Are You a Humanist?

Roger Fritts

March 16, 1997

Cedar Lane Unitarian Universalist Church

Bethesda, Maryland

Clues to what might be meant by humanism can be found in two documents published in this century. Back in 1933, three Unitarian ministers working as a committee with two professors of religion prepared the first Humanist Manifesto. The Manifesto was their attempt to clearly to state the philosophical and religious principles of 20th-century American humanism. Thirty-four persons signed the document, more than half of whom were Unitarian clergy. The most famous person to sign the first Humanist Manifesto was the philosopher John Dewey.

Forty years later several Unitarian Universalist ministers met with others and drafted a second Humanist Manifesto. Published in 1973 it represented an attempt to make humanism relevant in the latter part of the 20th century. Philosophers, historians, scientists, authors and many Unitarian Universalist ministers signed this second Humanist Manifesto. Signers included the writer Isaac Asimov, the environmentalist Lester Brown; the poet John Ciardi, Francis Crick, one of the scientists who discovered DNA; Andre Sakharow, the Russian scientist; B. F. Skinner, the psychologist; Henry Nelson Wieman, the philosopher; Betty Friedan, the founder of the National Organization for Women; and Gunnar Myrdal of the University of Stockholm.

In spite of this impressive list of signers, increasingly at the end of the twentieth century, laypersons and clergy within Unitarian Universalism have criticized humanists. For example, afew months ago a layperson in a Unitarian Universalist church in the Midwest said to me, “The old humanists in our movement are dinosaurs. They are dying out. We who recognize the limits of reason and are more in touch with our spiritual side are replacing them.” She described older persons as ridged humanists, who are unable to appreciate the spiritual nature of life. She viewed younger Unitarian Universalists as more open to ideas about God and prayer.

This morning I want to give you a chance to look at humanism and make up your own mind. I will read to you short passages from the seventeen sections contained in the 1973 Humanist Manifesto. I want to give each of you the opportunity to vote on whether you agree with the Humanist Manifesto. After each vote I will offer my opinion.

Listen now as I read, and think about whether this statement is one with which you agree. I will call for a show of hands when I am finished.

First . . . we believe . . . that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so . . . We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of the survival and fulfillment of the human race.

All who agree with this statement please raise your hands. Opposed. Abstentions.

The writers of the Manifesto do not believe in God. I disagree. I believe that we are part of a process, part of something greater than the human race. I believe that we should feel in our bodies that there is a bigger existence to which our wishes and ambitions must submit. Because this first section in the Manifesto neglects to talk about this greater reality, I vote against it.

Second: Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from present concerns, from selfactualization, and from rectifying social injustices . . . There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body.

All who agree with this statement please raise your hands. Opposed. Abstentions.

Unlike the humanists, I am unwilling to completely deny the possibility of life after death. I have a reasonable trust that an element of self-consciousness may survive the death of our bodies. It is an issue that nature will resolve for us sometime in the future. Until then I remain openminded and I vote against this second section of the Manifesto.

Third: We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest . . . Happiness and the creative realization of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment, are continuous themes of humanism.

All who agree with this statement please raise your hands. Opposed. Abstentions.

I agree that moral values arise out of human experience. The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount make sense only if our experience of living has confirmed them. However, I worry about the belief that ethics stems only from human need and interest. I believe that we must have within ourselves a sense of awe and reverence for existence that will cause us to walk gently on this earth. We are part of a larger whole and we are ultimately responsible to that larger whole. So I vote against this third section of the Humanist Manifesto.

Fourth: Reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses. There is no substitute: neither faith nor passion suffices in itself . . . But reason must be tempered by humility since no group has a monopoly of wisdom or virtue.

All who agree with this statement please raise your hands. Opposed. Abstentions.

Although others often criticize religious liberals for being cold intellectuals, and call us God's frozen people, I am proud of our use of reason. Reason helps me stand on my own feet and it saves me from being easy prey for anyone who wants to control me. So I agree with section four of the Humanist Manifesto and vote for it.

Fifth: The preciousness and the dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value. Individuals should be encouraged to realize their own creative talents and desires. We reject all religious, ideological, or moral codes that denigrate the individual, suppress freedom, dull intellect, dehumanize personality.

All who agree with this statement please raise your hands. Opposed. Abstentions.

For me the moral worth, the absolute value and the essential dignity of each individual is fundamental to life. I celebrate the virtues of freedom and independence and so I vote for this fifth section of the Manifesto.

Sixth: In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religious and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized. . . . Short of harming others . . . , individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as they desire.

All who agree with this statement please raise your hands. Opposed. Abstentions.

I believe that nonviolent sexual behavior is a private activity. I believe individuals should be free to explore their sexual being without interference from the state. Although I strongly support marriage and families, I do not believe that I should impose this lifestyle on everyone. So I agree with section six and vote for it.

Seventh: To enhance freedom and dignity the individual must experience a full range of civil liberties in all societies. This includes freedom of speech and the press, political democracy, the legal right of opposition to governmental policies, fair judicial process, religious liberty, freedom of association, and artistic, scien tific, and cultural freedom. It also includes a recognition of an individual's right to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide.

All who agree with this statement please raise your hands. Opposed. Abstentions.

I believe in civil liberties and human rights, and I support the right to die with dignity. Although I personally do not see suicide as a solution to problems, I recognize that others have that option. I vote for section seven.

Eighth: We are committed to an open and democratic society. We must extend participatory democracy in its true sense to the economy, the school, the family, the work place, and voluntary associations. Decisionmaking must be decentral ized to include widespread involvement of people at all levels—social, political and economic.

All who agree with this statement please raise your hands. Opposed. Abstentions.

I am proud to be a part of a religious movement and a nation that tries to maintain the democratic process. So I vote for section eight.

Ninth: The separation of church and state and the separation of ideology and state are imperatives. The state should encourage maximum freedom for different moral, political, religious, and social values in society. It should not favor any particular religious bodies through the use of public monies, nor espouse a single ideology and function thereby as an instrument of propaganda or oppression,particularly against dissenters.

All who agree with this statement please raise your hands. Opposed. Abstentions.

On the one hand, I agree that we need to attempt to keep the government from controlling religion and to keep one religious group from dominating the government. On the other hand I believe that all religious groups have a right to lobby for programs and policies that they support. With these reservations I vote for section nine.

Tenth: Humane societies should evaluate economic systems not by rhetoric or ideology, but by whether or not they increase economic wellbeing for all individ uals and groups, minimize poverty and hardship, increase the sum of human satisfactions, and enhance the quality of life. Hence the door is open to alternative economic systems. We need to democratize the economy and judge it by its responsiveness to human needs, testing results in terms of the common good.

All who agree with this statement please raise your hands. Opposed. Abstentions.

The Humanist Manifesto is seeking to avoid this debate over ideologies and instead focus on the needs of people. I find that I am in overall agreement, so I vote for section ten.

Eleventh: The principle of moral equality must be furthered through elimination of all discrimination based upon race, religion, sex, age or national origin . . . Individuals should be encouraged to contribute to their own betterment. If unable, then society should provide means to satisfy their basic economic, health and cultural needs including, wherever resources make it possible, a minimum guaranteed annual income. We are concerned for the welfare of the aged, the infirm, the disadvantaged and also for the outcasts—the mentally retarded, abandoned or abused children, the handicapped, prisoners, and addicts—for allwho are neglected or ignored by society.

All who agree with this statement please raise your hands. Opposed. Abstentions.

I agree with it all and I vote for it. However, I remember that Jesus said it so much better: "Blessed be the poor; for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are they that hunger now for they shall be filled. Blessed are they that weep now; for they shall laugh." The mythology of the New Testament inspired the Salvation Army and Albert Schweitzer; the words of the eleventh section of the Humanist Manifesto are uninspiring in comparison. Real live flesh and blood people who give their lives to make this a better world speak to us in ways that abstractions do not.

Twelfth: We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world commu nity in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and world order based upon transnational federal government.

All who agree with this statement please raise your hands. Opposed. Abstentions.

I support the United Nations, and the idea of world peace through world law. However, I have a fear that we will place too much hope in world government. I believe world government can be helpful if it is kept simple. I favor the small-is-beautiful approach to world government. Big solutions not only often prolong and complicate the problems that we are trying solve, big solutions also often cause new problems. I vote for section twelve, with reservations.

Thirteenth: The world community must renounce the resort to violence and force as a method of solving international disputes. We believe in the peaceful adjudica tion of differences by international courts and by the development of the arts ofnegotiation and compromise. War is obsolete. So is the use of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. It is a planetary imperative to reduce the level of military expenditures and turn these savings to peaceful and peopleoriented uses.

All who agree with this statement please raise your hands. Opposed. Abstentions.

This past year congress added $11 billion to the Administration’s requested budget for military spending. Within this $11 billion, eighteen federal programs presently targeted for elimination or cuts, including Head Start, solar energy research, National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities and the Job Corps could be funded for the entire year with money left over. I vote for section thirteen.

Fourteenth: The world community must engage in cooperative planning concern ing the use of rapidly depleting resources . . . We must free our world from needless pollution and waste, responsibly guarding and creating wealth, both natural and human. Exploitation of natural resources, uncurbed by social con science must end.

All who agree with this statement please raise your hands. Opposed. Abstentions.

I believe we need to continue to develop a sense of balance, of proportion regarding our place on this planet. We must learn to live in harmony with the earth. I vote for section fourteen.

Fifteenth: The problems of economic growth and development can no longer be resolved by one nation alone; they are worldwide in scope. It is the moral obliga tion of the developed nations to provide—through an international authority that safeguards human rights—massive technical, agricultural, medical, and economic assistance, including birth control techniques, to the developing portions of the globe.

All who agree with this statement please raise your hands. Opposed. Abstentions.

I have difficulty with the word "massive" in this section. Recently, for example there was a drought in Peru and the United States gave massive amounts of grain to Peru to feed the hungry. Because of this aid, the price of wheat fell sharply in that country causing Peruvian grain farmers to switch from growing wheat to growing barley. Barley, of course, is used primarily to make beer. The result of "massive" United States aid was to make Peru dependent on the United States for wheat, but selfsufficient in beer. Being skeptical of massive aid, I vote against section fifteen.

Sixteenth: Technology is a vital key to human progress and development. We deplore any neoromantic effort to condemn indiscriminately all technology and science or to counsel retreat from its further extension and use for the good of humankind . . . Technology must, however, be carefully judged by the conse quences of its use; harmful and destructive changes should be avoided.

All who agree with this statement please raise your hands. Opposed. Abstentions.

I vote yes on section sixteen, although I am not confident that technology is a key to human progress. I am much more suspicious of technology than were the writers of the Manifesto. I must be one of the neoromantics to which they refer.

Seventeenth, and last: We must extend communication and transportation across frontiers. Travel restrictions must cease. The world must be open to diverse political, ideological, and moral viewpoints and to the development of a world wide system of television and radio for information and education.

All who agree with this statement please raise your hands. Opposed. Abstentions.

Being a neoromantic I love to travel, and so I wholeheartedly support an end to travel restric tions. I vote for section seventeen.

So am I a humanist? I strongly agree with most of the seventeen points. However, I part with this definition of humanism in one significant way. I have a notion of God that the Humanist Manifesto does not share. In the words of Rev. John Haynes Holmes, writing about the first Humanist Manifesto in 1933:

The Manifesto suggests that in some way, traditional or otherwise, there is a fundamental contradiction between humanism and theism. I deny this! I insist that they are complementary. From one point of view at least, I would describe humanism as the right road to theism. . . . You have traveled as far as the road can take you, and I am insisting on going on and losing myself in the unexplored landscape. What you are trying to say in your Manifesto, . . . is that the humanist road, as far as it goes, is the only road a sound thinker can travel. And I deny that you have any right to say that the road ends at the point where you stop your journey and that nothing lies beyond.

Am I a humanist? If to be a humanist is to trust in reason and human beings and to reject the existence of God, I am not a humanist. However, if to be a humanist is to trust in reason and human beings and to remain open to the possibility of the existence of God, then I am a human ist.

As for each of you, it is for you to decide. As I say when I welcome new members to this church: Here you are encouraged to trust your own authority, to compose your personal theology, and to work out your own system of ethics. Whether you consider yourself a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist, a pagan, a humanist or something else, I pledge to you our continuing support and caring as you grow in the direction dictated by your own best moral and intellectual sense. From each of you we will receive the contributions that you, as special and unique people, have tooffer.

Cedar Lane Unitarian Universalist Church
9601 Cedar Lane, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4099
Tel: 301-493-8300    Fax: 301-897-5713
e-mail: office@CedarLane.org
Sunday Services at 10 a.m.
© 1998-2008, Cedar Lane Unitarian Universalist Church
Webminister