Are You a Humanist? September 22, 2013 Roger Fritts Unitarian Universalist Church of Sarasota, Florida

Transcription

1 Are You a Humanist? September 22, 2013 Roger Fritts Unitarian Universalist Church of Sarasota, Florida 1 In 1904 Lester Mondale was born in Walnut Grove, Minnesota, the son of a Methodist minister. Although his family was Methodist, Lester Mondale converted to Unitarianism while earning his undergraduate degree. In 1929 Lester earned a degree from Harvard Divinity School and in 1930, at the age of 26, he arrived to serve as the minister of the Unitarian Church in Evanston, Illinois. His younger half-brother, Walter had been born two years before in The little church in Evanston that Lester served had been designed by Marion Mahony Griffin, one of the first licensed female architects in the world and the first assistant hired by Frank Lloyd Wright. In 1914 with her husband, Marion Mahony Griffin designed the new Australian capital, of Canberra. This was the atmosphere that young Lester found himself in. In Chicago he met Clarence Darrow and Jane Addams, and he became friends with other progressive Unitarian ministers. In 1933, they decided to publish a statement of belief called the humanist manifesto. At the age of 29 Lester Mondale was one of the youngest signers. A second Humanist Manifesto was drafted 40 years later in A few of the original signers of the 1933 document, including Lester Mondale were still alive and signed this second document, along with philosophers, historians, scientists, authors and other Unitarian Universalist ministers in addition to Lester. In 1984 Lester=s half brother, Walter Mondale, ran for President of the United States against Ronald Reagan. When the extreme right discovered that Walter=s half-brother, Lester, had signed the Humanist Manifesto, they announced that the Humanist Manifesto was the blueprint that the Mondale brothers would use to subvert the American nation. One writer stated that, Once the anti-god forces are identified, each lover of liberty must be prepared to follow through and unmask them publicly. This conspiracy can be destroyed by the spotlight of exposure, for, like all conspiracies, it can function with impunity only in the dim shadow of secrecy. Thread by thread, the humanist web has been patiently woven around our laws, institutions, and national life. It must be unraveled to reveal the hidden spinner... a coordinated effort must be made to route the conspirators and their sympathizers from their positions of authority and public trust, and to replace them with men of high caliber, men of faith and integrity, who are willing to fight for the restoration of our God-given freedoms. Walter Mondale lost the election and the conspiracy theorists moved onto other subjects. Still, humanism has survived. In my experience Humanists are well-educated people. They are open

2 2 and democratic. They are honest and sincere. And occasionally, like Rev. Leslie Mondale, they are Unitarian Universalists. But what do humanists believe? Are you a humanist? Am I a humanist? This morning I want to answer these questions by reading to you passages from the seventeen sections contained within the 1973 Humanist Manifesto. As I read short selections from the seventeen sections, I want to give each of you the opportunity to vote on whether you agree with the Humanist Manifesto. After each vote I will offer my opinion. Listen now as I read, and think about whether this statement is one which you agree with. I will call for a show of hands when I am finished. First... We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural.... As non-thesists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity... It is obvious from this first statement that the writers of the Manifesto do not wish to talk about reality in terms of God. I agree that 95% of the time the word God helps to enslave people instead of liberating them, and I agree it is essential that human beings take responsibility for their own lives instead of shifting that responsibility to an idol. However, I believe that we humans are part of a process, part of something bigger than the whole human race. I believe that we should feel in our bodies that there is a greater reality to which our whims and fancies must be subjected. Because this first section in the Manifesto neglects to talk about this greater reality I vote against it. Second: Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful....there is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body. I agree that the carrot of Heaven and the stick of Hell have been used for thousands of years to manipulate and exploit our fear of death. But I am unwilling to completely deny the possibility of life after death. It is an issue that will be resolved for us sometime in the future. Until then I remain open-minded and I vote against this second section of the Manifesto. Third: We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics stems from human need and interest... I agree that moral values arise out of human experience; the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount make sense only if they are confirmed by my own and other people's experience of

3 living in the world. But I worry about the belief that ethics stems only from human need and interest. I believe that we must have within ourselves a sense of awe and reverence before existence which will constrain us to tread lightly on this planet. We are part of a larger whole and we are ultimately responsible to that larger whole. So I vote no on this third section of the Humanist Manifesto. Fourth: Reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses. But reason must be tempered by humility since no group has a monopoly of wisdom or virtue. Although Unitarian Universalists are often criticized for being cold intellectuals, and although we are sometimes called God's frozen people, I am proud of our use of reason; it helps me stand on my own feet and it saves me from being easy prey for anyone who wants to control me. So I agree with section four of the Humanist Manifesto and vote for it. Fifth: The preciousness and the dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value... For me the moral worth, the absolute value and the essential dignity of each individual is fundamental to life. I celebrate the virtues of freedom and independence and so I vote for this fifth section of the Manifesto. Sixth: Short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as they desire. All who agree with this statement please raise your hands. Opposed. Abstentions. I believe that non-violent sexual behavior is a private activity. I believe individuals should be free to explore their sexual being without interference from the state. Although I strongly support marriage and families, I don't believe that this lifestyle need be imposed on everyone. So I agree with section six and vote for it. Seventh: To enhance freedom and dignity the individual must experience a full range of civil liberties in all societies. This includes a recognition of an individual's right to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide. 3

4 4 I believe in civil liberties and human rights, and I support the right to die with dignity. I personally do not see suicide as a solution to problems. I admit that other people have that option, although it is an option I do not feel comfortable with. I vote for section seven. Eighth: We are committed to an open and democratic society. We must extend participatory democracy in its true sense to the economy, the school, the family, the work place, and voluntary associations. I am proud to be a part of a church that makes an enormous effort to maintain democratic process. There is evidence to indicate that businesses and factories that are run democratically have happier and more satisfied workers. So I vote for section eight. Ninth: The separation of church and state and the separation of ideology and state are imperatives. On the one hand I agree that an effort needs to be made to keep the government from controlling religion and to keep one religious group from dominating the government. On the other hand I believe that all religious groups have a right to lobby for programs and policies that they support, and that the government does have the right to monitor the financial dealing of churches and to collect taxes from church investments that are non-religious. With these reservations I vote for section nine. Tenth: 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 satisfactions, and enhance the quality of life. It is commonly believed in our world that there exists one universal economic system valid for all people everywhere and that this system, if it were fully adopted, would result in the perfect society. For some that system is capitalism, for some it is the socialism system, and for others it is communism. The Humanist Manifesto is seeking to avoid this debate over systems and instead focus on the needs of people. Although I would go further and urge the decentralization of corporations, I find that I am in general agreement, so I vote for section ten. Eleventh: The principle of moral equality must be furthered through elimination of all discrimination based upon race, religion, sex, age or national origin... We are concerned

5 for the welfare of the aged, the infirm, the disadvantaged and also for the outcasts--the mentally retarded, abandoned or abused children, the handicapped, prisoners, and addicts I agree with it all and I vote for it, but I remember that Jesus said it so much better: "Blessed be ye poor; for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are ye that hunger now for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now; for ye shall laugh." The mythology of the New Testament inspired the Salvation Army and Albert Schweitzer; the words of the eleventh section of the Humanist Manifesto are uninspiring in comparison. Real live flesh and blood people who give their lives to make this a better world speak to us in ways that abstractions do not. Twelfth: We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds.... We look to the development of a system of world law and world order based upon transnational federal government. I support the United Nations. However, I have a fear that people will place too much hope in world government. I believe world government can be helpful if it is kept simple and if the main emphasis remains on the development of small businesses and small factories and small farms. Big solutions not only tend to prolong and complicate the problems they are meant to solve, they also tend to cause new problems. I vote for section twelve, with reservations. Thirteenth: War is obsolete. It is a planetary imperative to reduce the level of military expenditures and turn these savings to peaceful and people-oriented uses. Global military expenditure stands at over $1.7 trillion dollars. Nothing in the history of humanity can duplicate this. It is time to turn this love of the weapons around. I vote for section thirteen. Fourteenth: We must free our world from needless pollution and waste, responsibly guarding and creating wealth, both natural and human. 5 I believe the earth is a gift to be treasured, not a possession to be squandered. We need to develop some sense of balance, proportion, harmony with each other and with our planet, instead of continuing to strive to exploit or dominate. We must learn to live in harmony with each other and the earth. I vote for section fourteen.

6 Fifteenth: It is the moral obligation of the developed nations to provide massive technical, agricultural, medical, and economic assistance, including birth control techniques, to the developing portions of the globe. I have difficulty with the word "massive" in this section. Big solutions not only tend to prolong and complicate the problems they are meant to solve, they also tend to cause new problems. Recently, for example there was a drought in Peru and the United States gave massive amounts of grain to Peru to feed the hungry. Because of this aid the price of wheat fell sharply in that country causing Peruvian grain farmers to switch from growing wheat to growing barley. Barley, of course, is used primarily to make beer. The result of "massive" United States aid was to make Peru dependent on the United States for wheat, but self-sufficient in beer. Being skeptical of massive aid, I vote against section fifteen. Sixteenth: We deplore any neo-romantic effort to condemn indiscriminately all technology and science or to counsel retreat from its further extension and use for the good of humankind I vote yes on section sixteen, although I am not confident that technology is a key to human progress. I am much more suspicious of technology than were the writers of the Manifesto. I must be one of the neo-romantics they refer to. Seventeenth, and last: Travel restrictions must cease. The world must be open to the development of a worldwide system of television and radio. Being a neo-romantic I love to travel, and so I wholeheartedly support an end to travel restrictions. I vote for section seventeen. 6 Am I a Humanist? As I study the Manifesto, I find vast areas of agreement. Propositions 3 through 17 are principles I have often advocated: The value of human experience; The tools of reason and humility; The dignity of the individual;

7 The right of birth control; The freedom of expression; The extension of democracy; The separation of church and state; The elimination of poverty; The opposition to discrimination; The support of international law; The reduction of military armaments; The protection of the ecosystem; The assisting of third-world nations; The advancement of science; The expansion of cultural exchanges... 7 It is a good agenda for survival into the 21st Century. But as I analyzed propositions 1, 2, & 3 I began to question whether or not I can be called a humanist. First, I believe that there is a unity, and that underlies all existence and I am comfortable calling that unity God. The denial of the unity of the universe is simply not in keeping with my own experience. I am aware of a greater presence. Second: I am unwilling to deny the possibility of life after death. It is an issue that will be resolved for each of us sometime in the future. Third, I believe we are part of a larger whole and we are ultimately responsible to that larger whole. So, basically agree with 15 of the 17 points, meaning that I am 88 percent humanist. In 1991 I was the 40-year-old minister of the Unitarian Church of Evanston. We invited Lester Mondale back to give the sermon, and I was honored to have dinner with him. We talked about his struggles keeping a liberal humanist Unitarian Church alive in the 1930s during the great economic depression. He turned to me and said, ARoger, I hope that you, and ministers like you will keep this movement alive. The world is desperately in need of both Unitarian Universalism and religious humanism.@ A few years after I met Lester, the humanists put together a third statement shorter than the first two, which they called AHumanism and Its Aspirations.@ In 2003 all the original signers of the 1933 Manifesto were long dead, with one exception. At the age of 99 Rev. Mondale signed the 2003 statement, the only person to live long enough to sign all three. He died a few weeks after signing. Today, eighty years after Lester signed the first draft of the Humanist Manifesto, forty years after he signed the second draft of the Humanist Manifesto, and ten years after he signed the third

8 8 document called AHumanism and Its I remember Lester, and the commitment of all the humanist pioneers. And I agree, the people of the world can benefit from both Unitarian Universalism and religious humanism.