Humanism – Secularism

January 1981
Lakeland

Humanism – Secularism

Humanism and secularism have been under vitriolic attack by varieties of the right-wing – religious fundamentalists and political conservatives, particularly. Humanism and secularism have been, and are, pejoratively condemned as responsible for many so-called ills and failures in our nation. Humanism and secularism are allegedly responsible for most everything bad – the decline of religion, the breakdown of the family, so-called sexual promiscuity, re-distribution of wealth, the abolition of patriotism, the creation of a one-world socialistic government, taking over the public schools by, as one right-wing outfit puts it, "sneaking humanism into the classroom."

Therefore I will review what humanism is and what secularism is. I am not neutral – I am a Humanist and thoroughly believe in a secular order in politics, economics, education.

[Editor's note: the following paragraph was crossed out - perhaps for a later presentation:

I am attempting objectivity in description but will conclude with a summary of my convictions that both the words humanism and secularism represent valuable goals and safeguards on the national scene – ? historically and currently, and are essential for the future of freedom and fairness.]

In looking at Humanism, it is imperative to recognize that Humanists have different attitudes on many specific issues. Humanists are not clones in ideology or religious statement any more than they are in appearance, occupation, or motivation.

Humanism is a word with different meanings. In the Renaissance, Humanism was the revival of classical Greek and Latin literature and culture. Dante, Petrarch, and others, sponsored by the wealthy patron families such as the Medici, prized the old manuscripts and sculpture and developed an emphasis on art and life in this world, as against the other-worldly spirit and goal of the medieval Church. A more favorable and exalted appraisal was made of the person and human spirit.

Rather than exploring various other definitions and applications of Humanism, I would like to discuss religious Humanism.

Two classical epigrams represent the most lucid, brief definitions (Today, they would be degenderized). In ancient Greece, Protagoras wrote, "man is the measure of all things." More than two thousand years later, the English poet, Alexander Pope, re-stated it, "the proper measure of mankind is man."

Humanism is the affirmation that the only sources of our knowledge are human inheritance and experience, and that human experience is the only standard available for gauging human conduct and ideals. The religious humanist believes that the world of human experience as persons know it is the product of human thought, human interaction between persons and between persons and the natural world – the product too of thought, emotion, intuition, imagination, learning, culture – human interpretations of human experience. The Humanist will usually consider the great religious ideas of Holy Scriptures, gods, prayer, miracle, immortality, not as supernaturally revealed incontestable propositions but as human expression, human conviction, and human appraisal acquired in the varieties of personal and group experience of the long march of humankind. Many of us would see no authentic evidence that a supernatural deity dictated the law of the Torah or composed the psalmists' songs, guided Shakespeare's pen, Michelangelo's chisel, Rembrandt's brush, Beethoven's musical notations, Einstein's mathematical equations, Martin Luther King's moral and spiritual courage, or the many humanitarian sacrificial efforts of humans for humankind.

Many Humanists decline to express a god concept, not because of a lack of spiritual values, but because they believe God to be a word carrying such a kaleidoscope of meaning, from quite primitive notions to intellectual abstractions, that undefined usage only increases intellectual confusion. Then, too, many Humanists (I am one) believe that the ultimate mysteries of creation and destiny are beyond the ability of human comprehension. I would hope many of us hold a proper humility face up against cosmic mystery.

In Erich Maria Remarque's fine novel, ARCH OF TRIUMPH, Ravic, the surgeon in Paris, who is a refugee from Hitler's Nazism, is accused by the nurse, "There is no longer anything sacred to Mr. Ravic."

He answers, "You hit the mark, Eugenie. But when there is no longer anything sacred to one, every thing again becomes more sacred in a more human way. One reveres the earthworm and that which forces it from time to time up to the light of day .... That's not meant to be a comparison."

Nurse Eugenie: "You can't insult me. You have no faith. Thank God, I have my faith."

Ravic responds, "Faith can easily make one fanatical. That's why all religions have cost so much blood. Tolerance is the daughter of doubt, Eugenie. That explains why you, with all your faith, are so much more aggressive toward me, than I, lost infidel, are to you."

Perhaps some has, or will, mention the Humanist Manifesto II. While I am not fond of the word "manifesto," it addresses itself not only to problems of religion and ethics, but "to the pressing issues of civil liberties, equality, democracy, the survival of humankind, world economic growth, population and ecological control, war and peace, the building of a world community." Not every Humanist, even the signers, agree with ever precise detail (I do not) but it is a humanitarian document deserving attention and discussion.

It is not more human to assert that religion is for people and to concur with Brutus (Julius Caesar, Act II, Sc. 1), "What need we any spur but our own best cause?"

Benjamin Franklin noted the impression made on him by George Whitefield, famous 18th century evangelist. When Franklin offered the evangelist accommodations, Whitefield said if Franklin made that offer for Christ's sake, he should not miss a reward. Franklin replied, "Don't let me be mistaken; it was not for Christ's sake, but for yours." Then Franklin noted in his autobiography: "One of our common acquaintances jocosely remarked, that, knowing it to be the custom of saints, when they received any favor, to shift the burden of the obligation off their own shoulders, and place it in heaven, I had contrived to fix it on earth." The humanistic spirit contrives to fix religion on earth.

Secularism is a good word and in its proper meaning is one of the foundation stones of the government of the United States. There are those who, through skillful use of the media, attempt to persuade listeners and readers that "secularism" is an evil corruption invading national education, politics, and morals. Nothing could be more opposite to the truth.

Secularism is the basic principle of Article I of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Congress for a redress of grievances."

Secularism, you see, is non-ecclesiastical civil government. A secular government is one free from ecclesiastical domination. As one encyclopedist puts it (Ferm), "[Secularism] in general, is that movement against the domination and control of human life by ecclesiastical bodies or by religious faith or dogma."

Thus my prepared answer is very simple to anyone who addresses me any loaded question about secularism: I believe in secular government because I believe in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. When I have filled out questionnaires through the years and there is a space for "religion" which I believe to be impertinent, I usually write "none of your business" or "Druid." As church historian Franklin Littell noted, "Secular government is the partner of religious freedom."

Secularism is the philosophy and practice which emancipates education, science, art, philosophy, and politics from religious control.

Furthermore, there is a key question: secularism as opposed to what? What's the alternative?

Priestly government? The history of the church from the 4th to the 16th centuries provides ample evidence that when ecclesiastics believe they have the truth, they will impose it ruthlessly. The slaughter of so-called heretics, the Inquisition, are but two of the sorry chapters in human history which ought to be convincing that secular government is the better way.

Church control of the state? The story of John Calvin's city-state of Geneva is ample reason never to go that way again. Calvin's execution of Servetus because Servetus raised question about the scriptural authority for the doctrine of the Trinity is a most vivid and tragic reminder that secular government is the better way.

The monarch of the kingdom who also controls religious organization/ The story of Henry VIII and his daughter, Queen Mary ... would not persuade anyone today that under that system citizens would have a fair deal. Henry VIII persecuted and executed Catholics; Mary persecuted and executed Protestants.

Our forbears were wise to build a secular government into the foundations of this republic. Religiously we are a pluralistic nation. Therefore, freedom of religion. It is astonishing to me that any citizen would want it any other way.

One thing more. I, for one, am constantly gratified by the diversity of religious opinion within our Unitarian Universalist movement. Although I identify myself as a Humanist, as do others, I would feel a large deficiency if there were not within our movement those who choose other identifications: theist, atheist, agnostic, pantheist, existentialist, Christian, Unitarian Universalist. All of us can learn from each one of us.

We not only come to differing conclusions as our minds and feelings sift through inter-personal relationships, but also when we are wise, we are aware that different ideas or non-ideas of God are not the formula for understanding humanhood. Conclusions are tentative, always; ... moulds available for re-shaping, refinement. Take the hyphenated word, "Free-thinker." In some circles, Free-thinker is a term of opprobrium, the label attached to one who does not accept old dogmas or old cliches just because they are old and accepted. Free-thinker combines two of the grandest qualities available for persons – free, thinker. When motivated by love for persons and for the human adventure, the limits of fellowship, freedom, and human dignity widen and deepen.

In conclusion, think on the words of Gilbert Murray, noted scholar of classical Greece: "As far as knowledge and conscious reason will go, we should follow resolutely their austere guidance. When they cease, as cease they must, we must use as best we can those fainter powers of apprehension and surmise and sensitiveness why which, after all, most high truth has been reaches as well as high art and poetry; carefully always really to seek for truth and not for our own emotional satisfaction, careful not to neglect the real needs of men and women through basing our lives on dreams; and remembering above all to walk gently in a world where the lights are dim and the very stars wander."

Appended:

Sharing

MLK Jr. would have been 52 [on] January 15th. Perhaps another year some of us can merge sensitivity and effort to properly commemorate the life of this unique man.

Courage is not unique; compassion is not unique; standing fast for the liberation of a disinherited minority is not unique; to maintain against pressure an unswerving opposition to violence is not unique; to catch the vision of world-peace and ceaselessly proclaim its possibility is not unique; to win a Nobel Peace Prize is not unique; to be killed by the assassin’s bullet is not unique.

But Martin Luther King embodied all these qualities of moral vision, brave persistence, never retreating, never apologizing, never turning back although he perceived what be the price – his life – that combination of virtues is unique. His like will not be seen soon, if ever.

Remember him.