Humanists International Policy Chronology 1: “Humanism and secularism”
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Medium (Personal)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/06/23
Both humanism and secularism have in common the pursuit, for all people, of ways in which they can live peacefully together, irrespective of ethnic or social origin, religious or philosophical opinions:
- By respecting the [in]alienable dignity of each human being;
- By creating, for all, the ways to attain the basic rights, such as freedom of thought and opinion, freedom of association and movement….the right to health care, to peace, to education….
Humanists know that their message still has not been sufficiently heard and that it is often distorted. They should therefore unite their efforts around a few essential principles:
- Freedom of conscience constitutes the key to other freedoms;
- Beliefs, religious or not, should neither be obligatory nor prohibited and should never stop people from respecting others who do not share them;
- A common code based on respect, meeting, and discussion will become vital in societies where the differences of lifestyle and opinion will be more marked. The only alternative to ethnic hatred and to confrontation between communities must be one based on social and economical justice, on humanism and secularism.
With a view to such a future, we must search together in every nation, according to its history and its culture, for the best solutions. Above all we must build justice, democracy and solidarity everywhere through the citizenship of everyone.
The humanists of IHEU have committed themselves to the pursuit of these common objectives in all of the countries where they live and work.
Board 1993 [sic]
‘Humanism and secularism’, Humanists International, Board of Directors, 1933
The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) was the original identiy of Humanists International.
The first policy was under the title “Humanism and secularism.” When we see the divides in much of the discourses of humanist communities around focus on the separation of government and religion, or something more, this has to do with modern sensibilities and the experimentation with newer concerns in relation to humanist values.
It also has to do with the degree to which secularism, as a stance, was foundational to Humanism forming in the contemporary period in the first place. Some want a re-emphasis on this original value. Others want an emphasis on newer, experimentral concerns more. That’s the rub happening in some humanist discourses now.
This first policy starts immediately and directly on the ‘common pursuit’ of Humanism and secularism. The basic idea is the integration of the concern for humanist values plus those with only secularism as their concern for peaceful coexistence. As this came after WWI and before WWII, it’s wild.
All the same stipulations of values as we see here today with freedom of thought, opinion, association, movement, and the like, are right there in the first formal policy of Humanists International. Even though, we make the same arguments today; we can acknowledge the inevitable here.
The difficulty of arguing for moral truisms is evident when religion is entirely dominant and when those without religious affiliation are ascendant. These values must be fought for continuously. If they do not come from on high, then they must be maintained from below.
Even when they are fought for then, we must realize further obvious items. Namely, the fact of “distortions” of the humanist message. Even now, the humanist ethos conveyed to a wider public may garner some margin of furtherance ofsupport. However, the range of distortions exist and must be gauged individually.
If you are making an argument for freedom of conscience, you could be seen as advocating a solipsistic ethic. In that, if moral consciences did not come from God, who are you to claim that you have a freedom of conscience? These will be misrepresentations of the style of them. Think about them beforehand and be prepared for them; you can calmly dismantle, respond, and educate in turn. Humanists who impress me in this regard are people like Carl Sagan or Babu Gogineni — calm, considered people.
The first policy reiterates the need for a non-coercion, essentially, in the development or adherence to some basic beliefs. This is valuable. Many religious traditions stipulate values too — implementation may be another deal altogether.
Dr. Sam Harris has divided some of the humanist communities around critiques in religion or position on free will, or an emphasis on Islam over other religions. Yet, a major point made during the height of the New Atheist movement is apparenlty uncontested: We have either conversation or violence.
Early contemporary humanists knew this. They stated a need for a “common code based on respect, meeting, and discussion.” The digital revolution was decades away. However, they did not mention physical meetings. The only world,as I have noted in some other writings for Jacobsen’s Jabberwocky, can provide a degree of freedom and community — a space — for humanists. It reduces possibilities for dogma because you’re confronted with other ways of being.
This first policy was all about democracy and justice through consideration of secularism, emphasizing democratic values. These common pursuits in 1933 are the common pursuits of humanists all over the world today.
[Ed. Unless, of course, the 1933 was an error for 1993 as a typo. The larger point still stands, though. Next policy statement!]
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.
In-Sight Publishing 