[Grayed text may be taken out]

Word Count 3551

First I would like clarify my definitions.

This is my proposal for an agenda, not 'The' agenda or the only possible agenda.

'Secular-humanism' - is not simply a vague  'Good Without God' humanism. It is   more than the 'Motherhood and Apple Pie’ version that avoids discussing politics and religion at all cost. It is the humanism that embraces atheism and secularism as essential elements of humanism and does not seek to distance itself from them.

I define Secularism as: -  ' Non-belief'  /  'Freedom OF Religion' / 'Freedom FROM Religion' and Freedom to Criticise and Oppose religion, as the default position for the state in all aspects of public life, with no privileges, subsidies or discrimination in favour of religion.

Belief in gods as a matter of personal choice and the practice of religion as a private activity - within a state that is neutral in such matters, providing that it does not involve prejudice or discrimination against non believers, women or gays, and does not impinge on those who do not subscribe to their beliefs.

'Political' is there to make it clear that I am talking about our values and attitudes as they inform our politics. For Human society to progress and improve change is necessary, and politics is the peaceful process by which change is made.

Further, that the words 'politics' and 'policies' are not, as so much of the modern media would have us believe dirty words. I believe that while there is much to criticise in the practice of politics, the level of cynicism currently being encouraged is undermining our democracy - such as it is. It subverts politics  - It does not inform decision-making.

Things do not just happen    - people make them happen – that is politics.

And lastly: - 'Agenda'

 I am proposing here an Agenda - not a political party, not a manifesto,

A coherent set of political attitudes consistent with the professed ethos, aims and objectives to which most secular humanists would, could or should subscribe.

How to achieve this is the point at which arguments begin, but we should not shun these arguments.

In making this proposal I am making certain assumptions about Humanism:

1) That we are non-believers. We do not think that human life and society should be ordered in accordance with God beliefs, and the superstructures of religions that are built upon them - And the same goes for any other superstitions, supernatural or irrational beliefs.

2) That we do not wish to ban 'belief' or 'religion' as is sometimes absurdly implied. We insist only that it is a private preference and not a part of public life, and providing that it does not threaten those of other beliefs or none.

3) That  ‘if’ humanism has an 'added dimension' over and above secular morality, atheism and secularism - it is benign, humanitarian and progressive to the extent that it enhances human life towards the greatest happiness of the greatest number possible. From its lowest common denominator of supporting  ‘all that is good’ - through to higher and more well defined physical and philosophical ideals.

4) I also assume that the basic essentials of human life, food, shelter and certain rights and freedoms in terms of autonomy, opportunity etc. – must be available to all, and the care of sick, disabled and disadvantaged people should be provided as of right and not have their needs just left to chance and charity. And that these are worthwhile and achievable objectives.

5) That atheistic secular humanism has a distinctive, definable, ethical position.    Atheism, Secularism and Secular Humanism are not negative or value-free as is often assumed - but have positive values that deserve to be promoted.

What is the purpose of such an agenda?

I have outlined my definitions and assumptions, what I also need to do is to try to explain why I think such an agenda however informal would be useful.

Let me emphasise again, that I am not proposing a political party.  That has been shown to be fraught with problems, not least because the word Humanism can be used by all and sundry.

Nor am I here proposing a manifesto, Given the work of the last few decades by both the BHA and the NSS, it would not I think be difficult to compile such a manifesto from their campaigns as well as issues that they do not have the facilities or time to tackle.

There are atheists, secularists and humanists who subscribe to the political ideas represented by the conventional parties, but there is no reason why one would necessarily expect atheists or secularist to subscribe to any particular political policies dictated by their atheism or secularism other than the specifically secularist issues which I will come to.

Humanists however, do claim to have 'something' over and above atheists and secularists, though this is certainly not accepted by many who point to the often radical progressive views and contributions of many early secularists. Many of whom did not get the credit as secularists for their part in the revolution in social policy of the last 150 years.

But I do think that if humanism is to have any meaning other than a forum for arguing about atheism vs. agnosticism, and the basics as to why humanism has to imply atheism and secularism - it has to progress, it cannot forever refuse to argue about politics and religion. (I do not recollect humanism or secularism always being like this!) Retreating into a safe philosophical haven IMO is not an option.

I am well aware that the BHA is restrained by its choice to operate under charity law. This gives it financial advantages, but has been considered by some as a way of avoiding participation, or justifying non-participation in political issues. The guidance of the Charity Commission is currently being revised so this may free the BHA to be more political should it wish to be so! But individual Humanists do not give up their political rights by belonging to the BHA and the restrictions do not apply to individual humanists who are free to participate as they choose in any political activities on their own behalf, as many do.

The religions too are charities, (in their case simply because they promote religion) - with the considerable financial advantages that that gives them, not least in maintaining their infrastructure. And they have never been constrained from putting pressure on politicians and governments making full use of the their privileged position, and the traditional advantages of organisation, premises, paid activists, advertising sites, access to the media, and even sit in our legislature as of right And I see no evidence that the religions are willing to refrain from political activity at a very high and organised level.

I would have thought that we humanists have at least as much in common as the political parties. What we do not have, is a coherent strategy for progressing secular humanism. And we have a lot of ground to make up compared to the religions that have had free reign to develop their political strategies, strategies that have served them very well over the centuries. Their monopoly on communication has been broken and we must take advantage of our new found freedom to express our ethos.

I think it would be useful if humanists who do subscribe to this agenda could at least start discussions taking as read, these basic agreed political aims and objectives. Those who don’t will no doubt argue their case.

Let us look at some of our VALUES

-        We value rationalism, scepticism and use of the critical faculty; 

-        We value belief in the scientific method and evidence-based decisions making;  

-        We value honesty and objectivity;    

-        We value autonomy, freedom and equality etc.  for men, women and children, within the framework of, and consistent with the needs of the individual and society - 'the public good'.

These are the values, and they apply to every area of human life. They are not specifically or uniquely humanist. People of all beliefs or none may strive to measure up to these standards with a greater or lesser degree of success.

But there are many areas in which religious belief and practice distorts these values - creating and maintaining bias, prejudice and discrimination that due to history and their dominant position they have made ‘traditional’.

Then there are the policy areas - where these values are not applied e.g.: -

-        In Education - its institutions and curriculum  - (Sectarian Schools, partisan teaching of religion, and the teaching of opinion as fact)

- In the field of Health & bio ethics

Abortion and Contraception, Assisted Dying, Human Fertility and Embryo Research Pressure to prevent Condom Use in HIV/AIDS control programmes.

-        The environment and ecology

Religious pressure to prevent UN Population programmes that give abortion and birth control advice.

-        Crime and punishment

Prison regimes that give privileges to those who join up to faith based rehabilitation, drugs and alcohol programmes.  Religious oath taking in courts of law.

-        National and international politics

Demand for 'special consultation status' for religions in government and the UN & EU

-       The communications industry and the media

The blatant bias of BBC radio in refusing to fairly represent atheist and secular humanist opinion, compared with amount of religious programming. Lack of access to the mass media.

-        Government and administration

Automatic tax exemption for church halls but not village halls.

Refusal to tie full rights to secular users of church owned premises even though they are effectively subsidised.

This is the material from which a manifesto could be compiled, the 'small political picture'

 

Aristotle said that there is no point in studying ethics unless it would have some beneficial effect on the way one lived ones life  -   ['Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online Version 2.0]

So we are talking about the practical or applied ethics of secular humanism  And where better to discuss them than in Conway Hall?

All I have said so far is in the nature of a preamble.

So, what do I mean by this Secular Humanist Political Agenda?

Quite simply it has four elements

- Democracy,

- Secularism,

- Left /Liberal Political Ideology

- Freedom of Information

Just as no single tax can deliver a perfectly fair system for financing the state and public administration and services, no single aspect of Political Organisation can deliver a perfect form of government that balances freedom of the individual with freedom of the society.

To discuss a complex subject one must be allowed to put forward a combination of ideas, a combination of factors – recognising the advantages and limitations of each individually – but which together are part of the whole picture, and discussed within that relationship.

A common fallacy deployed to confuse these discussions is to try to drive argument into one cul de sac, constantly challenging on one aspect, as if that one aspect was being put as the only aspect. Every discussion can thus be diverted and made meaningless. It is a tactic that is regularly used to divert rational discussion of religion.

In my view the position that maintains the maximum freedom of the individual while also balancing the rights and freedoms of the society is a left leaning, secular democracy. I do not intend to go into the polemics of 'the left'. I do however want to differentiate 'left leaning' from 'The Right', as I will explain.

-----------------------------------------

Democracy - Rule by the majority - can and does give to the citizen, an element of participation and some control over policy and decision-making.

However: -

Although there is so much of talk about democracy at the moment, as if it was the answer to the world’s problems, it is not by itself a panacea. It does not necessarily ensure the rights of minorities in fact it can reinforce the power of the majority at the expense of these minorities. And we can all find examples of ’elected dictatorships’ including the clerical governments - theocracies.

There are many kinds of democracy - ‘Representative’ and ‘direct’ - different voting systems ‘proportional’ and ‘First Past the Post - how candidates are chosen - how the boundaries are drawn such as in Northern Ireland  - how often the vote is held and what discretion there is on when to hold the ballot - whether the vote is compulsory or optional, whether representatives are mandated or not  - and even the best are flawed.

The US version seems to have developed into the idea that democracy is any system by which individuals and governments with which the US approves are elected or appointed!

The quality of democracy depends on many factors such as history, constitution, economics and natural resources – many of which ensure that voters actually have little real choice. Charter 88 for instance has much to say about the quality of democracy, and measures that need to be taken to improve on the somewhat minimal representative democracy that we have today.

As we all know corrupt voting procedures can also result in the very opposite of democracy as we saw in the last but one US Presidential election, and more recently in the Ukraine.

Democracy MAY extend to secularism and progressive political ideology… or not Nor can it be relied upon to curb the unbridled accumulation of wealth - and the privileged access that money gives to the rights and freedoms that it can buy, often to the detriment of others. And as with individual freedom, democracy can be corrupted by massive wealth and the control of resources, the economy, and the media.

----------------------------------------------------

Secularism as I have already said, brings 'Freedom OF Religion' - 'Freedom FROM Religion' and the freedom to criticise and oppose religion, within a state that is neutral on such matters - and that prevents oppressive domination by any one of them and gives no privileges or subsidies.

Secularism does not necessarily have anything to say about many human rights issues or political freedom, equality, autonomy, or to participation in government. But there are specifically secularist human rights issues, issues that arise out of the beliefs and practices of the religions, prejudice, discrimination and violence against women is a case in point, as is prejudice against gays, and other such minorities, and of course anti-Semitism that has been and still is such a curse.

Secularism does not curb the greed of the most powerful, and although it protects the rights of religious minorities it does not necessarily protect other minorities. Nor should it - Though it is clear that many if not most secularists are active in promoting personal, social and political progress.

---------------------------------------------

3) Left / Liberal Political Ideology

By Left/Liberal Political Ideology I do not want to go into the polemics of the left, but I do want to differentiate it from the Right, and particularly their ideological base regarding

-        The balnce between competition & co-operation,

-        The right of all citizens and states to autonomy, equality and freedom - including the poor.

         (It is a common political attitude to conflate 'poor'  with 'feckless' a view that all rationalists should counter)

-        The economic independence on which other freedoms rely.

-        The rights of minorities - Progressive Social Policies.

-        The security of the individual with an adequate safety net. Well developed public services.

-        A minimum standard of living  below which no one should fall.

Left Liberal ideologies are about re-distribution of wealth that brings economic freedom to the many - from the few. Those without financial independence and security cannot claim their freedoms if they are not affordable. Wealth buys power and privilege that can easily distort both democracy and equal rights if it is only in the hands of the few. It is not an ideology that is popular with the ‘haves’ of this world!

The lack of economic freedom subverts democracy and secularism in many ways - through the financial considerations of political organisation, the law, education and the flow of information through control and use of publishing, advertising and media, all of which are restricted and distorted in favour of the few who have the money to buy their services or own and control them.

Left/Liberal policies may bring about economic security and independence, but do not necessarily ensure democracy, secularism or the rights of minorities.

Unfairness and huge discrepancies in the reward system causes resentment and alienation that leads to civil strife and foments prejudice and scapegoating. It threatens peace and progress at community, national and international level.

I could also have added 'Libertarian' to this part of the agenda because that too is generally supported by secular humanists and is part of left liberalism that accepts the freedom for consenting adults in their sexual preferences in private, no censorship except in the most exceptional circumstances such as child pornography, and many social and personal issues of life and death, Abortion, voluntary euthanasia and drug use etc,

-------------------------------------------

4) Freedom of Information.

None of the above can be relied upon to ensure freedom of information - yet freedom of information is essential for all of them to be effective. Citizens, voters cannot take meaningful decisions or judge the performance of their governments or administration without Freedom of Information. And this includes not only the freedom to find out what information is being kept on us as individuals, but freedom to find out official information on public issues, who is taking the decisions and on what basis.

We also need a free press that can be relied upon to take full account of the public right to know, over and above its own biases and sectional interests. This year has seen a decisive step forward on this in this country, but it remains to be seen how well it works and if it is adequate.

This is not just the ‘free press’ we have now which is licence for those who own and control the press, but genuine freedom that could come from wider media ownership, an insistence on honest and objective reporting with penalties for infringement; right of reply and measures to improve the access for individuals or small organisations (Many years ago the Glasgow Media Group – launched a Campaign for Press Freedom it is still in being as an independent organisation, have you ever heard of it in the press or elsewhere? ) – This is a big subject that we have got nowhere near addressing in our advanced modern democracy.

It is clear that none of these elements are sufficient in themselves, but combined can produce the best model for government we can imagine so far.

To put it slightly differently: -

No perfect democracy has yet been attained. There are democracies that do not protect the rights of minorities - including our own state that is not secular, maintaining as it does religious privilege that discriminates against non-believers. Others that have elected governments whose citizen’s personal economic status severely limits their freedom, equality and security; and do not have freedom of information

There are secular states that cannot deliver secularism because of the strength of the religions; do not have full democratic rights or freedom of information under right or left wing governments.

There are left and right wing regimes in which ‘freedom of’ and ‘freedom from’ religion are not respected; do not respect minority rights, and do not ensure democracy. But while it is unlikely that wealth could or should ever be entirely equally distributed, there are aspects of left liberal ideology that do represent an acceptable balance between the rich powerful and clever and the poor, disenfranchised and less clever, and between the interests of the individual and the interests of the community.

But the bottom line is that everyone should be able to live to a basic acceptable standard relative to the society in which they live. Have the right to join a religion, or be protected from it,

That everyone should have freedom and equality before the law, Be able to participate in public decision making and that basic human rights should not be disadvantaged by poverty least of all children - surely a humanist objective.

-        Democracy needs secularism and left/liberal ideology

-        Secularism needs democracy and left/liberal ideology

-        Left/Liberal ideology needs democracy and secularism

And ALL need Freedom of Information and communication.

I would like to ask you to imagine what the world would look like today if

Russia, the Balkans and Central Asian Republics – Chechnya and Afghanistan.

India and Pakistan, Israel and Palestine, Saudia Arabia, Iran and Iraq,

North Africa from Algeria through Egypt to the Sudan and Ethiopia,

Sub Saharan Africa countries such as Nigeria, Congo and Rwanda

The South and Central American republics

Britain, Northern Ireland, China and the United States of America…………

………were left/liberal, secular democracies!

Sue Lord

January 2005

--------------------------------------------

Freedom of Information - Your Right To Know www.yrtk.org    - www.direct.gov.uk

www.secularsites.freeuk.com     www.workshop3.freeuk.com