DEAN'S LETTER

The year just passed has been a trying one for humanists, within their organizations and among them. And the US social and political climate has never been more hostile to the values of humanists! What a tragedy that our bickerings and nitpickings keep us from analyzing how society has taken a conservative, theocratic, and imperialistic/militaristic turn. I am reminded of a cartoon from the 40s showing a lone pathetic figure shaking a pathetic finger astride a world that has just been split apart by a nuclear device. He is saying, "I told you so!" Title? The Last Trotskyite.

By the time you read this newsletter we may be at war. But with whom? (Iraq, North Korea, the Philippines, Iran, Pakistan...). And at what price, in human lives, dollars, human artifacts, democracy, the rule of law, human rights, toleration. And while the arrogant new empire flexes its muscles...

Within the Institute, there has been a prolonged discussion around whether humanists would do better to use the god word. No one seems to be stumping for any kind of orthodox form of theism or deism, but just idiosyncratic use of the term as long as it carries no ethical weight! I find it hard to even discuss this or square it with the traditions that have created and sustained the Institute.

But MUCH more serious is a renewed tension among humanist organizations over whether any modifying adjectives are necessary to protect humanist purity--such as secular or religious or ethical. At a time when we are being treated as a no-longer necessary (or even desirable) element within Unitarian Universalism (not so long ago the largest assemblage of humanists in the US), our contentiousness proves the point made so often by our critics--that we are not yet fit for communal living.

Twenty years ago, when NACH and the Institute were formed, we thought we were creating a structure to dampen this in-fighting and organizational egoism, a structure that would train a new generation of leaders who would come to know and respect our plural backgrounds and draw strength from that rich variety. Without that vision, our competition will simply divert us from making a humanist alternative visible and viable to more of our neighbors.

Make your own list of the endangered causes in this conservative landslide. Science education vital enough both to produce researches and a citizenry unable to be bamboozled. A skeptical attitude toward dogmas, absolutes, and certainties that is necessary for sustained growth of knowledge. Free access to information rather than corporate-driven amusement in the name of news. Public education that leads to democratic participation and civic commitment instead of bemused apathy. A commitment to human rights and justice. A commitment to freedom of conscience rather than some watered-down religio-conformity. The transcendence of nationalism and chauvinism that comes from recognizing the artificiality and permeability of borders. The celebration of excellence in the arts rather than a karaoke everyone-is-equal-as-they-are stance. The search for excellences in all the times and places that humans have lived. The continuing critique in terms of values and consequences.

We like to say that ethics and values are the central focus of humanism. And we mean something quite normative by that. Justice is a humanist value, vengeance is not. Compassion is a humanist value, hatred is not. Mutuality is a humanist value, arrogance is not. Our concern must be to embody these values in our personal and organizational lives and not just announce them. And to explore more effective ways to raise our children with these humanist values. We should be spending our time telling the histories, honoring the biographies, clarifying the philosophical constructs that support these values, dealing with our critics.

These are enormously engrossing and rewarding tasks. To engage them together will build the kinds of humanist communities that many feel are missing. And bring the emotional satisfactions that we allegedly lack. Let's not envy the alleged community that emerges at rock concerts and baseball games--for that same kind of community emerged at religious revivals, Klan meetings, and Hitler's Nuremberg party rallies. Togetherness is simply not enough. The values creating that togetherness are what matters--and values can be trivial and they can be hateful.

How many of us are searching for the humanist plays, the humanist movies, the humanist poems, the humanist songs? Of course they are necessary if humanism is ever to flourish. But the "humanist" adjective is crucial, and can only be there after critical analyses. Think of how many have been liberated from traditional religions after reading Camus' The Plague. Or have outgrown Catholic Christianity in reading Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Or Clarke's Childhood's End. Or Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle. And let's hear it for Wallace Stevens! And don't forget Kenneth Patton and Carl Sagan!

It is not that we became nontheists and then turned to humanism. We found that many humanist values could no longer be fitted into a theistic framework, and we then burst the confines. Those values are the positive side of humanism, and we must extol them and, in the present political climate, fight to defend them

Robert B. Tapp