As I said, I have been a professional humanist organizer (and yes, that was my full time job) for several years, and the only humanists who were ever concerned about the adjectives were the secular humanists.

You seem to be confusing what is happening in the UU movement with religious humanists, who are all secularists. Yes, the UU movement has some religious leaning and that comes from them being a combination of unitarians and universalists, who don’t always believe the same thing. Every person I have met who calls themselves a religious humanist is in fact an atheist, so the term is a bit meaningless.

Anyway, interesting thread.

First of all thank you for the comment to my essay. I published it fully expecting differing views to come across in the comments. You did mention some things that I just couldn’t just leave unanswered.

I am NOT one of “those” secular humanists who you’ve talked to who were wrong to assume that if you don’t have secular in front then you are a religious humanist. I would never make that assumption. That’s why I was careful to define the terms I was using.

While I wish there were just “Humanists”, there are just too many differences – some more serious than others – that keep up a need for adjectives. I am assuming you were talking about Paul Kurtz as being the one to make up the division. While he did promote Secular Humanism, he did so as a direct response to what he saw happening within the AHA – the very thing I mentioned in my essay – the vague theism creeping in. I am not nor never will be a member of his group simply because I like groups who are democratically run and his is not. I also like groups who want to work with others for a common goal and his doesn’t. My main group work comes in the local group I belong to. The national groups just don’t interest me.

The 2nd issue of major concern to me is the common idea among some Religious Humanists and UUs that all stories are sacred – that they should not be questioned or they are all of equal value etc… Humanist principles call for all ideas to be open to question, even our own and for a segment to refuse that makes a mockery of Humanism. I simply can’t smooth that over.

I can’t speak to your personal experience and if you have no issues with other Humanists then I am glad. I wish your experience was the norm but I have found it isn’t and I have talked to my share Humanists in this country.

The main thing is that some Religious Humanists want me to change my ways. If they would acknowledge my point of view as fervently as they do all kinds of New Age clap trap and “different ways of knowing” then there wouldn’t be much if any conflict and we could have the “Big Tent” they prattle on about. They would rather exclude people like me.

The internal conflict within Humanism isn’t between Religious Humanists and Secular Humanists. It is between Secular Humanists and everyone they perceive to be religious Humanists, which in my experience is anyone who doesn’t use the word secular in front of their Humanism.

I have had many conversations with secular Humanists who keep telling me I am a religious Humanist because I don’t use add the word “secular.” The fact I have been an atheist since the age of 17 and an agnostic before that, and was raised as a Humanist and have never been a member of anything remotely resembling a church is irrelevant. They have created a false dichotomy in their head that there are secular Humanists and religious humanists and can’t let go of it. So, if I say I am a Humanist and don’t include secular, they assume I am a religious Humanist and can’t let go of that despite all evidence to the contrary. It is truly very annoying.

You do yourself a disservice by falling into this same logical fallacy. There are only Humanists. The whole religoius dichotomy was made up by the founder of the secular humanist movement to distinguish his efforts from the other Humanist efforts. He himself acknowledges that all Humanists, by definition are secularists. But by making this non-issue an issue, he gave his followers something wierd to latch onto and well, the rest is history.

I can tell you that honestly, the rest of the Humanist movement isn’t in conflict and never has been. The rest of us have been getting along fine regardless of venue, adjective etc. If you are a Humanist, that is all that matters. The only people who seem to care, and care rabidly are the secular Humanists. At the national level, it is almost always just one organization that refuses to play nicely with the others and that is the secular humanists.

The exclusionary policy of the secular Humanist movement is finally starting to soften thanks mostly to thoughtful Humanists within that sub-movement. Also, the founder has made motions himself to heal the rift he was at least partially responsible for causing.

Jennifer Hancock