"

Clearly, it is Jackson who is engaging in alarmingly divisive and intolerant rhetoric, not only to us but in two Humanist publications which he edits as well. It is this aspect which has caused the HOS board to refrain from replying in like fashion and to agonize over this letter to you, the AHA National Board.

Jackson maintains that "the Fundamentalists who point out...and the judges who rule that Humanism is a religion are friends of Humanism and right on target." We disagree with this analysis. Indeed, we regard these opinions as specious, destructive, opportunistic and vastly misleading to the public.

Jackson further states that "Religion is a legal term. It has nothing to do with God per se." These assertions are indeed remarkable, since every dictionary we have ever seen clearly equates "religion" to belief in a supernatural being in definition number one. As for "religion" being "a legal term," not only is the word not even listed in Black's Law Dictionary, but no court has authority to define the tenets of a "religion."

Finally, and most disturbing to us, are Jackson's statements in his article (printed in both previously-mentioned Humanist publications) which directly impugn Humanists who experienced strict religious teachings as children. It is a grievous and completely unnecessary insult to impugn the personalities of chapter leaders anywhere by such ad hominem remarks as suggesting that they suffer from "early childhood experiences" and the "results of trauma" in their refusal to call their Humanism a "religion."

Several of us, having organized and presented the April 3rd program covered by the Seattle Times and titled "Fundamentalism: A Social and Psychological Disease," are extremely hurt by Art's use of such unethical tactics. We have always held great affection for Art and do not understand why he would attack us in such a hurtful and disrespectful fashion.

In closing, we would like to reassure him, and any other individuals so concerned abut our mental heath, that a survey taken at a recent meeting of the Board of Directors showed conclusively that all leaders of HOS had enjoyed excellent early potty-training.

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns, suggestions and requests, as well as for your service to AHA and the Humanist philosophy.

In Humanism,
s/Barbara F. Dority, President
on behalf of the Board of Directors, Humanists of Seattle

Dear Barbara,
I appreciate the concern and cooperative spirit expressed in your cover letter for the board of Humanists of Seattle letter of 20 June 1987 to Edd Doerr and the AHA Board. I would like to believe that if we were in the same geographical area that we could work together in a chapter to put into practice the principles of Humanism. That we could share mutual concerns over a beer following a hard day promoting Humanism and after many such discussions come to a meeting of the minds. To me that is what Humanism is really about -- sharing ideas with thoughtful people and working through differences of opinion through in-depth sharing and exploration.

I suppose it will come as no surprise that the Board's letter was less thrilling. Since all human beings have more errors in their thinking than truth, it is not to me such a great problem when I find that I have made a mistake, or someone else has. However, communication through the written word is at best very difficult. Just as the best way to carry on a romance is through the mail, since it allows maximum use of our human abilities to embellish and fantasize, so it is the worst way to carry on a disagreement for the same reason. We take words the worst way and ascribe the worst motives to our opponent. Of course that is much easier to do than fairly looking at the issues. The Board letter is a prime example of this truth. They responded to my rhetoric with their rhetoric. Needless to say the discussion of the issue has not been advanced in the process.

I of course was not a totally innocent participant in the process. I have a weakness for getting carried away with my arguments and forgetting that persons build barriers when they are threatened. They do not move toward mutual respect and understanding. Perhaps, I can benefit from your reactions and keep that point better in focus in the future.

However, I would like to share some reactions to your letter. First, you are mistaken in your opinion that I share the HOS Board's strong feeling that the religion of Humanism is an issue which must now be openly faced, discussed and dealt with by the AHA national board..." Actually, all of my efforts have been focused in just the opposite direction. I feel that this issue is a "make-believe" problem, that it arises totally out of misunderstandings. However, because of the nature of the issue it almost certainly will destroy AHA as a relevant organization if the Board is forced to deal with it. I had hoped that I could be a constructive force in preventing that split. I am more pessimistic now than ever before that my efforts have been helpful and that my cause can succeed.

AHA has too many good Humanists like the ones in Seattle who come to Humanism straight from destructive, painful experiences in other religions. Too many of these persons see me as the enemy and a force to be opposed and overcome. I need the support and affection of those I work with. I cannot function in an arena of distrust and hostility. I see little likelihood that we can move from the current situation to an acceptable one in the near future.

I do not feel it would be helpful at this time to respond to the charges leveled against me by your Board. I hope your own best selves will take care of that. However, I would like to respond to one point.

I was not in any way making light of persons whose early indoctrination in Christian homes caused them grievous suffering. I was only attempting to state the obvious. Childhood trauma does effect us as adults. Those of us who suffered from religious indoctrination do not eagerly rush into new "religious" experiences and organizations. On this I empathize with you and the other leaders in the Seattle group. When I first got involved in AHA I was a militant atheist and probably would have reacted exactly the way you have if some ass-hole from out of town would have disagreed with my cherished beliefs about what I thought humanism was. I wish you continued growth and success in Seattle. I hope that AHA will remain a home for persons with different perspectives on Humanism.

(Keynote address at the Freethinkers/Humanist Convention, 8/7/48, Chicago, IL)

I shall speak humbly of the failures of the Freethought movement and shall attempt to point out the road to success which we have missed for a hundred years or more.

The fundamental mistake causing the freethinker's failures over the years has been their continual harping on what they do not believe, instead of those things in which they do believe. No sound institution was ever built on a negation, nor ever will be. It's what we stand for that counts. That's our religion.

The free thinker also has confused the hodge-podge of supernaturalism and mythological fantasy which falsely passes for religion in the orthodox churches with real religion. They have been unable to differentiate between the counterfeit and the genuine. The very word "religion" has made them snort fire, thereby exhibiting the very emotionalism they profess to scorn, instead of displaying the reason and logic upon which they have always so loudly prided themselves.

Real religion is something entirely different. It is a pattern for living that gives meaning and purpose to life. It has nothing to do with the gods, the saviors, the salvations, the hereafters, which crafty people, seeking power over others, have built around it. Moses attempted to spell it out for his generation in the decalogue -- the ten commandments. Jesus reduced it to two. Although I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, in my own philosophy, I have reduced it to one. Here it is: "Put into all your human relationships a little more than you expect to take out."

Real religion is as indestructible as energy itself, and yet freethinkers, in their confusion, have rashly set out to do the impossible: to destroy it utterly. That is why the freethought movement in general has failed. It has been based on a denial not an affirmation. No movement so based can possibly win the loyalty and support of the mass of our people because it is not intellectually respectable.

Gandhi voiced a great truth when he said, "Religion is not something to be believed but to be lived." The millions of India hung on his words.

In sharp contrast, consider our freethinkers. They have gone forth primarily concerned with smashing the cherished idols of the centuries without offering much in their place except hatred of all things with which these idols have been associated. Few have flocked to the freethinking standard. Even the increasing millions who have deserted the orthodox churches have looked upon freethinkers with a mild curiosity, not unmixed with contempt.

Because of this situation the freethinker deserves little credit for the fact that today the devotees of supernaturalism and mythological fantasy are a dwindling minority -- now only 6 out of 14 of our population.

The 86 millions or more of us, who have walked out on various counterfeit religions, have done so not because of the activities of freethought organizations -- far from it. This exodus has come about for the most part through the general enlargement of our mental horizons. This enlargement is the result of the application of the modern scientific method to the study of humanity and the cosmos, and to the expanding literature thus made available on human beings and their place in the cosmos.

This wider vision has found medieval concepts out of keeping with modern understanding of the realities of our world. Most important of all, it has enabled us to remove from the hands of the orthodox church her ancient and once all-powerful club of fear.

I have not painted this word picture of freethinkers' failure in any spirit of carping criticism. I merely wish to bring all of us face-to-face with the realities which confront us.

It is quite understandable, psychologically, that we should have had this period of idol-breaking. It is a common reaction for human beings to attempt to destroy the person or thing which has betrayed them. This the orthodox church most certainly has done, but we do not always have to continue as destroyers. It is time to build. We also have some excuse in the fact that this freedom of the mind which we have achieved is so new a thing that we still hardly know what to do with it.

We have made many attempts during the last hundred years to acquire the techniques necessary to turn our freedom of thought to useful and constructive purposes, but so far with little success.

The freethought societies that have entered this convention, inspired by a commendable unity of purpose, have before them a priceless opportunity to retrieve our past mistakes.

We must formulate a constructive program which will appeal to that tremendous reservoir of potential power, the 86 million or more Americans who have repudiated the Christian church but up until now have ignored us.

We cannot hope to influence medieval religionists by figuratively spitting on their altars or questioning their intelligence. It can be done only by offering them something better without antagonizing them.

We should of course continue to fight to the last ditch their hierarchy's power politics and scheming to control our society.

I disbelieve all the things you do not believe. I abhor all the things you abhor. Since boyhood I've been a freethinker, and although I shrink from labels, I could be classed as a Humanist. But what I am primarily concerned with is escape from the futility and frustration of what has been, generally speaking, an ill-directed movement for human betterment. Return to the field of constructive action can come only from co-operation in a spirit of give and take, in compromise.

After all, the sum total of human knowledge, actual and potential, is so great that one must recognize that no one human mind is capable of encompassing any but a small fraction of it all. We, therefore, must consider the other person's viewpoint with respect when we attempt in a spirit of good will to resolve our varying ideas into a constructive program upon which we can all agree.

The period of idol-breaking is over. The site upon which we must build is littered with the pieces. Let's clear the site, and build. But mark you, first we must organize. Let's organize our freedom and put it to work for human betterment.

There, ladies and gentlemen of the Convention, is my keynote. I hope your response will be in harmony.2

Most Humanists become humanists through their individual effort. They were raised in some religious tradition which for whatever reason did not fit for them. As a result they set out to develop their own life stance/world view which would make sense of the world as they understand it. Their position builds upon the discoveries and methods of science and the other factors that have produced the modern world. Their world view takes into account history (including the history of the various religious traditions of the world). It includes a conviction that human beings are important. And it includes the idea that if there are supernatural forces in the world, these forces/entitites cannot be isolated from the subjective functioning of the individual human mind.

Because of the path these Humanists follow they become very aware of the errors, shortcomings, and limitations of traditional religions, particularly the one they were raised in. They see that church leaders frequently succumb to the aphrodisiac of power and the followers, metaphorically speaking, consist of the dumb, the blind, and the lame. Sometimes, when these Humanists have been traumatized by fundamentalists and other purveyors of ignorance, superstition, bigotry, and self-righteousness they see humanism as a weapon to fight back against these relentless attacks. Humanism for them becomes a club to beat "the enemy" rather than a light to lead themselves and others out of the darkness. Because AHA Humanists made several strategic errors when they organized they have promoted this pattern. Since AHA provides no guidance or aid on this issue the individual member can get distracted from the opportunity to make critical insights.

It becomes very difficult for them to appreciate what is central about religion (although it appears that many anthropologist also do not realize this fact): Religion provides the institutions that bind a society together -- shared myths, shared values, shared habits, shared customs, shared ways of seeing the world. It provides inspiration, a sense of identity and the vision that gives life meaning. This is the core of religion. The dogma, rituals, etc. are mearly the specific manisfestations of a particular culture's way of performing this fundamental function.

When one does not accept a particular culture's outward expressions of this binding effort it is easy to not realize religion's important role in society. However, without this binding force, no society can endure. It is my belief that it is loss of this binding force that has been an important factor causing disintegration of past societies and civilizations.

Therefore, for me it seems critically important that Humansts realize that the world's most vital need is not a group to show people the errors of traditional religions. Every group of atheists, freethinkers, and rationalists are performing that function. What is needed is a group to provide the binding element in a way consistent with a modern understanding of the universe and able to grow as knowledge grows. Humanism then becomes a light, a light to show us all the best kind of life possible.

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