The Luxembourgish Humanist Conference Reflection

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/31

Bob Reuter shared his reflections on the 2025 Humanists International General Assembly and the International Humanist Conference held in Luxembourg, highlighting a warm, collegial atmosphere and emotional moments, such as Mubarak Bala’s attendance. He praised the dynamic “inspiring practices” format and emphasized the importance of striking a balance between local and international contributions. Challenges such as funding for global collaboration and inclusion of diverse communities were discussed. Reuter advocated for practical humanist services, like non-religious weddings and funerals, to better reflect non-religious values. He also emphasized the importance of emotional connection, leadership accountability, and fostering solidarity, suggesting ideas such as humanist couchsurfing to strengthen community ties across borders.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are your main takeaways from the 2025 Humanists International General Assembly and the International  Humanist Conference you hosted in Luxembourg?

Bob Reuter: A feeling of bliss is the first thing that comes to mind. I found the entire weekend — from Friday to Sunday — to be exceptionally warm and friendly. It was truly remarkable to see so many people gathered together. Everything went well. Aside from a few minor hiccups, the event ran very smoothly.

Jacobsen: What kind of hiccups?

Reuter: Just a minor one — Andrew Copson did not receive a lunch that accommodated his dietary requirements. It was a minor oversight, likely unnoticed by most attendees, but it stood out to me. I try to be very attentive to the well-being of participants, especially those in key roles.

Jacobsen: Like Sideshow Bob stepping on a rake — it hits you in the face, even if you saw it coming. There is even a whole episode devoted to that gag. What were some highlights from the speakers? What stood out to you? What feedback did you hear from attendees?

Reuter: I will start with the first keynote speaker — someone I know personally. He was relieved that his talk went smoothly, that his English was clear enough, and that he stayed within the time limit. During the break, he received many thoughtful and friendly questions. As academics, we are used to conferences where questions sometimes aim to show off. However, the atmosphere here was much more collegial. Attendees asked questions out of genuine interest. It created a space focused on sharing ideas and learning, where people gained new perspectives on topics they may not have been familiar with before.

Regarding the sessions on “inspiring practices,” many attendees praised the format. Each speaker had ten minutes, which made the sessions feel dynamic and engaging. If one speaker was less engaging for you, it was only a short wait until the next — potentially more inspiring — presentation. This approach worked well because people’s interests are personal, and the short format helped sustain engagement across a wide range of topics.

Jacobsen: Would it be helpful to have a semi-academic format, such as poster presentations, where attendees could present their ideas in a less formal setting?

Reuter: Potentially, yes. At the 2023 World Humanist Congress in Copenhagen, for instance, a poster session was held. That event was larger, with parallel sessions on various themes. I attended one focused on humanist services, particularly in youth work. Those talks were significantly longer than ten minutes.

It was very appropriate for those presentations to be much longer because you want to dig deeply into an established practice. You want to learn how they do it, what their foundational principles are, and also what observed effects they have had.

It is tough to convey all of that in just ten minutes. Consider showing a video of an activity, such as a ceremony, youth camp, or similar event. Therefore, the ten-minute quick talks, followed by a roundtable, are not necessarily the ideal format.

However, if you only have one day, it is a good way to provide people with a wide range of input without making it too long or overwhelming. I remained alert and excited throughout the day. However, as an organizer, you have that adrenaline running through your system, wondering: will everything be okay? Will we stay on schedule? Will we make it to the restaurant? Will people like the food? Will the music work?

So, yes. For other participants, the day might have felt long because the amount of input was quite intense.

Jacobsen: Do you think humanist organizations, if they were to host a similar event in the future, and let us say they are mid-sized or even small but highly motivated to host, should leverage their specific strengths within the context of the conference?

Reuter: It’s always a good recommendation to lean on your strengths. However, it is challenging to pinpoint exactly what those strengths are, as they can vary significantly.

In my case, one of my strengths in this context was that about half of the presentations came from people based in Luxembourg. As a small country, we know everyone and have quick access to many interesting individuals. I could have invited even more people involved in public science communication because I know many in that field.

However, I also did not want the conference to be overly local. I wanted a balance between local contributors and international experiences. In other contexts, strengths could be entirely different.

In much larger countries, one of the strengths might be access to internationally well-known figures. In Luxembourg, we do not have many internationally famous personalities — that is a challenge.

When I look at what Humanists UK did during the pandemic with their online seminars, they featured some famous people — individuals you would recognize from television or prominent YouTube channels. They could host them and draw in a large audience simply because people wanted to hear from someone well-known.

That is something we struggle with in Luxembourg. Mainly, when catering to a more Luxembourgish audience, well, “No one is a prophet in their town,” to use that phrase. In Luxembourg, you often know the locally famous figures personally, and you are also aware of their shortcomings. So it is harder to place them on a pedestal.

Even though, as a humanist, I do not believe anyone should be put on a pedestal — we are all human and should be treated as such. Still, there is this effect where people who have achieved something gain attention and admiration. When someone is internationally famous, it is easier for the public to overlook their flaws or not even consider them. That distance creates a kind of allure.

Jacobsen: On that note, there was a massive boost to the humanist movement when it gained momentum alongside the New Atheist movement. However, that movement has fragmented and declined in terms of its core following.

What should humanists lean on now — whether it is around a personality or alignment with another movement — to maintain relevance or momentum on specific issues? How can we ensure that the humanist life stance remains responsive and relevant to the context?

Reuter: One thing I heard during the weekend event is that many people want to develop intercontinental collaborations and stay connected, doing things together across borders. We already have the European Forum within Humanists International, where we collaborate regularly.

We’ve had a lot of online meetings — that’s just how it unfolded. We recently had our first in-person meeting. I think it will be beneficial to have more of those in the future. These intracontinental meetings are feasible due to the ease and speed of travel nowadays.

However, especially when you want to collaborate and secure funding — particularly from sources other than our own organization or umbrella organization — that is where people tend to struggle. With Erasmus+, organizations in different countries can jointly submit a proposal, but it has to be organizations from European countries. I know the Romanians did that with colleagues from Malta and another country. You need at least three countries, and then it becomes viable. However, imagine you want to do something with an organization in Nigeria — there is no international funding scheme currently available to support that.

So yes, it is something people aspire to, but there are fundamental limitations. I do not have answers, I recognize the gap.

Jacobsen: The international case is tricky. For instance, the Norwegians do receive significant governmental or federal funding for identifying as a humanist organization and having a large membership. Additionally, a substantial portion of the public — whether tacitly or explicitly — identifies as humanist, making it a very welcoming environment for them at this point. Another issue, however, is that they cannot use that government funding internationally.

Reuter: They are not supposed to — exactly. The same applies to our Belgian colleagues. They do receive public funding, which is quite substantial compared to others, but it must be used within the country.

Jacobsen: One way to utilize those funds in an international context is to invite people — scholars, fellows, or organizers.

Reuter: Yes, that is a possibility. You can frame it as continuous professional development for young people, which it genuinely is.

Jacobsen: It benefits them, and they gain international European experience in a humanist context. That could be valuable. It does not require a significant amount of funding. For example, a buddy system could be helpful: their flight is paid for, but they stay with a colleague or a host family — someone from that country who is willing to support them. That would reduce costs if that is a concern.

Reuter: Yes, and that reminds me of an idea I heard in Glasgow a few years ago at another International Humanist Conference. It was the concept of staying over at a fellow humanist’s home.

The idea, proposed by someone at the time, was that religious communities already do this — they rely on mutual solidarity. You essentially trust someone you do not know personally.  You trust a stranger simply because you share the same religious faith, which is unusual, but that’s what people often do. There is a certain built-in credibility, or credit, that you are granted in advance. Only if you prove unworthy of that credit does it disappear.

So, humanist couchsurfing — I think that is a nice idea. Many of us travel internationally as humanists, often without funding from an organization or employer. So this kind of network could be a valuable initiative.

It could also be a great way to connect with people internationally and show that we are a community with a sense of solidarity.

Because having a network that offers reciprocal support — where being part of the community means not just giving but also receiving — is powerful.

Jacobsen: What were some moments that stood out for you during the conference?

Reuter: Honestly, the fact that Mubarak Bala was with us — that was incredibly emotional. We had been celebrating his release and donating money to support him, even though most of us had never met him. That kind of altruistic concern for another human being, based solely on shared values, was profoundly moving.

I remember thinking how lucky I am. I can be the president of an association of Humanists, Atheists and Agnostics in Luxembourg and speak out publicly without really fearing for my safety. I do not believe my life is in danger because of my humanist identity — at least, so far, I have not felt that way.

Meanwhile, in another country, just saying something that would be considered mundane here — like criticizing religion or the Prophet — can lead to imprisonment or worse. Perhaps that is because the religious communities in Europe have undergone a kind of moderation. I guess 200 years ago, saying such things here might have gotten you killed, too.

So yes, imagining that expressing your beliefs could be dangerous — it is almost unimaginable. And then hearing Mubarak speak, talking with him on Sunday evening after everything quieted down — that was powerful.

Listening to him describe what it felt like to be imprisoned, the uncertainty, not knowing if or when he would be released — it was chilling. And then, hearing how elements of his religious upbringing still linger with him, even in terms of how he feels he should dress, that struck me.

There are moments when he breaks free from that influence, and he questions: Why shouldn’t I dress how I like? I may enjoy dressing that way. Moreover, I can separate it from its religious or cultural significance and make it my own.

Another very emotional moment for me was when Leo spoke about Andrew’s achievements. I had not realized it was under Andrew’s leadership that Humanists International became a much more diverse organization.

To me, that diversity now feels natural. It is like — yes, this is how it should be. Moreover, to some extent, you could say, well, it is still not enough.

I have seen it from behind the scenes — the delegates from Uganda were not present because they did not receive their visas. Europe, and Luxembourg as part of the Schengen Area, did not allow them in.

They were not there. So, it is still not the safe and inclusive space that it should be. However, we have rules, regulations, and bylaws stating that people must run this association from different continents and regions of the world. That now seems natural — but apparently, it was not always the case. So yes, it is still a challenge. Moreover, we also struggle with diversity here in Luxembourg.

We do not have 50% women on our board, and we do not have 50% of our overall membership represented by women. Moreover, it is not because we do not want that — I am not entirely sure why that is the case. I think it is worth analyzing.

Also, in terms of our membership, we are not fully reaching or engaging with the internationally diverse population living in Luxembourg. Around 50% of people living in Luxembourg do not have a Luxembourgish passport. We fail to engage with some of them. Part of it may be due to prejudice — we may assume specific communities are more religious than they are. So we may think: “This will not interest them, because they are just religious — end of story.”

However, is that the case? Probably not. So then — why not try? In that sense, there is something to be learned from this international organization — lessons that can be applied to local organizations in highly diverse countries.

Jacobsen: A good observation is that, in many cases, when you look at religious populations within a given country — especially newer ones — they are often minority groups demographically. However, when those communities have been around for 20 or 30 years, a new generation has emerged.

That generation tends to be much less religious on average than their parents. They also tend to adopt many local cultural customs as part of adapting their belief systems. Moreover, about one-third of those kids tend to leave religion altogether.

Therefore, the self and identity are not static. Culture is fluid. Moreover, people are, too. It is not as though those things are fixed forever. Moreover, in terms of the gifting to Andrew, what did you think of the enormous number of gifts? At least three scarves, if I recall.

Reuter: Yes. I found it comical. It almost looked like a religious ritual. However, I took it as an opportunity to think: “No, this is just a human way of giving something from one’s culture or community to someone as a symbol.” It says, “We consider you one of us.”

If people associate that with religion or religious traditions, so be it. However, I think we are always in a space where we do things — and also observe and critique what we are doing — yet we do it anyway. Because, why not?

Jacobsen: It is also — I mean — we are not dry. You know? This is not a science conference. However, science plays a part in it. 

Reuter: Exactly, I appreciated the fact that humanism is also about emotions.

Jacobsen: That is a huge comfort, yes. I think many people see it as a way of looking at — or at least approaching — the world, not just intellectually. There is a great deal of comfort in it. I remember Leo; when he was speaking with Andrew, he used the word ‘longing‘.

He said he was “longing” for these moments — seeing people from all over the world come together. Moreover, I think that is a widespread sentiment. It is always there. This is one of my favourite times of the year — attending a big international humanist conference. What was your funniest moment?

Reuter: That is interesting. I do not know. I do not think the event was funny — I would not call it humourless — but there is no specific moment that stands out to me as the most amusing.

Jacobsen: I found the banter over dinner — just little things like that — hilarious—the random conversations. One of my funniest moments was actually with Mubarak. I did several interviews with him. Moreover, when we spoke, he said I was the last person (or among the very last) he talked to before the police took him.

We were doing an “Ask Mubarak” series for a now-defunct publication, Canadian Atheist. The session right before — the one I was about to send him — had a subtitle that included: How bad can it get? I attended the conference, but I couldn’t find our seating area.

I was unable to find the conference room at the time. I had been travelling, so I went to the bathroom. As I turned, I saw a man wearing a small hat — someone I recognized. Moreover, I said, “Are you Mubarak Bala?”

He said, “Yes.”

I said, “Hi, I am Scott.”

Then he said, “Oh… what?”

Then he told me, “Come with me.” 

He took me through the back entrance — through the red slider, where you would usually need the ticker tape or badge access. We went under and through, using the back route into the conference room. And so the first person I ran into at the conference was Mubarak Bala. Stuff like that — circumstantial happenstance, funny.

What else? We had a first for Humanists International this year. We had the first VP-P woman duo in the history of Humanists International.

That will be very fruitful and interesting, as you will gain a completely different approach and perspective on specific topics that may have been overlooked for a while. I am very excited to see how that develops over the next few years.

Reuter: Yes, true. Even though we should not expect too much from women in leadership to change the world just because they are women. The structure of the world is not necessarily conducive to change, particularly when it comes to dismantling patriarchy.

Jacobsen: A big help will be that the strengths of Ross and Maggie will come through. Maggie, in particular, is — I think — a quintessentially American phenomenon. She has much energy.

Reuter: That may be one moment I found funny. When she spoke before she was elected, I had the impression, “This is a politician speaking.”

And I mean that in a good way. She is very eloquent. She knows how to address a crowd. She knows how to engage both emotionally and intellectually. So, yes — I thought, “Wow”. 

But, in our community, we have an ambivalent relationship with the allure of power. Because, yes, like Karl Popper, the Austrian philosopher, we think we should give power to those who do not want it. Because  those who excel in leadership are often at risk of being seduced by the power that comes with it. I believe it is essential to have safeguards in place — mechanisms to ensure that the people we elect into power do not accumulate too much power.

This is precisely what we are seeing now in the United States — with someone who appears extremely egocentric, or even narcissistic, or however you might describe it. I am not trying to diagnose anyone from a distance — that is always dangerous — but from what I observe, they seem to love being in charge. They love using that power to their advantage.

There is now sufficient evidence to support this case. That is truly dangerous. Because people in leadership should care about others, that is how democracy should function. We should also be able to remove leaders — peacefully, through democratic means — without resorting to violence.

I mean, voting — one aspect that people often take as fundamental to democracy is the idea of majority rule. However, I do not think that is the most crucial part. What matters more to me is that we can remove our leaders without needing to kill them, because we can change our minds about who we want to lead us. 

And not just about the person, but also about the government’s ideas and the policies they promote. We can say, “Okay, we were wrong — let us change it.”

Jacobsen: Right, we do that quite well. It is not always easy, but we manage it better overall than many. I like the idea of elections as a “mini revolution.” You know — so we do not have to behead Marie Antoinette to move forward.

Reuter: Yes, true.

Jacobsen: What is next for the Luxembourgish Humanists?

Reuter: One thing we have been working on, in parallel to organizing conferences, is setting up humanist services, particularly through the European Humanist Services Network.

For instance, we have been working on the EU wedding standard and implementing it, including providing training. On Monday, just after the conference, we had a meeting with people from Flanders, Belgium, who will provide training for our celebrants. That way, we can get things going and offer practical humanist outreach by providing services to the broader community.

This can help us become known for something positive, rather than being known as the group that opposes religion and fights against religious privilege (which, of course, we will continue doing as long as it is necessary).

The next big area is developing services for humanist funerals. We have been working on a new brochure. In 2019, we published a small booklet on baby-naming or newborn welcoming ceremonies — how to conduct them in a humanist and non-religious manner, your rights, and the possibilities available.

It was not meant to be a recipe book but rather an encouragement to empower people to do something on their own, in their own way.

We are now attempting to create a similar publication, focusing on death and funerals. Because when you have a newborn or are planning a wedding, you typically have more time to prepare. There is no urgency. However, with funerals, it is different. Things must happen within days.

Moreover, we still see that many people default to contacting a priest and having a religious funeral, because that is what people know. It is still the standard offer. It is culturally familiar.

However, more than 50% of Luxembourg’s population identifies as non-religious. In that case, they should have access to funeral services that reflect their values — services that cater to their own needs and convictions.

Jacobsen: Thank you for your time. Have a good day.

Reuter: You are welcome. Bye.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.