Humanists not necessarily liberal.

At the beginning of Roy Speckhardt's article, "Can A Humanist Be A Political Conservative?" (March/April issue of the Humanist) I was surprised to read that less than one percent of American Humanist Association members define themselves as libertarians. By the end of the article I understood why. The things that attracted me to the AHA--the philosophies, ethics, and sources of inspiration within the greater community of non-theists--are now taking a back seat to what I can only describe as creeping AHA political dogma. Speckhardt's stereotypical treatment of conservatives sadly reminded me of the many evangelical blowhards who "sum up" mainstream nontheists as "evil" But Speckhardt is the AHA's director of membership! Conservatives who meet Speckhardt's definition can speak for themselves, but for this libertarian the answer to his question is: no more.

John Cress

Manitowoc, WI

Regarding Roy Speckhardt's article, I agree with much of what he has to say but I find some problems. And I speak as one who is neither conservative nor liberal.

I think that Speckhardt has, along with many others, missed the increasingly obvious fact that conservatism is an ideologically inchoate movement that is disintegrating before our eyes. Fiscal conservatives, free market capitalists, neoconservative fascists, evangelical theocrats, and the current administration are all charging off in different directions, and they are beginning to realize that fact!

Also, in my opinion, Speckhardt has fallen into the trap of something called "the false dilemma." Simply proving that many ideas associated with conservatism are incompatible with Humanism does not logically lead to his statement, "It is thus obvious that the core principles of Humanism support liberal ideals:" I would be more than happy to provide an article supporting the thesis that neither conservatism nor (American) liberalism is compatible with the ideals of Humanism.

I found it heartening that the ACLU came to the defense of Rush Limbaugh on the issue of medical records (and I do not like Rush) because it broke through the tired liberal-conservative "false dilemma." We need more of that crossing over, not less. And as Humanists we need to be building bridges not burning them down.

Humanists do not need to be "drawing a circle in the sand." We need to be reaching out to disillusioned conservatives--people who feel betrayed by the hypocrisy of Rove, Gingrich, Reagan, Bush, and so on. Many conservatives don't just mouth the words freedom, small government, and so on. They want these values to be implemented, and they are beginning to understand that plutocrats and liars have manipulated them. They need us and we need them!

Tom Brucia

Houston, TX

The March/April 2004 issue of the Humanist contains many excellent articles; as do all issues! I wish especially to commend Roy Speckhardt's fine "run-down" of why a Humanist cannot be a political conservative. He is certainly right on the mark when he says, "It is obvious that the core principles of Humanism support liberal ideals" I couldn't agree more.

I am in complete agreement, too, on the substance of two of these "core principles:" the scientific method (and, consequently, an entire discarding of anything supernatural), and a "deep-seated compassion for humankind:" These are both imperatively linked to any conception of a good society.

My questioning of the third principle will arouse a shrill cry of horror, I know. Perhaps I do not understand it fully. Perhaps I am at fault. But it seems to me to be against all logic to disbelieve in a creator, or a Divine Father, and at the same time proclaim that "humans are basically equal." We can see, with only a cursory glance at any group or any country, that people are unequal when it comes to physical strength, mental abilities, artistic talents. Everyone knows this. But Speckhardt, recognizing this, says we are all "basically" equal. What does this mean? That, regardless of our outward differences, we are all what religionists call "children of God?" But, being Humanists, we have cast off theism, haven't we? So please, what does "basically equal" mean?

Another source of wonder to me is how the expression "human rights" is interpreted. I am a materialist, an atheist. Therefore I do not believe that I--or anyone else--is born equipped with a "right" to this or that. For from whom--or what--do these rights come? Who or what bestows "rights?"

All that I have said does not preclude humanitarianism, pity, love, and so on. We are all faulty human beings, and it is only decent that we do what we can for each other. It is only healthy (from a scientific point of view) that we work to make our society as good and as harmonious as possible. A conviction of this has evolved over many a weary age--it is not instilled in us by an unknown entity out in infinity.

Abigail Ann Martin

Brandon, FL

Regarding the basis for human rights, it has been awhile since the Humanist covered that--since Robert Grant's article on the topic in the January/February 2000 issue, to be exact. But Humanist arguments making a case certainly exist.

--Editor