Kurtz has been the leading intellectual and organizational figure in the atheist/freethought/humanist movement for over 40 years. Throughout his long career Kurtz has sought to develop a positive alternative to the reigning theological orthodoxies of the day. While Kurtz has spent much of his life critically examining religion, he believes that secular humanists need to emphasize and build positive alternatives to religion. For Kurtz, it is not enough to reject God. He has always maintained that secular humanism and atheism are not identical. Throughout the years this put Kurtz at odds with atheist firebrand Madalyn Murray O’Hair. For many years both Kurtz and O’Hair were the leading foes of leaders of the religious right such as Pat Robinson, Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, David Noebel and others. Now with the emergence of “the new atheism” Kurtz finds himself in the uncomfortable position of being the elder statesman and founder of a movement tempted by tactics he has warned against before.

“I hope this statement will help reorient the humanist movement in a positive and constructive direction by emphasizing what we are for rather than against,” said Kurtz, who founded the Council for Secular Humanism in 1980 and the Center for Inquiry in 1991. He now serves as chair emeritus for both organizations.

Among the signers of this new statement, coming ten years after Humanist Manifesto 2000, are heavyweights Rebecca Goldstein, Colin McGinn, Steven Pinker, Lionel Tiger, Patricia Schroeder, Phillip Kitcher, Owen Flanagan, and Ann Druyan (the widow of Carl Sagan). Also included are movement insiders such as R Joseph Hoffmann, Joe Nickell, James Randi, DJ Grothe, Carleton Coon, Edd Doerr, Terry O’Neill, Dale McGowan, Anthony B. Pinn, along with many others.

Writing in the December 2009/January 2010 issue of Free Inquiry, the magazine he founded, Kurtz declared “militant atheism is often truncated and narrow-minded…it is not concerned with the humanist values that ought to accompany the rejection of theism. The New Atheists, in my view, have made an important contribution to the contemporary cultural scene because they have opened religious claims to public examination…What I object to are the militant atheists who are narrow-minded about religious persons and will have nothing to do with agnostics, skeptics, or those who are indifferent to religion, dismissing them as cowardly.”

“While I certainly don’t believe that we ought to abandon our criticism of religious fanaticism or allow religious doctrine to dictate public policy, the future of the secular humanist and scientific rationalist movements depends upon appealing to a wider base of support,” continued Kurtz. Some 16 percent of the American population is not affiliated with any church, temple, or mosque–approximately 50 million Americans–whereas only 2 to 3 percent are estimated to be out-and-out atheists. Hence, Neo-Humanism wishes to address its message to a broader public who we believe should be sympathetic.”

Kurtz says that his new manifesto advances a new form of humanism that is not antireligious per se, nor avowedly atheist. “There are various forms of religious and non-religious beliefs in the world. On the one end of the spectrum are traditional religious beliefs; on the other ‘the new atheism.’ Not enough attention is paid to humanism as an alternative,” declares the statement.

“This statement aims to be more inclusive by appealing to both non-religious and religious humanists and to moderate religious believers who share common goals. It seeks to foster moderation rather than divisiveness and to spark a genuine conversation about meaning and value and the common problems that confront us all as a nation and inhabitants of planet Earth,” added Kurtz.

The “Neo-Humanist Statement of Secular Values and Principles” is available online atwww.paulkurtz.us.

Article Unattributed in the Huffington Post

In this post-Bush era, orthodox religion is once more fading from fashion, and skepticism finds itself in favor. Young people thumb their noses at religious belief and proudly assert their bold affirmation of reason, even if nobody truly cares or listens. Their faith is no longer assumed, all eyes are on Facebook, not the Bible.

Atheism and Humanism are rebounding, while orders such as the Jesuits see their numbers dwindle toward extinction. Some see an opportunity for Humanism’s gentle metaphysics to benefit from a Jesuit-style advocacy, whether formally or with the participation of dissident factions to begin, as they offer each other the missing attributes needed to compete against strong fundamentalist communities.

Humanists Dismissed as Atheists

Humanism has a problem with atheism. It is too often equated with it; while it is in truth a positive philosophy directed at the potential that lies within our own species and lives. In its purest form it is inclusive of religion – historically there was little antipathy to the Catholicism that allowed Humanism to emerge again from its roots in ancient Greece, and to be revived during the Italian Renaissance.

Atheists have effectively hijacked Humanitas for their own purposes, advocating a secular Humanism to (ironically) trumpet their own freedom from religion. Some describe this aggressive atheism as “religion by a back door”. Edd Doerr, the longtime leader of the American Humanist Association, wrote in the NY times last month that he was “embarrassed” by the actions of atheists in the name of Humanism, that “We need to concentrate on what unites us, not on what divides us.”

Prominent science writer Richard Dawkins, despite being a VP of the British Humanist Association, nonetheless moves Humanism to the back burner to sell books to atheists. He extols evolution while relentlessly condemning the influence of religion. In essence atheism has captured the flag of Humanism and sits on it.

Given that Humanism may be the only philosophy Man is ever likely to universally adopt, the stakes may be higher than one might first imagine.

Jesuit Numbers in Free Fall

The Jesuits, the largest order in the Catholic Church and considered to be its most influential, have since Vatican II in 1965 been progressively drifting away from the Roman Catholic Church, while falling into a steep numerical decline. The Jesuit ranks are down by more than half since then, and there are very few novitiates studying to replace a membership whose average age is now over 60.

Jesuits are typically teaching or working with the poor in the 3rd World, safeguarding them from the excesses of capitalism rather than from their own sins. Jesuit writer and candid critic Fr. Malachi Martin described their liberation theology as being “…more communist than Christian”.

The Humanists lack fellowship, ritual, congregation venues and a social mandate; whereas the Jesuits need to rededicate themselves to our species. This is an order that was banned and dissolved in 1773, then revived in 1814, so its reformation today would  not be unprecedented. To again become trusted critics and stewards of human affairs, they clearly must revise their outmoded tenets and allegiances. These two institutions are complementary if each adopts the best features of the other.

The Jesuits’ proven acumen for teaching and management at the highest level could bring forth a communal catechism for the otherwise inchoate theory and practice of Humanism – which awaits a professional organization within its echelons to champion it.

A Reformation Based on Reason

The current expansion of home churching and Humanist meetings is evidence that there is a hunger in society for reformulating faiths from a grassroots level, and in some degree these home groups can be expected to coalesce into conventional churches again over time.

This pathway of recycling human aspiration back into our legacy institutions – bricks, mortar, and ethics included, could result in Humanist families choosing to celebrate their lives in churches – the orphaned edifices of hope left to them by their elders. Apostate atheists would not be among them.

As they share the songs of Seeger, with their children downstairs in Sunday school learning of Darwin and Debussy, Humanists would be building a species-centered faith on the shoulders of our great thinkers. And doing it in church, cementing its legitimacy.

Sources:

1. The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church, by Malachi Martin, Simon & Schuster, 1987

Please support a World Parliament that is democratically elected in place of the superpower-controlled Security Council – we must coalesce  as a species and become responsible for our own internal governance.

Be the first on your block to see our future. http://en.unpacampaign.org/index.php

The accepted history of Humanism is largely a tale of free thinkers battling orthodox Christianity over the past five centuries, and that battle has effectively been won. With the Bush era concluded in America, we can expect to see fundamentalism fade from influence in much the same way that it has in Europe. So the issue for us becomes: whither Humanism as we know it?

It is often said that organizing Humanists is like herding cats, so any initiative toward collectivizing them at first seems ill-advised. Humanists today largely associate themselves with free thought, which is the virtual opposite of anything organized, and that free thinking is usually centered on a proud atheism or agnosticism. With a few encomiums to be compassionate and to enjoy our one life appended – this mini-philosophy is pretty much all that Humanism currently offers up.

It’s not enough, and if we leave it there, we’ll just remain a small sect of social-climbing god-baiters.

If Humanism is to live up to its greater promise and become a credo that unites our species, it must see its avowed Human attributes brought forward, acknowledging that:

1) Atheism is Tired in the West. Humanism can be expanded conceptually to be seen as the philosophy of our species, Homo sapiens. It begs for new parameters beyond strident atheism – which by itself is obvious and banal to the young – why embrace a counter-religion?

2) Atheism is Not Tired in the developing world. Large obstacles remain in India, the Arab world, Africa, Indonesia and parts of Asia and South America to displacing religions with secular education, science and compassionate human rights. This is the theatre where free-thinking individual Humanism must continue to be championed.

3) Species Governance Humanism will assume new stature if it incorporates an attitude of responsibility toward human affairs that is astute, constructive and visionary.

Who speaks out now on behalf of the United Nations and disarmament? Who decries corruption in the Third World? Who rescues women, children and the aged as they get bypassed or run over by fundamentalism, globalization and heroic consumerism?

Many small agencies and NGO’s do try, yes – but these are matters for Humanity as a whole to gain formal control of, as its legal infrastructure. The issue is responsible species governance, and it’s a mantle that’s there for Humanists to assume, if we can augment our tenets to demonstrate a wider perspective.

Where to Start? It is evident that individual Humanism still faces a struggle outside the western world, and requires our continuing support. Nonetheless, militarism and greed threaten to impoverish or compromise every sector of our society, and those are problems on our home front.

The United States, for example, with just 4% of the global population, wastes more on military spending than the rest of the world combined, and not because it fears invasion or attack. It is incumbent on American Humanists to move beyond debating fundamentalists and to begin bringing their attention to a war machine that is out of control and the prime source of discord globally. Is our weapons “culture” an appropriate matter for Humanists to address? If not, we must explain for children why we condone specters like nuclear submarines, each of which can each lay ruin to entire countries. This matter is an insult to every living human being, our great species cancer, and it is the job of Humanists to become identified with its termination. Every war weapon is a sad monument to Human failure.

Humanism will find wider support when it addresses world affairs and represents our species per se – we must recast it into a larger envelope and mandate. Bringing forth an inclusive Humanism around an expanded array of principles, with a proactive agenda, is where our generation will succeed or flounder as architects of a Humanist civilization.

The IHEU has specified that Humanism no longer be prefaced with an adjective, such as “secular Humanism” is. That said, we can still speak of an “inclusive Humanism” and simply be referring to a larger numerical constituency and distribution, not another philosophical variant.

Vision and Destiny The appropriate public face of  Humanism must be that it is inclusionary. A common observation among Humanists is that we often envy the community and fellowship that many religious people enjoy via their churches; they find companionship, a sense of belonging and peer comfort within their congregations and rituals.

A rapprochement with religion is not inconceivable. It has occurred to some Humanists that we might put together our own hymnary e.g. That speaks of human love and loss, to be shared by our membership, if we might permit ourselves. The Internet has displaced the need for buildings and congregations, while affording us the opportunity to share our thoughts and beliefs within forums and online communities that have their own advantages.

These attributes of conventional religion have much to teach us about our own movement. They are invaluable assets to theists and we lose more people for not having them than any other reason. Our numbers languish while fundamentalism booms around the world because the major religions comment and advise on inter-human issues and individual destiny, and we Humanists do not.

An example: the motto of the British Humanist Association is “For the one life we have.” Not only is it depressing, with its focus on mortality, it’s admonishing us for thinking evil thoughts like having an afterlife. Meanwhile the fundamentalists continue to sell seats in heaven (not realizing they already live there), while our best minds are employed writing dystopian plots for video war games.

Let’s put those young people back to work on healthy Human projects. Let them examine just where and how we can get to a point where our species can anticipate the coming centuries as a golden age of co-operative celebration. Make that a few millennia – our sun is patient, time’s canyons are wide and if we reduce our numbers the Earth might reward us with a languid and verdant glory that we have never dared dream of.

Humanism is a Major Philosophy While Humanism has become associated with its roots as an atheist rearguard action, it is important to take the concept into our own hands, roll it over, and examine it more closely.

Notice how the word Human makes up most of its structure, as it’s ostensibly about Humans, not gods. Ask yourself what this has truly come to mean. Is modern Humanism about Humanity, or is it being miniaturized conceptually, hijacked and abused as fancy packaging for atheism? Should we care?

Care indeed, because ideas such as Humanism are very rare within our species, and we need these ideas to gain traction, lest competing nations kindle more wars or the planet be lost to dissonance. No other term can identify a credo that is as free of other motives and agendae as ‘Humanism’ does.

The religions and NGO’s overseas aid programs usually include their own provisos along with their plans for peace and prosperity. None stands cleanly alone like Humanism, to represent Humans per se, not to be embedded with other homilies and beliefs.

Recognizing our station as a responsible species, first and foremost, is a fresh concept that begs for this name, regardless of its historical usage. If it must be morphed toward that connotation, so be it. As Napoleon commented “Men are like sheep and must be driven to the pasture.”

What’s New Here? Is inclusive Humanism a novel concept? Are there other grand ideas that center on the species, rather than the individual, that perceive our existence as a distinct franchise with its own responsibilities and promise? Some will say science does, and while science achieves many things, it is really an intellectual method that Humans adopt; science does not define us or speak for us.

Historians may view the Renaissance as Humanism’s high point, but that was more accurately a salient of emerging intellectual awareness, our coming-out party. It trumpeted new freedoms and was a voice of optimism for mankind, but the Renaissance’s rediscovery of Greek and Roman classicism did not emphasize social responsibility and environmental stewardship. Nor did it proscribe species violence or worry about pollution; it was all about me, an awakening that heralded the apogee of first-generation individual Humanism.

In the 19^th century the French sociologist Auguste Comte championed ‘social feeling’ as the successor to ‘selfish feeling’, to create a ‘collective consciousness’. This was Humanism being born as a species-wide idea. Of course, Marx and Hitler would later exploit this pan-Human expansion to include classes or nations, their tribal jingoism writ large, and these societies were seen to be emerging from or struggling with other Human groups. That will never be Humanism.

Humanism affirms all of Humanity as its membership, and whether this seems facile or not, like a mother’s love for her child – Humanism is not conditional. And the child’s inalienable responsibilities to her are not conditional either. Like it or not, all Humans are inclusionary of each other.

Humanism remains a pure notion that is centered on Humanity alone and cannot be diverted to some collateral consideration like a disbelief in the supernatural. It is critical that it not be missed, dismissed or ignored, the way a youth may lazily wave off his family or elders, because as a species we are not going to get an indefinite number of opportunities to coalesce and realize the gifts of life, this planet and our potential together. We cannot continue to direct our economies toward improbable wars and unbridled consumerism, then wake up one fateful day and find that critical resources and our once-virgin planet are irretrievable.

For this reason Humanism must become our species advocate and defender, warts and all, as its responsible watchdog and final arbiter. Once it becomes evident that Humanism is unifying our societies, institutions and activities within a sustainable environment, its credibility will be unquestioned – we are Humans and not ashamed of the fact.

Until then, it is incumbent on us to recognize this Faberge egg for what it is, hold it with both hands, and re-enroll it into a nobler cause than its outdated identification and obsession with simple atheism.

Dwight Jones studied Physics (McGill), Engineering (Laval) Biosciences (UC Berkeley) and Philosophy (B.A., Simon Fraser) and is currently an author of speculative fiction.