Symposium on Humanist Manifesto II: reflections.

Khoren Arisian

Humanist Manifestos I and II, separated by forty years, are vastly different documents created in two quite different periods of time. Whereas the first manifesto was a frank, optimistically forward-looking effort to formulate the basis for a modern liberal religious humanism, the second manifesto, three times as long, is primarily a secular humanist proclamation in which religion plays a minor part. The gap between religious and secular humanism has since needlessly widened.

If there is a singular criticism I would make--this being in the nature of a lover's quarrel--it would be the lack of modesty in the claims of Humanist Manifesto II. Consider the triumphant tone of its opening statement: "We have virtually conquered the planet... we stand at the dawn of a new age .... we can control our environment, conquer poverty.., unlock vast new powers" (emphasis added). Words like conquer and control in the context of a philosophic declaration reek of unjustifiable cockiness. Indeed, if we look seriously at Western culture's five dominant religious traditions--Judaism, Christianity, Islam, the Enlightenment, and Marxism (whose degenerate form was fascist Communism)--we soon find that they all, in different ways, claim far too much, whether it be about "God" or "man." The Faustian inclination of the Western sensibility is simply undeniable.

Be all this as it may, I was nonetheless pleased and honored to be among the early signatories of what, in the main, is a remarkably comprehensive statement. There's much that's excellent in the manifesto that its perfectionist-oriented critics are unwilling to concede: namely, its up-to-date insights concerning human identity and personality development; the continuing uses of reason and the scientific method; the need for cooperative economic development; and, in complete contradiction of those who ignorantly accuse humanism of a quintessential arrogance, the appreciative acknowledgment that "we should perceive ourselves as integral to the sources of our being in nature." What I have always particularly liked is the closing advocacy of the "recognition of the common humanity of all people." The moral universalism underlying that axiom holds the real promise of what we should aim for in the twenty-first century.

Khoren Arisian is minister emeritus of the First Unitarian Society of Minneapolis and president of Friends of Religious Humanism.

Mary and Lloyd Morain

Humanist Manifesto I carried religion onto a broader plain. By considering the total human environment, nature, and the sciences, moral and ethical values were recognized as developed by humans to fill their needs.

Humanist Manifesto II recognized how international and interspatial developments, technology, and telecommunications make real the interrelatedness of everyone on our globe. The emphasis, accordingly, was on matters of social improvement and social reform. Earth would be increasingly violated without greater care to its resources and the number of people using them.

More humans are coming to recognize that established facts are all too often waylaid by verbal thought-mines. Now, any new manifesto would do well to give greater recognition to the role of individuals in establishing institutions. Language makes static that which is dynamic: the use of the "is" of predication makes it possible for most arguments to be about words alone. A universal humanist manifesto that recognizes how individuals are genetically influenced and conditioned within very different cultures would give vital recognition to the importance of developing mentally and physically healthy individuals. Acknowledgment can be made of how domination of women by men, and ethnic minorities by those in power, is still justified by outmoded religious and social doctrines.

Humanism is becoming accepted throughout the world as an appropriate alternative to religions and philosophies which oppose new information, insights, and understanding. Humanists do not care for leaders who maintain control by keeping their subjects wedded to outmoded beliefs. Inasmuch as morals and ethics are created by individuals, what is done today affects the future. By looking forward, a new Earth and a new humanity become possible.

Mary and Lloyd Morain are the 1994 Humanists of the Year, champions of human rights and social reform, and the authors of several books including Humanism As the Next Step.

Bette Chambers

Once on a radio talk show, the moderator insisted upon calling Humanist Manifestos I and II "the old and new testaments" of humanism. His aim, of course, was to imply that both were creedal statements and not actually consensus statements on social and moral issues closely tied to the times in which they were issued.

I was president of the American Humanist Association at the time the second manifesto was issued in 1973. I recall that the committee drafting it had solicited suggestions from literally hundreds of leaders of thought in numerous specialties. Edwin H. Wilson, Roy Fairfield, and Paul Kurtz hammered out the final text. Some felt it suffered from the "camel syndrome"--or a horse put together by a committee--and it was markedly more prolix than the first manifesto of 1933. Still, as a consensus statement geared to the times in which it appeared, it achieved its goals.

This is not to say it was met with unanimous approval. I recall a smoldering dispute arising over the tenth article in the 1973 text, which proclaimed:

Humane societies should evaluate economic systems not

by rhetoric or ideology but by whether or not they

increase economic well-being for all individuals and

groups, minimize poverty and hardship, increase the sum

of human satisfaction, and enhance the quality of life.

Hence the door is open to alternative economic systems.

A hue and cry went up that this was a sop to capitalism and a shameful rejection of the fourteenth article from 1933, which reads: "A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible." Forty years had passed since humanist leaders looked upon democratic socialism as an antidote to economic ills. World War II and Stalinism rankled.

Unlike good wine, manifestos do not age well. The committee of 1973 agreed that ten years should not pass before an amended version would be issued. Now twenty-five years later, the third manifesto remains but a dream. Various drafts have been attempted, all ending up as learned essays. A successful manifesto has a certain form, declaring our zeitgeist and a vision for the future. Today, younger people no longer flinch at the term manifesto, as some still did in 1973. I think the term should be retained. Why capitulate to the ultra-right?

I would like to see mention that, after twenty-five years, women still confront the glass ceiling and markedly lower wages for the same work as men. Science education remains a shambles, while "creationists" continue to score victories. There seems to be more concern about kids smoking in the schoolyard than carrying guns. World population growth continues to soar, while we discuss cloning human beings. A third manifesto is sorely needed.

Bette Chambers is president emeritus of the American Humanist Association and editor of its newsletter, Free Mind.

Henry Morgentaler 

A careful reading of Humanist Manifesto II has convinced me that it is as relevant today as when it was written, pending a few small updates.

The world has evolved rapidly in the last twenty-five years, especially in the enormous development of technology, the collapse of communist ideology and power, and the triumph of unbridled capitalism and globalization, with the possibility of a global economic and social crisis or collapse. Overpopulation, with its attendant miseries, and the pollution of the environment are problems to be dealt with. Atomic power and the possibility of nuclear catastrophe are worrisome possibilities. Humankind has accumulated enormous technological power which needs to be controlled and contained or else it could run amok and destroy life on the planet as it is destroying many species around the world. It is therefore more important than ever that people realize the enormous responsibility that such power has conferred on us and that we have to use it wisely--with intelligence, caring, and compassion--not only for ourselves but as guardians of all life on our planet.

In view of all this, it is imperative to strengthen international bodies such as the United Nations and its agencies and promote international law and treaties that will protect and promote civilized life on this planet. In addition, a concerted effort needs to be made to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, reduce armaments worldwide, and use all our resources to eliminate disease and poverty across the globe.

It is clear that, in these efforts, cooperation among various religious, ethnic, and national groups will be essential; it is therefore mandatory that tolerance among various groups be established as a supreme virtue in our world, as opposed to the preaching of hate and intolerance. It is important to affirm that conflicts should be resolved in a peaceful manner through negotiation and compromise rather than war; the establishment of strong international supranational bodies might be necessary for this to be accomplished.

Under Humanist Manifesto II's section entitled "The Individual," where article six says that "individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their life-styles as they desire," I would like to add an explicit reference to homosexuality. I would add to this statement the following words: "in that sense it is important to affirm the acceptance of homosexuality as a valid form of sexual expression. The rights of gays and lesbians for equality and respect for their life-style should be recognized by society."

Humanists also welcome and encourage the movement for emancipation and equality of women, known as "women's liberation." In many countries, women are still oppressed and denied fundamental human rights as well as rights specific to women, such as contraception, abortion, and proper care during pregnancy and delivery. Continued efforts should be made by people of goodwill across the world to correct this situation and improve the status of women.

Strong international bodies should also deal with remnants of slavery, exploitation of children, and inhuman working conditions. A commitment to social justice and economic opportunities for all should be affirmed.

I believe Humanist Manifesto Il, with minor modifications and including the concerns mentioned above, is an inspiring document valid for our times. Hopefully it will act as a stimulant for meaningful action for individuals and groups to create a kinder, safer, better world.

Henry Morgentaler is a Canadian physician and activist for women's reproductive rights and the 1975 Humanist of the Year.

Howard B. Radest

In this brief essay, let me focus on a few questions:

Biology. We are only at the edge of the genetic revolution. Just to name a few things that have happened in the last twenty-five years: the Human Genome Project, genetic screening, genetic surgery, and cloning. There are issues that need to be addressed now, like the use and abuse of free inquiry and fair access to new therapies. For the long run, the Darwinian movement now reaches toward climax. What obligations--personal and social--come along with our ability to choose our inheritors biologically?

Technology. Computers have opened up possibilities for gathering, storing, and sharing unimaginable amounts of information. In the last twenty-five years, there have come into existence the World Wide Web, e-mail, and data banks. There are issues that need to be addressed now, like privacy and fair access to information technology. For the long run, the Enlightenment commitment to knowledge now reaches toward climax. What obligations--personal and social--come along with our ability to know more and more, and without permission?

Political Economy. Free-market ideology expands without principled opposition. In the last twenty-five years, the Soviet Union has dissolved, China is moving toward a market economy, and nationalist tensions are on the rise, to name a few examples. There are issues that need to be addressed now, like transnational peacekeeping and social justice. For the long run, the move toward the "wealth of nations" now reaches toward climax. What obligations--personal and social--come along with our ability to produce and distribute goods and services almost without limit?

I obviously could have named the rise of the "New Age" in religion or the impact of ethnic and racial "diversity" on society or the consequences of "gender" on power. The list could go on.

The Manifesto of the Future. Such a document must be brief, principled, generic, and poetic. Its models should be documents like the Bill of Rights and the Lord's Prayer (if I may use this reference). Can we speak a humanism that in turn helps us speak to the unforeseen possibilities and problems of humankind?

Institution. Ideas live in use and evolve with use. They are embedded in institutions and not just in persons. In that way, memory of the past, use in the present, and continuity for the future transcend our momentary and finite lives. What then is our obligation?

A final question: can we overcome the humanist's chronic fear of actual association with other humanists?

Howard B. Radest is former dean of the Humanist Institute and former director of the Ethical Culture Schools.

Herbert A. Tonne

Humanist Manifesto I! has served us well. It was a needed revision of Humanist Manifesto l, which emphasized the socialistic tendencies of the early 1930s. It has served its purpose, and I do not think a further revision is in order.

However, if a revision were undertaken, it should be considerably shorter. It should drop controversial political and moral postures and emphasize that humanists are just as varied in their political, economic, and moral beliefs and aspirations as are the liberal religionists. Humanism is free of faith in a supernatural and is dedicated to the search for meaning and value on the basis of scientific evidence. It stresses reliance on scientific method and democratic and social empathy.

A revised manifesto should make clear that we do not confuse the attitudes of the bigoted extreme religious right with those of the great majority who retain some degree of faith in a personal or impersonal God. By emphasizing our differences with the liberal religionists, we alienate those with near-humanist concepts who still like to call themselves Christians or Jews or another designation. Scientific developments are bringing the liberal religious ever closer to agreement with us, though they hold on to traditional labels. However, as I wrote before, I would relegate manifesto presentations to history.

Herbert A. Tonne is a former board member of the American Humanist Association and the author of The Human Dilemma.

Lester Mondale 

For hundreds of pioneer-minded persons, the hackneyed terms agnostic, rationalist, secularist, and liberal no longer suffice to express what and who they really are. Humanist Manifesto II provides, in a rendition of the words humanist and humanism, a label--a social, philosophical, personal characterization that is ennobling as well as distinctively informing. As a humanist, I affirm the manifesto's elemental "respect of self as thinker ... citizen of a world community ... a world in which peace and prosperity, freedom, and happiness are widely shared."

Implied in this elemental respect for self I see a grounding for a humanist spirituality that stands foursquare in condemnation of the all-men-are-enemies stance of the totally competitive, invidiously conditioned society of our upbringing and would-be cominglings.

About this social nexus (as I put it in my November/December 1988 Humanist article, "Beyond the Ten Commandments"), there lurks behind a conventional facade of law-abiding politeness and seeming consideration a Hobbesian jungle, "a state of nature wherein the ego that survives as a self-regarding and other-regarding individual has to be competent as adversary. It is a society wherein one's self or ego is relatively insecure in challenging threatening surroundings."

The basic inhumanity of the invidious brings the humanist to the inescapable conclusion that there must be--has got to be--a more satisfying, supportive, considerate, dignified, and healthful mingling of psyches.

In sum (quoting again from "Beyond the Ten Commandments), as a humanist, "how consecrated am I to an ever more supportive, more considerate, more dignified, more finely sensitive, more healthful, and more joyous mingling of selves?"

Empathy, let us not overlook, includes tenderness: the tenderness of the mother for the infant at her breast and that tenderness extended to include the self-regard and the hopes and dreams of young and old--feelings that come as near to the sacred as anything one of humanist persuasion can conceive.

Lester Mondale is a retired Unitarian minister and Ethical Culture leader and, at age ninety-four, is the last living original signer of Humanist Manifesto I.

Albert Ellis

In reading Humanist Manifesto II once again, it seems to me a well-written and sensible document, and I do not find that I disagree with it seriously. Its eleventh and twelfth articles, however, unless carefully interpreted, may be somewhat contradictory and lead to some humanists having difficulty in endorsing the two of them together.

The eleventh article states:

We deplore racial, religious, ethnic, or class antagonisms.

Although we believe in cultural diversity and encourage

racial and ethnic pride, we reject separations which promote

alienation and set people and groups against each

other; we envision an integrated community where people

have a maximum opportunity for free and voluntary association.

On the surface, this article sounds sensible enough, but if we really "encourage racial and ethnic pride" we put ourselves in dangerous territory. As a human, you can like your behavior--such as your achievement in art, science, or sports--and thus take pride in it,' or you can make an overgeneralized conclusion that you like yourself, your being, or your person for having this ,achievement. You thus rate or evaluate your entire self for the accomplishment that you proudly achieve.

This kind of self-rating is dangerous because it leads you to respect your self only when you achieve well and to disrespect yourself, your entirety, when you do poorly. All your life, therefore, your self-respect goes up and down like a seesaw, being dependent upon your ever-changing "good" and "bad" performances. Consequently, you frequently feel grandiose and noble ("I am a great person!") or you feel worthless and depressed ("I am a failure and a worthless individual!"). Both these feelings are unrealistic and self-sabotaging. They are actually theistic because, on the one hand, you deify yourself for your achievements and, on the other hand, you devilify yourself when you are nonachieving.

In rational emotive behavior therapy, we discourage this kind of self-rating (and self-deflating) by helping people to acquire unconditional self-acceptance instead of self-esteem. Using this concept, they humanistically decide to only evaluate their performances as "good" or "bad"--in accordance with the goals and purposes they choose--but not to globally rate their self or being. They then decide, "I always choose to accept myself and respect myself whether or not I act well. But I will try to perform well and achieve what I consider to be the `good' things in life because that, for a variety of reasons, is preferable but not absolutely necessary. My worth as a human does not depend on my accomplishments."

This humanistic and existential position gives intrinsic worth or value to all people just because they are alive and human and not because of their achievements. It is, one might say, truly democratic and humanistic.

If this view of human worth is more workable than the common-and dangerous--concept of rating yourself by your achievements, it can presumably work well in the achievement of racial and ethnic pride as well. For when you have pride, let us say, in your particular ethnic group, you rate the traits and behaviors common to this group as "good" and "likeable." Well, that seems all right, especially if the members of this group actually have "good" traits, such as physical strength or artistic talents. But suppose they often have "bad traits," such as short stature, proneness to diabetes, or lack of artistic talent? Are they then to put down their ethnic group and look at themselves, as members of this group, as "inferior people"? That hardly makes humanistic or democratic sense.

However--one may object--practically all ethnic groups have some traits that they can see as unique or "good" and thereby in which they can take pride. Yes, probably. But that has dangers, too. Because if they take pride in those "good" traits, they may tend to do the same thing the rest of us do about overgeneralizing to a global rating. If one's particular group has some "superior" traits, it is easy to view it as a "good group." One easily jumps from the thought, "it has superior traits" to the thought "therefore it is a superior ethnic group." One rates it as essentially different from other ethnic groups, when it is actually only different from other groups in some respects. Why do some people make this logical error? Because, as Alfred Korzybski said in Science and Sanity in 1933, humans very often tend to do this--to generalize and to overgeneralize or label. Just as they incorrectly jump from "I do good (or bad) things, therefore I am a good (or bad) person," so do they likewise jump from "my ethnic group has good (or bad) traits" to "therefore it is a superior (or inferior) group."

Now what do we have as a result of this illogical concluding? Very often, what Humanist Manifesto II deplores as "religious, ethnic, or class antagonism." Thus, ethnic group pride breeds contempt for other ethnic groups. In the final analysis, this kind of thinking may easily breed hostility, bigotry, feuds, terrorism, war, and genocide.

To counter this common tendency, Humanist Manifesto II states in its twelfth article, "For the first time in human history, no part of humankind can be isolated from any other. Each person's future is in some way linked to all." Ah, that is more like it! Instead of encouraging racial and ethnic pride, which may well lead us into nationalistic difficulties and prevent us from having one group rate itself as "good" and another group as "bad," let us perhaps encourage pride in us all being human rather than being a member of a certain group.

Even this has its possible dangers because we may then, by such a rating, tend to pride ourselves on being better (or worse) than nonhuman animals--or better (or worse) than Martians! But if we decide that all of us can be proud to be alive or human, that sounds much safer than encouraging us to have individual worth because of our accomplishments or to have group worth because our ethnic or other group takes pride in its groupness. Humanist Manifesto III had better consider this possibility.

Albert Ellis is the president of the Albert Ellis Institute for Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy in New York City and the 1971 Humanist of the Year.

James W. Prescott 

Humanist Manifesto II is in need of at least two major revisions that warrant a Humanist Manifesto III. The first is that it should address the failure of both traditional religion and humanistic philosophy and ethics to provide over the past quarter century for a more humane, just, equitable, and compassionate or loving human society. The second is that it should identify and offer solutions to those specific crises of humanity which stand in the way of the human transformations necessary for humanity to prosper and survive in the next millennium.

Emphasis must be given to those scientific breakthroughs which have illuminated how the environment has shaped the developing brain of the infant and child in ways that affect the realization of each child's human potential. Particular focus should be placed upon how the developing brain of the infant and child is encoded and programmed for peaceful or violent behaviors, for love or hate, for compassion or sociopathy and psychopathy, for trust or distrust, for equity or inequity in human social and sexual relationships, for tolerance or intolerance, for hope or despair.

Humanist Manifesto III must address the continuing failure of the major religions of the world to achieve full equality between women and men; to end the continuing violence, particularly sexual violence, against women and children; to end religious intolerance, hatreds, and violence; to assure women's rights to reproductive health and choice; to assure the rights of children, as reflected in the "United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child"; to understand and prevent the scourge of alcohol and drug addiction that robs the individual of her or his humanity; and to provide specific humanistic alternatives in ethics and social policy to deal effectively with those human failures that threaten the very survival of humanity.

Humanist Manifesto III must address the nature and origin of human love, in contrast to divine love which has been offered, unsuccessfully, over this past millennium as a solution to the crises of humanity. And the central role of human sexuality in the development of human love must be emphasized, particularly the emerging sexuality of children and youth. The positive moral, psychological, and social value of human sexual expression must be taught as an alternative to the sexual Puritanism that has been offered, with disastrous consequences, by the traditional religions of the world.

That these latter issues ought not be the exclusive property of traditional religion is shown by a recent court of appeals decision in San Francisco, where it was declared that teenagers have no constitutional right to have sex, even voluntarily and with each other. This case involved a sixteen-year-old boy who was arrested and charged with statutory rape for having consensual sex with his fourteen-year-old girlfriend. He challenged the arrest on constitutional grounds, saying sex was a fundamental right covered by privacy laws that applied to minors, as well as adults. This case should be re-argued on the grounds of religious freedom and liberty, with humanistic ethics and morality being presented as the position that human sexuality is central to the expression of human love. Significant scientific data exists to support such a position--data that demonstrates a clear and strong statistical relationship between adolescent sexual expression and nonviolence, and its converse: that repressed and punished adolescent sexual expression is associated with violent, patristic, and theistic cultures. Studies also reveal the neuropsychology of brain processes associated with these behavioral relationships.

Humanist Manifesto III cannot afford to be a mere restatement of philosophical and social principles and generalities. It must focus on the specifics of human moral behaviors which are clearly supported by the developmental, neurobiological, and neuropsychological sciences. How the developing human brain is encoded and programmed will determine whether Homo sapiens will survive through the next millennium.

James W. Prescott is a developmental neuropsychologist and president of the Institute of Humanistic Science.

Thomas Ferrick

In any third humanist manifesto we must, of course, reiterate our defense of democracy, human and civil rights, and world peace through the United Nations. We need to continue our support for the separation of government from organized religion, the saving and improvement of our public school system, and the protection of sexual freedoms. There are others.

But our most important message should be that of human solidarity. The main focus of our humanist world view is the human being and all humanity. That is our first loyalty, though we acknowledge the invaluable context that envelops us, holding the environment sacred. But the well-being of our species is the commanding good (the summum bonum). To know and to love the human enterprise, to the extent possible, gives joy and purpose to our lives. That, in a nutshell, explains why we call ourselves humanists.

You might say that we are forever learning the "art" of being human--that is, how and why we think and feel the way we do. Intelligence and empathy, knowledge and compassion, curiosity and sensitivity--all these go hand in hand. And we never complete the task but pass it on to those coming after us. That means we can't be dogmatic in asserting our truths and our morality. But we can still be surefooted, confident, in our appraisal of the right and the good. Why? Because our minds are commensurate with the reality around us, and "caring" follows from our survival instinct, from natural selection.

Implicit throughout our message is the notion that we can know reality and choose responsibly--but, more basically, that we are empiricists, that we prize the scientific method, we trust the rules of evidence. Our first assumption is an epistomological one that distinguishes us from most religious believers and nearly all postmodernists and New Agers.

So, in summary, we've got to let people know about our identification with them, about the range and coherence of our concerns, and the naturalistic grounding of our philosophy.

Thomas Ferrick is the humanist chaplain at Harvard University and can be e-mailed at [e-mail].