For clarification, there is limited commenting or editorializing. The reader may judge for himself and use appropriately.

These quotes have been compiled over a long period of time. Reference sources are cited wherever possible. The reader should note that if no reliable source is cited, the quote should not be used to bolster one’s argument or position.

I have many quotes on evolution in general from Behe, Denton, Shapiro, etc.

I also have electronically the complete text of the 6^th Edition of the "Origin of Species."

To assist the reader, you should perform word searches on the following words:

Religion
Religious
Faith
Humanism
Humanist
Sect

Very sincerely,
Michael S. Shelton
Aiea, Hawaii

by David A. Noebel, J.F. Baldwin, and Kevin Bywater, (Summit Press, Manitou Springs, CO, 1995)

This excellent resource by Noebel, Baldwin and Bywater is led by an Introduction, then proceeds to show actual photocopy renderings of the sources they cite, labeled as Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2, etc. The Exhibit sources are individually referenced. – Mike Shelton

Introduction

Page ii:

"In late nineteenth-century England, several small groups of scientists and scholars organized under the leadership of Thomas H. Huxley to overthrow the cultural dominance of Christianity – particularly the intellectual dominance of the Anglican Church. Their goal was to secularize society, replacing the Christian worldview with scientific naturalism, a worldview that recognizes the existence of nature alone. Though secularists, they understood very well that they were replacing one religion with another, for they described their goal as the establishment of the ‘church scientific.’ Huxley even referred to his scientific lectures as ‘lay sermons.’" [Source: Nancy R. Pearcey and Charles B. Thaxton, "The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy," (Wheaton, IL, Crossway Books, 1994), page 19]

Page iii:

"Based on mountains of empirical evidence, drawing from the work of Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, and Robert Bellah, one could argue quite plausibly that secular humanism has become the dominant moral ideology of American public culture and now plays much the same role as the pan-Protestant ideology played in the nineteenth century." [Source: James Davison Hunter, "Religious Freedom and the Challenge of Modern Pluralism," from "Articles of Faith, Articles of Peace: The Religious Liberty Clauses and the American Public Philosophy," James Davison Hunter and Os Guiness, eds., (Washington, DC: The Bookings Institution, 1990), p.57]

{Cited as Footnote #11} "The classroom must and will become an area of conflict between the old and the new -- the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with its adjacent evils and misery and the new faith of Humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian idea of ‘Love thy Neighbor’ will finally be achieved." [John J. Dunphy, "A Religion for a New Age," The Humanist, January/February 1983, page 26]

"Secular Humanism: A religious worldview based on theological atheism, philosophical naturalism, biological spontaneous generation / evolution, moral relativism, legal positivism, and political globalism." [sidebar definition, "Clergy in the Classroom," page iii]

Pages iv, v:

"Another example of America’s adoption of a functional understanding of religion occurred in Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda (1957)." [Source: Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App 2^nd. 673] "In this case, the Fellowship of Humanity sought recovery of property taxes because, it argued, its grounds were used for religious worship. They were awarded a refund of paid property taxes. Other cases awarding religious tax-exemption to non-theistic bodies involved the Washington Ethical Society and the Fellowship of Reconciliation. Paul Blanshard, a signatory of the Humanist Manifesto II, declared that the Fellowship of Humanity court decision represented "another victory for those who would interpret the word ‘religion’ very broadly….." [Source: "Paul Blanshard’s Column," in "The Humanist," No.4, 1959, page 238]

Page v:

"Our final example of the court’s use of a functional definition is well-known. In 1961 the Supreme Court handed down the Torcaso v. Watkins decision regarding a Maryland notary public who was disqualified from public office because he would not declare a belief in God. The Court ruled in his favor. It argued that theistic religions could not be favored by the Court over non-theistic religions. In a footnote it clarified what it meant by non-theistic religions: "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others." [Source: Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 US 488, 495, fn. 11 (1961)]

 

Exhibit 1, pages 17-18:

[Source: "Education Today," by John Dewey, (G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1940), citing Dewey’s ‘My Pedagogic Creed’ of 1897, pages 15-17] Note: Dewey was a signatory of the Humanist Manifesto I. One may note that he clearly states that education and religion are intertwined, even calling the teacher a servant who is "the prophet of the true God…."

page 15: "… - education is a regulation of the process of coming to share in the social consciousness; and that the adjustment of individual activity on the basis of this social consciousness is the only sure method of social reconstruction."

page 15: "… - this conception has due regard for both the individualistic and social ideals. It is duly individual because it recognizes the formation of a certain character as the only genuine basis for right living…."

page 16: "… - it is the business of every one interested in education to insist upon the school as the primary and most effective instrument of social progress and reform in order that society may be awakened to realize what the school stands for….."

page 17: "… -every teacher should realize the dignity of his calling; that he is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of proper social order and the securing of the right of social growth.

"- in this way the teacher always is the prophet of the true God and the usherer in of the true kingdom of God."

 

Exhibit 2, pages 19-20:

[Source: "Education Today," by John Dewey, (G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1940), pages 80, 84-86] Note: Dewey was a signatory of the Humanist Manifesto I. One may note that he clearly states that education and religion are intertwined, even calling the teacher a servant who is "the prophet of the true God…." The following passages from ‘Clergy in the Classroom’ clearly show that Dewey advocated a unification of ‘rival faiths’ into one religious spirit that calls the supernatural incredible and hard to believe. ‘Clergy in the Classroom’ should be required reading for the serious Christian apologist involved in educational matters. - MSS

page 80: "We certainly cannot teach religion as an abstract essence. We have got to teach something as religion, and that means practically some religion." (emphasis in original)

page 84: "… Our schools, in bringing together those of different nationalities, languages, traditions, and creeds, in assimilating them together upon the basis of what is common and public endeavor and achievement, are performing an infinitely significant religious work. They are promoting the social unity out of which in the end genuine religious unity must grow. Shall we interfere with this work? Shall we run the risk of undoing it by introducing into education a subject which can be taught only by segregating pupils and turning them over at special hours to separate representatives of rival faiths?"

page 85: "… For all we know, the integrity of mind which is loosening the hold of these things is potentially much more religious than all that it is displacing. It is increased knowledge of nature which has made supra-nature incredible, or at least difficult of belief. We measure the change from the standpoint of the supernatural and we call it irreligious…." {Note: I personally find increased knowledge of nature to make the idea of a God, an Intelligent Designer, the Supernatural, more and more credible. – Mike Shelton}

page 86: "… So far as education is concerned, those who believe in religion as a natural expression of human experience must devote themselves to the development of the ideas of life which lie implicit in our still new science and our still newer democracy. They must interest themselves in the transformation of those institutions which still bear the dogmatic and feudal stamp (and which do not?) till they are in accord with these ideas. In performing this service, it is their business to do what they can to prevent all public educational agencies from being employed in ways which inevitably impede the recognition of the spiritual import of science and democracy, and hence of that type of religion which will be the fine flower of the modern spirit’s achievement."

Exhibit 3, pages 21-22:

[Source: "The Next Step In Religion," by Roy Wood Sellars, PhD, (The MacMillan Company, New York, 1918), pages ‘Foreword,’ 212, 215-216, 225] Note: Sellars was former President of the New York Chapter of the American Humanist Association and author of the Humanist Manifesto I (1933). – MSS

Foreword: "The center of gravity of religion has been openly changing for some time now from supernaturalism to what may best be called a humanistic naturalism….. There have been many steps forward in the past, for every age must possess its own religion, a religion concordant with its knowledge and expressive of its problems and aims."

Foreword: "The coming phase of religion will reflect man’s power over nature and his moral courage in the face of the facts and possibilities of life. It will be a religion of action and passion, a social religion, a religion of goals and prospects. It will be a free man’s religion, a religion for an adult and aspiring democracy."

page 212: "But the humanist’s religion is the religion of one who says yea to life here and now, of one who is self-reliant and fearless, intelligent and creative. It is the religion of the will to power, of one who is hard on himself and yet joyous in himself. It is the religion of courage and purpose and transforming energy. Its motto is, ‘What hath man not wrought?’ … The religious man will now be he who seeks out causes to be loyal to, social mistakes to correct, wounds to heal, achievements to further."

pages 215-216: "The religion of human possibilities needs prophets who will grip men’s souls with their description of a society in which righteousness, wisdom, and beauty will reign together … Loyalty to such an ideal will surely constitute the heart of the humanist’s religion."

page 225: "If religion is to survive, it must be human and social. It is they who insist upon a supernatural foundation and object who are its enemies. Man’s life is spiritual in its own right. So long as he shall dream of beauty and goodness and truth his life will not lack religion."

Exhibit 4, page 23:

[Source: "Education Today," by John Dewey, (G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1940), pages 145, 147] Note: These excerpts come from "Education as Religion," an article written by Dewey which originally appeared in The New Republic, September 13, 1922. It was reprinted in Dewey’s ‘Education Today’ in 1940. As one can see, Dewey never mentions the Supernatural / supernatural. - MSS

page 145: "We make a religion of our education, we profess unbounded faith in its possibilities, we point with pride to its advance, we term instruction as an art and school management as a profession. Faith in education signifies nothing less than belief in the possibility of deliberate direction in the formation of human disposition and intelligence."

page 147: "If we have any ground to be religious, we may take education religiously."

Exhibit 5, pages 25-27:

[Source: "Humanism," by Curtis W. Reese, (The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago / London, 1926), pages 21-24] Note: Reese believed that Humanism should be applied to every facet of reality. Reese was a signatory to the Humanist Manifesto I. – MSS

Table of Contents Page: Reese lists three Parts of this book as "Part II. Humanizing Religion … Page 13," "Part II Humanizing Religion (continued) … Page 21," and "Part III Humanizing Religion (concluded) … Page 27"

pages 21-22: " ….Religion symbolizes the human quest to discover in the nature of man and the universe the kind of life that is inherently desirable, and to enlist in its behalf all instrumentalities, both human and cosmic, that are capable of assisting in its realization. This quest is man’s religion."

page 22: " ….While the forms of religion have undergone revolution, we shall retain the term "religion." My chief purpose, however, is not to justify the word but to record certain changes in its content and form."

page 23: " …. In other words, humanism stands for the complete and permanent satisfactions of human life."

"The object of the old religion is the superhuman unknown and the chief content of the old religion is the sentiment entertained toward the superhuman unknown. The object of humanism is life, and its chief content is loyalty to life (emphasis in the original - MSS). In the old religion right and wrong are defined in terms of conformity to standards extrinsic to human life; in humanism right and wrong are defined in terms of consequence to human life. The old religion is characterized by trust and receptivity; humanism, by aspiration and creativity …. The old religion judged man by his contribution to the gods; humanism judges the gods by their contribution to man. In the old religion theological beliefs are central and imperative; in humanism theological theories are types of "spiritual shorthand.""

page 24: "In the theocentric world of the pre-scientific days man wanted super powers or beings whom he could placate and so secure special agency. But science has discredited special agency. It has found the universe to be a self-operating system. It finds ordinary cosmic events and processes routine and impersonal, and other things cared for by highly specialized parts of nature such as man. It regards order and purpose as self existent. Reality is found, but its ultimate nature is not yet determined. Man’s whole world outlook is vastly different from what it once was and it is still subject to change. Hence humanistic religion does not regard the acceptance of any philosophical or theological hypothesis as religiously necessary."

Exhibit 6, pages 29-30:

[Source: "Humanist Sermons," edited by Curtis W. Reese, (The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago / London, 1927), pages v,39-40] Note: This document is a compilation of various essays delivered by different people from the pulpits of liberal / Humanist churches. – MSS

Preface, page v: "Within the liberal churches of America there is a religious movement which has come to be known as Humanism."

Essay: "The Faith of Humanism," by Curtis W. Reese, page 39: "There is a large element of faith in all religion. Buddhism has faith in the inexorable laws of Karma; Mohammedanism in the unyielding will of Allah; Confucianism in the moral nature of Heaven; Christianity in the love of God; and Humanism in man as the measure of values.

"There is a large measure of faith in all science. Faith in the orderliness of nature and in man’s mind to comprehend it makes science possible. There could be no science if we began with chaos on the part of the universe and incompetence on the part of man.

"Hypotheses, postulates, and assumptions in their proper realm are comparable to faith in the realm of religion. In this way I speak of the faith of Humanism."

page 40: " Competent philosophers, scientists, and even theologians, regard working assumptions as tentative. They constantly check for error; they diligently gather new data and re-examine the old generalizations in the light of the new facts. They welcome criticism and verification from competent persons. Their faith is consciously experimental. And thus it is with the faith of Humanism..

" …. Let us sketch the faith of Humanism in broad outline and see what it has to offer…… In the first place, Humanism has faith in the trustworthiness of the scientific spirit and method; viz., freedom of inquiry and controlled experiment. Fundamentalism is skeptical of science; Modernism merely flirts with science; but Humanism says that while science may give us inadequate knowledge, it gives all we have and we must make the most of it…."

 

Exhibit 7, pages 31-32:

[Source: "Humanist Sermons," edited by Curtis W. Reese, (The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago / London, 1927), pages 60-61] Note: This document is a compilation of various essays delivered by different people from the pulpits of liberal / Humanist churches. – MSS

Essay by E. Stanton Hodgin, page 60: "Our nation followed a diametrically opposite course. It deestablished the church, letting theology shift for itself. It in no sense repudiated religion, only declaring it to be an individual matter and no concern of the state. In place of the church that it had disestablished, it established the school, giving it state aid and authority, thus making education, human wisdom, knowledge of the world forces that impinge upon us the bulwark of national security and stability. This nation thus committed its life to the humanistic position long before such a faith was thought of as a religion……"

"All American are humanists. They find guidance in the accumulations of knowledge and experience that mankind has gathered from its contacts with the world forces and its adjustments to them. Chief reliance is upon the educational and cultural forces that give enlightenment."

page 61: "Humanism thus seems to be gaining almost everything except recognition as a religious faith. Since the fact remains that humanism is the dominant force in our modern life, institutional recognition is a matter of minor importance."

"Secular Humanist Worldview Fact Sheet"

"There is no place in the Humanist worldview for either immortality or God in the valid meanings of those terms. Humanism contends that instead of the gods creating the cosmos, the cosmos, in the individualized form of human beings giving rein to their imagination, created the gods." [Corliss Lamont, "The Philosophy of Humanism," (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing, 1982) p. 145]

"The classroom must and will become an area of conflict between the old and the new -- the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with its adjacent evils and misery and the new faith of Humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian idea of ‘Love thy Neighbor’ will finally be achieved." [John J. Dunphy, "A Religion for a New Age," The Humanist, January/February 1983, 26]

"The ultimate failure of Secular Humanism is in the fact that of its very nature it promises what it cannot fulfill. By encouraging people to put their trust in earthly happiness it programs them for disillusionment. This is in large measure the reason why the history of the modern world has been characterized, intellectually, by philosophies of pessimism like Existentialism and by often-rancorous bitterness over various plans for worldly improvement. In the twentieth century, mass slaughter has been perpetrated not by religious believers in opposition to heresy but by secularists convinced that their plan for a worldly utopia is the only possible one." [James Hitchcock, "What is Secular Humanism? Why Humanism Became Secular and How It Is Changing Our World," (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1982) p. 141]

"The humanistic system of values has now become the predominant way of thinking in most of the power centers of society." [James Dobson, "Children at Risk," (Dallas, TX: Word, 1990) p. 22]

"Bertrand Russell, a clear-headed liberal humanist, wrote as follows about what he called ‘the night of nothingness’: ‘There is darkness without and when I die there will be darkness within. There is no splendor, no vastness, anywhere; only triviality for a moment, and then nothing.’ That says it all. Whereas for the Christian nothing is finally trivial, for the humanist everything becomes finally trivial, death, as Russell says, producing precisely that effect." [J.I. Packer and Thomas Howard, "Christianity: The True Humanism," (Waco, TX: Word, 1985), p. 231-232. (Bertrand Russell quote from, Autobiography, vol. 2 [London: George Allen and Unwin, 1968] p. 159.)]

"Lynn Margulis is Distinguished University Professor of Biology at the University of Massachusetts. Lynn Margulis is highly respected for her widely accepted theory that mitochondria, the energy source for plant and animal cells, were once independent bacteria cells. And Lynn Margulis says that history will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology." At one of her many public talks she asks the molecular biologists in the audience to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge goes unmet. Proponents of the standard theory, she says, "wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin -- having mistaken him......Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations), is in a complete funk."" page 26 [Source: Mann, C. (1991) "Lynn Margulis: Science’s Unruly Earth Mother," Science, 252, 378-381]

From his book, "God and the Astronomers," (New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1978), pages 115-116:

"Now we would like to pursue that inquiry farther back in time, but the barrier to further progress seems insurmountable. It is not a matter of another year, another decade of work, another measurement, or another theory; at this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Note: Dr. Jastrow is the founder of the Goddard Space Center and an avowed agnostic

 

Page 267:

"Belief in evolution is crucial to Humanism’s worldview as are its atheistic theology and naturalistic philosophy....Without the theory of evolution, the Humanist would have to rely on God as the explanation for life, which would necessarily destroy his atheism and hence his Humanism."

 

Page 288, under "Summary:"

".......with an atheistic base the subject of origins calls for the self-generation of non-living matter. Marxist biology defends spontaneous generation despite the fact that it is a pre-scientific concept dating back to the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Greeks. Engels says he will "believe" in spontaneous generation no matter what Louis Pasteur and other scientists say or do to disprove it. In fact, Engels sees no scientific experiments capable of disproving the theory. The Marxist attitude is simple: given time, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and energy from the sun, matter is obligated to create life. According to the Marxist, we are the practical result of just such a materialistic matrix."

 

Charles Francis Potter was a Baptist minister for more than a decade, but left the church to become a Unitarian minister. A decade later, he became a Humanist minister. He was a signatory to Humanist Manifesto I.

From his book, "Humanism: A New Religion," (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1930), page 3, admitting that

Secular Humanism is a religion:

"So Humanism is not simply another denomination of Protestant Christianity; it is not a creed, nor is it a cult."

"It is a new type of religion altogether."

 

Is it a religion?, page 114:

"Is Humanism a religion? It is both a religion and a philosophy of culture."

Talking about education, page 128:

"Education is thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday-schools, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?

"The Pope and the Fundamentalists see the danger to Theism. The former would have all parents send their children to parochial schools where they can be given theistic antidotes to counteract the humanist poison so prevalent in American life! The Fundamentalists concentrate their opposition on the theory of evolution, sensing that there lies a great danger to theistic religion.

"So very humanistic is modern education that no religion has a future unless it be Humanism. The religion of tomorrow in America and of the day after tomorrow in all the world may not be in all respects identical with the religious Humanism we are advocating in this book, but it will be mightily like it and of the same spirit."

Edwords, Frederick, "The Religious Character of American Patriotism," The Humanist, vol. 47 (November/December 1987), pp. 20-24, 36. Edwords is Executive Director of the American Humanist Association, a member of the Board of Directors of the National Center for Science Education, and Editor of Creation/Evolution Journal.

pages 20-21

"The United States is indeed a religious nation, but its unifying religion is not Christianity or any other world faith—not even ‘the religion of secular humanism,’ as has been claimed of late. It is instead a unique national belief system best called Americanism."

Chambers, Bette (president, ASA), Isaac Asimov, Hudson Hoagland, Chauncey D. Leake, Linus Pauling, and George Gaylord Simpson (Sponsoring Committee), "A Statement Affirming Evolution as a Principle of Science," The Humanist, vol. 37, no. 1 (January/February 1977), pp. 4-6 (signed by 163 others—Rogers, Skinner, LaMont, Tax, Cloud, Commoner, Mayr, etc.).

page 4

"There are no alternative theories to the principle of evolution, with its ‘tree of life’ pattern, that any competent biologist of today takes seriously….

"Creationism is not scientific; it is a purely religious view held by some religious sects and persons and strongly opposed by other religious sects and persons…. Evolution is … therefore the only view that should be expounded in public-school courses on science.

"We, the undersigned, call upon all local school boards … to do the following:

"—Resist and oppose measures … that would require creationist views of origins be given equal treatment and emphasis….

"—Reject the concept, currently being put forth by certain religious and pressure groups, that alleges that evolution is itself a tenet of a religion of ‘secular humanism,’ and as such is unsuitable for inclusion in the public school science curriculum." {Note: This statement categorically rejects mountains of material over decades of publishing by Humanists that Humanism is a religion. Isaac Asimov was a past president of the American Humanist Association. – MSS}

 

American Humanist Association, quoted in American Humanist Association brochure.

"Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a non-theistic religion, a way of life.

"The American Humanist Association is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization, incorporated in the early 1940’s in Illinois for educational and religious purposes.

"Humanist counsellors to solemnize weddings, and conduct memorial services and to assist in individual value ‘counselling.’

Dunphy, John J., "A Religion for a New Age," The Humanist, vol. 43 (January/February 1983), pp. 23-26.

page 26

"I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of ‘love thy neighbor’ will finally be achieved."

 

Huxley, Julian, "The Coming New Religion of Humanism," The Humanist, vol. 22 (January/February 1962).

"The beliefs of this religion of evolutionary humanism are not based on revelation in the supernatural sense, but on the revelations that science and learning have given us about man and the universe. A humanist believes with full assurance that man is not alien to nature, but a part of nature, albeit a unique one….His true destiny is to guide the future course of evolution on earth towards greater fulfillment, so as to realize more and higher potentialities…. A humanist religion will have the task of redefining the categories of good and evil in terms of fulfillment and of desirable or undesirable realizations of potentiality, and setting up new targets for its morality to aim at…. Humanism also differs from all supernaturalist religions in centering its long-term aims not on the next world but on this…. The humanist goal must therefore be … the Fulfillment Society."

 

Following are the complete texts and sources for the Human Manifesto and Human Manifesto II

The text of "A Humanist Manifesto" is reprinted here precisely as it appeared in the May/June 1933 issue of The New Humanist (VI:3:1-5). The thirty-four endorsers signed as individuals and their organizational or professional connections were given for identification only.

The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience. In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.

There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of the word religion with doctrines and methods which have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problems of human living in the Twentieth Century. Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life. Their end has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors results in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact explains the changefulness of religions throughout the centuries. But through all changes religion itself remains constant in its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life.

Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and his deeper appreciation of brotherhood have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is nonetheless obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:

First: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

Second: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process.

Third: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

Fourth: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.

Fifth: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine he existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relation to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

Sixth: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought."

Seventh: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation—all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.

Eighth: Religious humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion.

Ninth: In place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.

Tenth: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.

Eleventh: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.

Twelfth: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.

Thirteenth: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.

Fourteenth: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

Fifteenth and last: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from it; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.

So stand the theses of religious humanism. Though we consider the religious forms and ideas of our fathers no longer adequate, the quest for the good life is still the central task for mankind. Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, that he has within himself the power for its achievement. He must set intelligence and will to the task.

(signed)

J. A. C Fagginger Auer—Parkman Professor of Church History and Theology, Harvard University; Professor of Church History, Tufts College.

E. Burdette Backus—Unitarian Minister.

Harry Elmer Barnes—General Editorial Department, ScrippsHoward Newspapers.

L. M. Birkhead—The Liberal Center, Kansas City, Missouri.

Raymond B. Bragg—Secretary, Western Unitarian Conference.

Edwin Arthur Burtt—Professor of Philosophy, Sage School of Philosophy, Cornell University.

Ernest Caldecott—Minister, First Unitarian Church, Los Angeles, California.

A. J. Carlson—Professor of Physiology, University of Chicago.

John Dewey—Columbia University.

Albert C Dieffenbach—Formerly Editor of The Christian Register.

John H. Dietrich—Minister, First Unitarian Society, Minneapolis.

Bernard Fantus—Professor of Therapeutics, College of Medicine, University of Illinois.

William Floyd—Editor of The Arbitrator, New York City.

F H. Hankins—Professor of Economics and Sociology, Smith College.

A. Eustace Haydon—Professor of History of Religions, University of Chicago.

Llewellyn Jones—Literary critic and author.

Robert Morss Lovett—Editor, The New Republic; Professor of English, University of Chicago.

Harold P Marley—Minister, The Fellowship of Liberal Religion, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

R. Lester Mondale—Minister, Unitarian Church, Evanston, Illinois.

Charles Francis Potter—Leader and Founder, the First Humanist Society of New York, Inc.

John Herman Randall, Jr.—Department of Philosophy, Columbia University.

Curtis W Reese—Dean, Abraham Lincoln Center, Chicago.

Oliver L. Reiser—Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh.

Roy Wood Sellars—Professor of Philosophy, University of Michigan.

Clinton Lee Scott—Minister, Universalist Church, Peoria, Illinois.

Maynard Shipley—President, The Science League of America.

W Frank Swift—Director, Boston Ethical Society.

V. T. Thayer—Educational Director, Ethical Culture Schools.

Eldred C Vanderlaan—Leader of the Free Fellowship, Berkeley, California.

Joseph Walker—Attorney, Boston, Massachusetts.

Jacob J. Weinstein—Rabbi; Advisor to Jewish Students, Columbia University.

Frank S. C Wicks—All Souls Unitarian Church, Indianapolis.

David Rhys Williams—Minister, Unitarian Church, Rochester, New York.

Edwin H. Wilson—Managing Editor, The New Humanist, Chicago, Illinois; Minister, Third Unitarian Church, Chicago, Illinois.

As associate editor of The New Humanist and initiator of the project, Raymond B. Bragg appended the manifesto with the following note, which has also appeared integrally to the manifesto in all successive editions:

The Manifesto is a product of many minds. It was designed to represent a developing point of view, not a new creed. The individuals, whose signatures appear, would, had they been writing individual statements, have stated the propositions in differing terms. The importance of the document is that more than thirty men have come to general agreement on matters of final concern and that these men are undoubtedly representative of a large number who are forging a new philosophy out of the materials of the modem world.

It is obvious that many others might have been asked to sign the Manifesto had not the lack of time and the shortage of clerical assistance limited our ability to communicate with them. The names of several who were asked do not appear. Reasons for their absence appear elsewhere in this issue of "The New Humanist." Further criticisms that we have been unable to publish have reached us; all of them we value. We invite an expression of opinion from others. To the extent possible "The New Humanist" will publish such materials.

Bragg's disclaimer was largely the result of correspondence with M. C. Otto and Arthur E. Morgan and is a reflection of Unitarian creedlessness. (Unfortunately, this appendage was inadvertently left out of the 1973 booklet published by Prometheus Books, which included Humanist Manifesto I [1933] and Humanist Manifesto II [1973].)

Continuing the policy of publishing divergent views, the same issue of The New Humanist in which the 1933 manifesto appeared also included the dissenting opinions of some nonsigners—Harold Buschman, John Haynes Holmes, Arthur E. Morgan, and Max C. Otto—whom we have already discussed.

In addition to drafting the initial text of "A Humanist Manifesto," we enlisted Roy Wood Sellars to write an interpretation of the document, which was also published in that issue of The New Humanist (VI: 3:7-12). Entitled "Religious Humanism," this article was integral to the initial presentation of the manifesto. It follows here with only a few sentences deleted:

Religious Humanism

In the Humanist Manifesto it will be seen that many of us have reached a common body of beliefs and attitudes, beliefs about man, his place in the universe, the general nature of that universe, and attitudes toward the great questions of life. And we are certain that very many others, both in this country and abroad, have been thinking and feeling along these lines. Humanism offers to the world a set of new fundamentals on which to build personal and social life. These are the fundamentals as science, philosophy, and ethical insight are together grasping them, the fundamentals, I take it, of the age before us. Together they should furnish the basis for a valid and healthy reading of the nature, conditions, and possibilities of human living.

Now these humanist fundamentals are in many ways diametrically opposed to the fundamentals accepted by Christianity. I shall not attempt to answer the riddle, When is a Christian not a Christian? It reminds me, however, of the puzzle with which philosophers used to deal, the case of Sir John Suckling's stockings which were so much darned that none of the original silk remained in them. Were they still the original stockings? Not so long ago, the fundamentalist movement in the evangelical churches sought to get back to what they regarded as historical fundamentals. These were formulated in a very definite way and expressed, I think, the beliefs of the typical Protestant of a century ago. It would be another problem to determine how far they coincided with primitive Christianity or with the outlook of the Alexandrian fathers. But, in any case, the evangelical fundamentalists formulated a set of tenets which they regarded as true doctrine about man and the universe. I think that I can understand their motives for so doing and sympathize with at least some of them. It was with their appeal to the state to enforce their beliefs by legislation that I had no sympathy. It was natural; but could not succeed unless the trend was in their education. . . .

Under the influence of science and philosophy many churches and churchmen became liberal. They found it impossible to accept any longer the account of creation in Genesis and agreed that historical investigation had shown it to be a mixture of early Semitic myth and priestly theology. In like manner, miracles were doubted as contrary to the idea of immanent orderliness in the world. Here there was a touch of deism in liberalism. In short, the traditional theology was censored and toned down so that it lost its dramatic and concrete character. It was decided that the old views must be taken symbolically rather than literally.

The result of this liberalizing and deliteralizing was what is usually called modernism. But, in spite of its relinquishments of what is regarded as cruder beliefs, modernism, also, had its fundamentals. As nearly as I can judge, these consist of a belief in a regnant God, the validity of prayer and worship, and the acceptance of personal immortality. In the eyes of the modernist these constitute the minimum of religious fundamentals. I would say that he is doubtful that religion in any real sense of the word can survive the defeat of these fundamentals of his. He is quite certain that, beyond this minimum, Christianity ceases to exist. In relinquishing Jesus as the Son of God, Unitarianism had already stepped, to all intents and purposes, beyond the pale. Theism, I take it, is the basic fundamental of modernism.

And it is here that the battle is waging. To the consternation of the theist the humanist has arisen on the religious horizon to challenge his fundamentals and to assert that the time is ripe for a candid and impartial survey of the situation and its possibilities in the light of modern knowledge. Has the God-idea any longer a basis in the universe as we know it? And, if not, what becomes of the religious attitudes of prayer and worship dependent upon it? And, finally, what is the present standing of the notion of an after-life, a notion bound up with the traditional dualism between mind and body? Are these beliefs and the attitudes and activities integral with them capable of maintaining themselves when confronted by the thought of today? Such questions as these constitute the crisis of liberal Christianity. . . .

The question before us, then, is this, Are even the minimum theistic fundamentals tenable? The humanist says, No! He asserts that man must work out a new set of fundamentals and adjust his attitudes and expectations to them. Moreover, he maintains that these new fundamentals will be frankly naturalistic. Man is a child of nature, though a specially gifted child. . . . The psychological center of religion becomes for him intelligent forethought and purpose rather than petition and submission.

We may define religious humanism, accordingly, as religion adjusted to an intelligent naturalism. It is a religion in which man has become consciously the center of human thought and feeling. It is not a worship of an abstraction called humanity nor does it retain those traditional attitudes which are no longer relevant. It is religious because a concern for human values has always been the heart of religion. But it is a religion with a different perspective, a perspective based upon knowledge of man's situation rather than upon ignorance and imagination. . . .

We conclude that the humanist movement is a religious movement in that it is deeply concerned with the furtherance of human life along the lines indicated by reason and sympathetic intelligence. It is true that it represents a break with the traditional religious interpretation of life and the universe, but this is a sign of its vitality and novelty. If, as the humanist contends, the traditional religious interpretation of the world was illusory, the only manly thing to do is to acknowledge the mistake and make a fresh start. Man must interpret and direct his life, for this is inseparable from the very activity of living. Thought-frames and beliefs have always been secondary to this necessity. They are variables while this is a constant, as constant as life itself. If some prefer to speak of humanism as a philosophy of life, I would not be averse. But the careful students of comparative religions inform us that religion has always been one with the people's philosophy of life, with what they regarded as significant and imperative. The point is that the mists, fears, and hopes wrought of supernaturalism are vanishing. It is becoming daylight in the world. Man is at last beginning to understand himself and his situation, to know what he is "up against."

There remain two topics for consideration in this brief exposition of religious humanism: First, why the adoption of the term humanism? and, second, why the complete rejection of theism as a fundamental for the religion of our age and the ages that are coming?

We adopted the term humanism because it was, quite obviously, the one suitable term. Reject theism as the logical center of religion and the only alternative is to take man as the center. The new religion is homocentric and not theo-centric. Historians generally recognize that the passionate return to the literature and art of Greece, characteristic of the Renaissance, expressed in large part a turning away from the false asceticism and otherworldliness of much of the Middle Ages. I am not one of those who desire to paint too dark a picture of Medieval times; and yet I take it to be assured that there was this swing of human attention and interest. Literary humanism was part of a larger movement. Man felt more secure, more creative, more concerned with everyday affairs, with science, politics, trade, art.

And, recurrently since then, the term humanism has appeared to define this direction and concern. It was so used by Feuerbach and by Renan. The humanist was not a mere classicist but one who shared in the Greek sense of human values and dislike for the irrational and mystically authoritative. The humanist was one who took a joy in life and its possibilities and set his intelligence to work. Religious humanism is such humanism in the setting of modern science and philosophy. To narrow humanism to aesthetic classicism would be a crime. The religious humanist is not averse to a touch of romanticism to give vitality nor in his eyes is a pinch or two of humanitarianism and democracy an unmixed evil. All these can be mastered and used if the dominant spirit be that of fearless and intelligent deliberation upon the issues of human life. I must pass the consideration of literary humanism to the aesthetician and the literary critic.

And so we come at last to the question of the standing and the main characteristics of the naturalism which religious humanism accepts as a fundamental. Upon this I think all naturalists are agreed that between naturalism and theism it is a case of either-or. Either a reality corresponding to the God-idea is at the center of reality in a directing, planning way or there is no such reality. In the latter case, man is left to work out his own salvation as best he can with a fairly stable planet underneath his feet. His is the adventure and the goal.

It has always been my thesis that naturalism has today the logical priority. Nature is under observation in a way that God is not. It is difficult to put the contrast without paradox. For, of course, if God does not exist, he cannot be known. God does not exist means that the God-idea does not have application to what exists.

It is not my intention to brush aside all the arguments which have been used by Christians and other theists to show that the God-idea does have application. I must content myself with saying that none of these arguments have seemed to philosophers very convincing. As the support of traditional convictions is withdrawn, they become increasingly feeble. The one which seems to me most interesting goes back to Descartes and has appeared recently in new form as directed against the doctrine of emergent evolution. It is this, that the effect cannot be qualitatively different from the cause and the emergence of personality in the universe presupposes its prior existence. But to me, at least, this seems a dogma. Is it an a priori truth? How is it going to be validated as such? Novelty is a fact which runs all through nature with synthesis and organization. Naturalism studies nature to find out its pattern and what is, or is not, possible.

The naturalism which religious humanism accepts is not reductive. It takes man as he is with his gifts, with his mistakes and successes, in the scene, national and international, with which we are all becoming so familiar. Here lies man's job. Let him apply intelligence and a humane set of values to the business of living.

Copyright © 1995 by Humanist Press, a division of the American Humanist Association, 7 Harwood Drive, P.O. Box 1188, Amherst, NY 14226-7188. (Phone 1-800-743-6646 or 1-716-839-5080.) All rights reserved. This book may be downloaded for personal use only. Otherwise, no part of it may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means — electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise — without the written permission of Humanist Press. The hard copy edition is available from the above address.

Humanist Manifesto II

As we approach the twenty-first century, however, an affirmative and hopeful vision is needed. Faith, commensurate with advancing knowledge, is also necessary. In the choice between despair and hope, humanists respond in this Humanist Manifesto II with a positive declaration for times of uncertainty.

As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival.

Those who sign Humanist Manifesto II disclaim that they are setting forth a binding credo; their individual views would be stated in widely varying ways. This statement is, however, reaching for vision in a time that needs direction. It is social analysis in an effort at consensus. New statements should be developed to supersede this, but for today it is our conviction that humanism offers an alternative that can serve present-day needs and guide humankind toward the future.

-- Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson (1973)

The next century can be and should be the humanistic century. Dramatic scientific, technological, and ever-accelerating social and political changes crowd our awareness. We have virtually conquered the planet, explored the moon, overcome the natural limits of travel and communication; we stand at the dawn of a new age, ready to move farther into space and perhaps inhabit other planets. Using technology wisely, we can control our environment, conquer poverty, markedly reduce disease, extend our life-span, significantly modify our behavior, alter the course of human evolution and cultural development, unlock vast new powers, and provide humankind with unparalleled opportunity for achieving an abundant and meaningful life.

The future is, however, filled with dangers. In learning to apply the scientific method to nature and human life, we have opened the door to ecological damage, over-population, dehumanizing institutions, totalitarian repression, and nuclear and bio- chemical disaster. Faced with apocalyptic prophesies and doomsday scenarios, many flee in despair from reason and embrace irrational cults and theologies of withdrawal and retreat.

Traditional moral codes and newer irrational cults both fail to meet the pressing needs of today and tomorrow. False "theologies of hope" and messianic ideologies, substituting new dogmas for old, cannot cope with existing world realities. They separate rather than unite peoples.

Humanity, to survive, requires bold and daring measures. We need to extend the uses of scientific method, not renounce them, to fuse reason with compassion in order to build constructive social and moral values. Confronted by many possible futures, we must decide which to pursue. The ultimate goal should be the fulfillment of the potential for growth in each human personality -- not for the favored few, but for all of humankind. Only a shared world and global measures will suffice.

A humanist outlook will tap the creativity of each human being and provide the vision and courage for us to work together. This outlook emphasizes the role human beings can play in their own spheres of action. The decades ahead call for dedicated, clear- minded men and women able to marshal the will, intelligence, and cooperative skills for shaping a desirable future. Humanism can provide the purpose and inspiration that so many seek; it can give personal meaning and significance to human life.

Many kinds of humanism exist in the contemporary world. The varieties and emphases of naturalistic humanism include "scientific," "ethical," "democratic," "religious," and "Marxist" humanism. Free thought, atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, deism, rationalism, ethical culture, and liberal religion all claim to be heir to the humanist tradition. Humanism traces its roots from ancient China, classical Greece and Rome, through the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, to the scientific revolution of the modern world. But views that merely reject theism are not equivalent to humanism. They lack commitment to the positive belief in the possibilities of human progress and to the values central to it. Many within religious groups, believing in the future of humanism, now claim humanist credentials. Humanism is an ethical process through which we all can move, above and beyond the divisive particulars, heroic personalities, dogmatic creeds, and ritual customs of past religions or their mere negation.

We affirm a set of common principles that can serve as a basis for united action -- positive principles relevant to the present human condition. They are a design for a secular society on a planetary scale.

For these reasons, we submit this new Humanist Manifesto for the future of humankind; for us, it is a vision of hope, a direction for satisfying survival.

Religion

FIRST: In the best sense, religion may inspire dedication to the highest ethical ideals. The cultivation of moral devotion and creative imagination is an expression of genuine "spiritual" experience and aspiration.

We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so. Even at this late date in human history, certain elementary facts based upon the critical use of scientific reason have to be restated. We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we now know; any new discoveries, however, will but enlarge our knowledge of the natural.

Some humanists believe we should reinterpret traditional religions and reinvest them with meanings appropriate to the current situation. Such redefinitions, however, often perpetuate old dependencies and escapisms; they easily become obscurantist, impeding the free use of the intellect. We need, instead, radically new human purposes and goals.

We appreciate the need to preserve the best ethical teachings in the religious traditions of humankind, many of which we share in common. But we reject those features of traditional religious morality that deny humans a full appreciation of their own potentialities and responsibilities. Traditional religions often offer solace to humans, but, as often, they inhibit humans from helping themselves or experiencing their full potentialities. Such institutions, creeds, and rituals often impede the will to serve others. Too often traditional faiths encourage dependence rather than independence, obedience rather than affirmation, fear rather than courage. More recently they have generated concerned social action, with many signs of relevance appearing in the wake of the "God Is Dead" theologies. But we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.

SECOND: Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying social injustices. Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the "ghost in the machine" and the "separable soul." Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces. As far as we know, the total personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context. There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body. We continue to exist in our progeny and in the way that our lives have influenced others in our culture.

Traditional religions are surely not the only obstacles to human progress. Other ideologies also impede human advance. Some forms of political doctrine, for instance, function religiously, reflecting the worst features of orthodoxy and authoritarianism, especially when they sacrifice individuals on the altar of Utopian promises. Purely economic and political viewpoints, whether capitalist or communist, often function as religious and ideological dogma. Although humans undoubtedly need economic and political goals, they also need creative values by which to live.

Ethics

THIRD: We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life. Human life has meaning because we create and develop our futures. Happiness and the creative realization of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment, are continuous themes of humanism. We strive for the good life, here and now. The goal is to pursue life's enrichment despite debasing forces of vulgarization, commercialization, and dehumanization.

FOURTH: Reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses. There is no substitute: neither faith nor passion suffices in itself. The controlled use of scientific methods, which have transformed the natural and social sciences since the Renaissance, must be extended further in the solution of human problems. But reason must be tempered by humility, since no group has a monopoly of wisdom or virtue. Nor is there any guarantee that all problems can be solved or all questions answered. Yet critical intelligence, infused by a sense of human caring, is the best method that humanity has for resolving problems. Reason should be balanced with compassion and empathy and the whole person fulfilled. Thus, we are not advocating the use of scientific intelligence independent of or in opposition to emotion, for we believe in the cultivation of feeling and love. As science pushes back the boundary of the known, humankind's sense of wonder is continually renewed, and art, poetry, and music find their places, along with religion and ethics.

The Individual

FIFTH: The preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value. Individuals should be encouraged to realize their own creative talents and desires. We reject all religious, ideological, or moral codes that denigrate the individual, suppress freedom, dull intellect, dehumanize personality. We believe in maximum individual autonomy consonant with social responsibility. Although science can account for the causes of behavior, the possibilities of individual freedom of choice exist in human life and should be increased.

SIXTH: In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized. While we do not approve of exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered "evil." Without countenancing mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilized society should be a tolerant one. Short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their life-styles as they desire. We wish to cultivate the development of a responsible attitude toward sexuality, in which humans are not exploited as sexual objects, and in which intimacy, sensitivity, respect, and honesty in interpersonal relations are encouraged. Moral education for children and adults is an important way of developing awareness and sexual maturity.

Democratic Society

SEVENTH: To enhance freedom and dignity the individual must experience a full range of civil liberties in all societies. This includes freedom of speech and the press, political democracy, the legal right of opposition to governmental policies, fair judicial process, religious liberty, freedom of association, and artistic, scientific, and cultural freedom. It also includes a recognition of an individual's right to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide. We oppose the increasing invasion of privacy, by whatever means, in both totalitarian and democratic societies. We would safeguard, extend, and implement the principles of human freedom evolved from the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights, the Rights of Man, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

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 workplace, and voluntary associations. Decision-making must be decentralized to include widespread involvement of people at all levels -- social, political, and economic. All persons should have a voice in developing the values and goals that determine their lives. Institutions should be responsive to expressed desires and needs. The conditions of work, education, devotion, and play should be humanized. Alienating forces should be modified or eradicated and bureaucratic structures should be held to a minimum. People are more important than decalogues, rules, proscriptions, or regulations.

NINTH: The separation of church and state and the separation of ideology and state are imperatives. The state should encourage maximum freedom for different moral, political, religious, and social values in society. It should not favor any particular religious bodies through the use of public monies, nor espouse a single ideology and function thereby as an instrument of propaganda or oppression, particularly against dissenters.

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 satisfaction, and enhance the quality of life. Hence the door is open to alternative economic systems. We need to democratize the economy and judge it by its responsiveness to human needs, testing results in terms of the common good.

ELEVENTH: The principle of moral equality must be furthered through elimination of all discrimination based upon race, religion, sex, age, or national origin. This means equality of opportunity and recognition of talent and merit. Individuals should be encouraged to contribute to their own betterment. If unable, then society should provide means to satisfy their basic economic, health, and cultural needs, including, wherever resources make possible, a minimum guaranteed annual income. We are concerned 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 -- for all who are neglected or ignored by society. Practicing humanists should make it their vocation to humanize personal relations.

We believe in the right to universal education. Everyone has a right to the cultural opportunity to fulfill his or her unique capacities and talents. The schools should foster satisfying and productive living. They should be open at all levels to any and all; the achievement of excellence should be encouraged. Innovative and experimental forms of education are to be welcomed. The energy and idealism of the young deserve to be appreciated and channeled to constructive purposes.

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.

We are critical of sexism or sexual chauvinism -- male or female. We believe in equal rights for both women and men to fulfill their unique careers and potentialities as they see fit, free of invidious discrimination.

World Community

TWELFTH: We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government. This would appreciate cultural pluralism and diversity. It would not exclude pride in national origins and accomplishments nor the handling of regional problems on a regional basis. Human progress, however, can no longer be achieved by focusing on one section of the world, Western or Eastern, developed or underdeveloped. 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. We thus reaffirm a commitment to the building of world community, at the same time recognizing that this commits us to some hard choices.

THIRTEENTH: This world community must renounce the resort to violence and force as a method of solving international disputes. We believe in the peaceful adjudication of differences by international courts and by the development of the arts of negotiation and compromise. War is obsolete. So is the use of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. It is a planetary imperative to reduce the level of military expenditures and turn these savings to peaceful and people-oriented uses.

FOURTEENTH: The world community must engage in cooperative planning concerning the use of rapidly depleting resources. The planet earth must be considered a single ecosystem. Ecological damage, resource depletion, and excessive population growth must be checked by international concord. The cultivation and conservation of nature is a moral value; we should perceive ourselves as integral to the sources of our being in nature. We must free our world from needless pollution and waste, responsibly guarding and creating wealth, both natural and human. Exploitation of natural resources, uncurbed by social conscience, must end.

FIFTEENTH: The problems of economic growth and development can no longer be resolved by one nation alone; they are worldwide in scope. It is the moral obligation of the developed nations to provide -- through an international authority that safeguards human rights -- massive technical, agricultural, medical, and economic assistance, including birth control techniques, to the developing portions of the globe. World poverty must cease. Hence extreme disproportions in wealth, income, and economic growth should be reduced on a worldwide basis.

SIXTEENTH: Technology is a vital key to human progress and development. We deplore any neo-romantic efforts to condemn indiscriminately all technology and science or to counsel retreat from its further extension and use for the good of humankind. We would resist any moves to censor basic scientific research on moral, political, or social grounds. Technology must, however, be carefully judged by the consequences of its use; harmful and destructive changes should be avoided. We are particularly disturbed when technology and bureaucracy control, manipulate, or modify human beings without their consent. Technological feasibility does not imply social or cultural desirability.

SEVENTEENTH: We must expand communication and transportation across frontiers. Travel restrictions must cease. The world must be open to diverse political, ideological, and moral viewpoints and evolve a worldwide system of television and radio for information and education. We thus call for full international cooperation in culture, science, the arts, and technology across ideological borders. We must learn to live openly together or we shall perish together.

Humanity As a Whole

IN CLOSING: The world cannot wait for a reconciliation of competing political or economic systems to solve its problems. These are the times for men and women of goodwill to further the building of a peaceful and prosperous world. We urge that parochial loyalties and inflexible moral and religious ideologies be transcended. We urge recognition of the common humanity of all people. We further urge the use of reason and compassion to produce the kind of world we want -- a world in which peace, prosperity, freedom, and happiness are widely shared. Let us not abandon that vision in despair or cowardice. We are responsible for what we are or will be. Let us work together for a humane world by means commensurate with humane ends. Destructive ideological differences among communism, capitalism, socialism, conservatism, liberalism, and radicalism should be overcome. Let us call for an end to terror and hatred. We will survive and prosper only in a world of shared humane values. We can initiate new directions for humankind; ancient rivalries can be superseded by broad-based cooperative efforts. The commitment to tolerance, understanding, and peaceful negotiation does not necessitate acquiescence to the status quo nor the damming up of dynamic and revolutionary forces. The true revolution is occurring and can continue in countless nonviolent adjustments. But this entails the willingness to step forward onto new and expanding plateaus. At the present juncture of history, commitment to all humankind is the highest commitment of which we are capable; it transcends the narrow allegiances of church, state, party, class, or race in moving toward a wider vision of human potentiality. What more daring a goal for humankind than for each person to become, in ideal as well as practice, a citizen of a world community. It is a classical vision; we can now give it new vitality. Humanism thus interpreted is a moral force that has time on its side. We believe that humankind has the potential, intelligence, goodwill, and cooperative skill to implement this commitment in the decades ahead.

We, the undersigned, while not necessarily endorsing every detail of the above, pledge our general support to Humanist Manifesto II for the future of humankind. These affirmations are not a final credo or dogma but an expression of a living and growing faith. We invite others in all lands to join us in further developing and working for these goals.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Thousands of names have been added to the list of signatories which followed the original Humanist Manifesto II, published in the September/October 1973 issue of The Humanist magazine by the American Humanist Association. You may become a signer yourself by contacting the AHA at the address below.]

Copyright © 1973 by the American Humanist Association

Permission to reproduce this material in toto in electronic or printout form is hereby granted free of charge by the copyright holder. Free permission to reprint the essay is granted to nonprofit Humanist and Freethought publications. All others must secure advance permission of the author through the American Humanist Association, which can be contacted at the address at the end of this file.

For more information on Humanism and the AHA, please contact --