Skip to content

An Interview with Anton van Dyck — Secretary General of IHEYO

2022-12-10

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Humanist Voices)

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2017/09/01

This interview has been edited for clarity and readability.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen

So tell us about your background in humanism or ethical societies.

I think it all went quite naturally since both of my parents are non-religious and verbal in their political views. In Belgian education, we have a special subject. If you want to take religious studies like Catholicism and Protestantism, you can. But we also have a course specifically for freethinkers. As soon as you’re in elementary, you can take it. My dad was an educator like that. He did it for awhile. I was vaguely aware of the movement.

When I was abroad on an exchange programme in South Africa, I became aware that being an atheist — which not all humanists are, but most of them are — was not a common thing in many places. It was at that time that I started wondering about ethics, society and life stances. Once back in Belgium I decided, “I want to start studying and becoming politically active without picking a color.” A buddy of mine who was the leader of the Green party for the youth section told me to check out a group called Free Inquiry. “They’re a bit of a special organization”, he said. So one Monday night, I stopped by, went into a meeting, and never left. Now, five years down the line, I’m very active.

In terms of humanism itself, there are statements that are out from organization such as the American Humanist Association. Things such as the Humanist Manifesto. In that common thread, humanists will define it within their own framework. How do you define humanism or freethought yourself?

I had a pretty interesting conversation about that with the founder of the Church of Bacon.

[Laughing]

You might have heard of him, John Whiteside. We basically agreed the declarations for humanism weren’t very accessible because they are very precise and can be overly complex. After a brief discussion we decided to describe it in the following way: not being too much of a dick, but reserving the right to be somewhat of a dick when it’s necessary.

Have you heard of The Church of the SubGenius which had Reverend Ivan Stang? He was the co-founder for 30+ years. He retired. He had one principle: “fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke.” It sounds akin to that ‘reserve the right to be a dick some of the time.’

Yes, but at the same time we must be aware of what we’re doing and saying, which refers to the first part of that definition. We’re currently facing a huge problem on both sides of that spectrum. On the one hand we have Social Justice Warriors that fight for “intellectual safe spaces” and on the other hand we have a bunch of Trolls who push buttons to push buttons. Since ideas that aren’t allowed to be challenged downright scare me, I’d consider myself more on the side of the provocateurs. Unfortunately, the interaction between both sides today is often without any positive result and could even be considered intellectually impoverishing. Tolerance is both an active and a passive process. So in order for that debate to be fruitful, we need to find the balance between not being offended by everything and treating each other with a modicum of respect. And by “a modicum of respect” I mean phrasing, not censoring ourselves.

Comedy wouldn’t work without it — good comedy wouldn’t work without it. A good comedian knows exactly where the line is, crosses it deliberately, makes the audience laugh, and has them happy they crossed the line with them. I think somebody said that before me.

A State without comedians or where comedians have to be regulated is not a democratic state in any way.

Where everything starts with a glorious anthem song to the great leader before they do their comedy?

Yup, yup. According to Montesquieu you have the three state powers. Do you know this? The power to create law, the power to execute law and the power to enforce law. So you have judges, government, and parliament. But then, especially in modern western society, you have other very important powers such as the media, which plays an important role in a participating democracy. You also have the critics and the cynics. They all play the role of independent opposition, which you need to transcend partisan politics.

Those last two. They are the wild ones. The independent checks and balances that keep the other three in check.

Right, right, they are the independent judges in a way.

Yes, very much. Although more in the sense of administrative law: checking on good governance by holding politicians accountable to the principles of a transparent democracy.

With respect to IHEYO, what is your position? What are your tasks and responsibilities?

Right now, I am the Secretary-General. I do a bit of the administration and the executing work. When our president Marieke says, “I think it would be good to go in this direction,” I have to think of how it would be best to go about it. I think that’s the best way of putting it. I also do some of the secretarial work like write up the minutes, do some follow-up, send out some emails, and documents and all of that. It fits my personality.

What are you training for now, if anything?

I am finishing law school. So in Belgium we have a general forming bachelor, which is 3 years, then you have 2 years for specialization. I chose economic law, which is something very, very different from what people might think would be related to humanism. But for me, I have a strong fascination for how people unify themselves within organizations. You see the same thing in corporate law.

Big companies have legal entities. They structure themselves so they become effective organizations and that’s something I want to apply in my volunteering and, hopefully, professional career. I’ll see what comes my way. But it is definitely my intention to continue what I am doing on a volunteering basis, but more professionally.

What are ways for people to become involved in IHEYO, whether contacting on IHEYO, volunteering in some way, or writing?

Well, we have the platform, Medium, where we offer people a forum to put their ideas out there and to motivate them. That does come under the condition that they will get responses of people who have different opinions. By contributing to that, they are contributing to an international community of humanism, which we aspire to be. IHEYO has decided to focus more on providing the platforms for multi- and bi-lateral cooperation between all of the member organizations of IHEYO and IHEU.

We only have a few mandates, but there’s plenty of ways you can join. First, by looking up your local organization, and seeing what they’re all about. Maybe, if they don’t have any activities in international humanism, they can start them up, contact us about it, and we’ll help them partner up with other organizations and do projects to size. There are lots of possibilities. They can also join our working groups. We have one per region in the world (Americas, Africa, Asia and Europe) plus a comms group.

Recommended books? Or, if not books, authors?

I have a nice collection of books but my favourites are:

Heart of Darkness.

Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk. The movie is very good as well [Laughing].

Those two, there are other notable ones. Then there’s Long Walk to Freedom by Nelson Mandela. This one formed my view while in South Africa because it is Mandela, man. Another one is by Jonny Steinberg called The Number: One Man’s Search for Identity in the Cape Underworld and Prison Gangs. It’s about the number. You have a very strange tradition there in crime culture. They have three gangs: the 26s, the 27s, and the 28s who have their own strange form of religion, culture, and language. It has elements of the mafia, tribalism, the military… Very, very fascinating.

Last one, what is the strongest argument you have ever come across for atheism or humanism?

The strongest argument for humanism would be that the existence of god is irrelevant for the question on what we should do when we’re alive. We should care for each other and try to be good people because it’s the right and rational thing to do, not because we need to save up “goodness-points” so we can go to heaven.

If you want to be truly humanist, it doesn’t matter what comes after life. It matters what you do here and do now.

Thank you for your time, Anton.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: