Celebration of 50 Years of International Humanism

 <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Report from the 15th IHEU Congress, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, 3-6 July 2002

 

Report: Sandra Langendijk and Claudia Dekkers

 

Opening Day

Wednesday, 3 July 2002

The 15th Congress of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) began on the evening of 3 July 2002. For four days, humanists and guests from all over the world would get together to discuss issues from a humanist perspective. This first evening of the Congress was dedicated to the celebration of 50 years of international humanism and to the presentation of the Van Praag Award, a biennial award for contributions to humanism presented by the hosts of the Congress, the Dutch Humanists.

 

At an evening reception, Yvonne Breuk, Managing Director of the Dutch Humanist League and Chair of the Congress, welcomed IHEU members and guests and introduced Henk Manschot, head of the University of Humanistics in Utrecht, and Levi Fragell, President of the IHEU, who both gave short welcoming speeches. Henk Manschot stressed the human diversity and the different perspectives on humanism reflected in the IHEU, which represents more than 95 member organizations, and the need for trust and solidarity. Levi Fragell welcomed all participants to this special 50th anniversary Congress on behalf of the IHEU. He thanked the hosts, the Dutch Humanist League, for organising the Congress and arranging such a broad programme of events. "For some," the President declared, "this is the first world congress. Others have been to most of the congresses since Sir Julian Huxley declared the first one open in 1952."

 

"During more than two decades I have spoken about nothing else other than the identity of humanism - or the identity of humanists," continued Mr Fragell. He stressed the importance of having a common name and a common symbol to identify IHEU as a world movement instead of diminishing our visibility with a hundred different names and symbols.

 

Fragell wondered whether our humanism sometimes becomes so politically correct that we feel guilty about being happy in a world with so much misery. "In the wide range of 'humanisms'- scientific, evolutionary, ethical, radical, secular, etc., which of course are all valid expressions of parts of humanism - we sometimes leave out the inspiring existential ideas from Jean Paul Sartre and Erich Fromm about humanism as a constitutional part of being human."

 

This was not to say that the serious issues faced by the world should not be of prime concern to humanists. "The challenge of poverty and injustice has priority above anything else. But we are allowed to attack problems with optimism, with hope, and even with a smile - sometimes. I am not ashamed of being a happy man and a happy humanist. And I am not ashamed to show the world that I belong to the international humanist movement."

 

The first speaker during the dinner was Howard Radest (USA), former president of IHEU, who reviewed 50 years of the organization:

 

"After World War II we wanted a better world and therefore we thought we needed a new foundation. This appears not to be true. Things do not happen because of organisations but because of what happens to people. Feminism, human rights, cloning were some of the things that did not exist fifty years ago. The world today is another place." He shared his memories of the energy, excitement, and humour that characterized his involvement with the IHEU, and expressed the challenges facing humanists today, above all how to create an effective humanist community.

 

After the dinner, Frits van Vugt (the Netherlands), Chairman (a.i.) of the Dutch Humanist League, introduced the presentation of the Van Praag Award. Professor J.P. van Praag was a philosopher, writer, and committed humanist and one of the founders of the Dutch Humanist Ethical Union in 1946, of which he was chairman for many years. The Van Praag Award was instituted in 1971, and is awarded biennially. Van Vugt declared the winner of this year's award to be Dr Adriaan van der Staay, the former director of the Social and Cultural Planning Office of the Netherlands, who, from 1991-1999, also held the Socrates Chair at the Faculty of History and Art at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam. Joop Doorman (the Netherlands), Chair of the jury of the Van Praag Award, presented the award to Dr van der Staay.

 

In his acceptance speech, Dr van der Staay spoke of the diversity of cultures, how cultures are learnt, how they evolve over time, and how their strength can mask our common humanity. The diversity of cultures was immensely enriching, but cultural relativism was dangerous. "Cultural relativism is a trap. It abolishes intellectual and moral commonality with the Other." He developed the idea of cultural invention and its transmission and evolution with time:  "The individual is the indispensable transmitter in time and space of a repertoire of cultural inventions. The future of humanism would be greatly helped by a cultural Charles Darwin." Yet much cultural exchange was at a relatively superficial level - that of cultural products alone. "I would suggest that much of the confusion and conflict in present-day public opinion is caused by the discrepancy between the quick transmission of cultural products and the slow assimilation of reproduction skills and the still slower understanding of the cultural insights and values that underlie them." Humanism, he said, needs to recognize the importance of cultural diversity. And to understand the deep underpinning ideas of culture, we must forge links with the past.

 

"If I were to counsel Europeans on a conversation with the past I would give Herodotus a place of honour. Herodotus was born in Asia, lived in Athens and died in Italy two and a half thousand years ago. This man talks to us about his personal enquiry into his world, about the long history of cultural differences, of a world that he travelled in as far as the Tigris and up the Nile. He prefigures my future humanist in his encompassing ambition to understand."

 

The evening was concluded with lute music by Mr Robert Favery.

 

Human Diversity, Human Rights and Humanism

Thursday, 4 July 2002

The morning began with a dance performance by Wilson Pico from Ecuador, on the theme of the drudgery of the life of many women across the world. The speakers at the morning plenary session were Mr. Jan Pronk, Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, former Minister of Development of the Netherlands and chair of the 2001 World Climate Conference; Ms Urvashi Butalia, writer and founder of the feminist publishing house of Kali for women, India; Adbdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, Professor of Law at Emory University, Atlanta, USA; and Mr. Rob Buitenweg, University of Humanistics, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

 

Fifty years of IHEU

As the longest serving member of the IHEU Board, Paul Kurtz presented the first copy of the commemorative book International Humanist and Ethical Union 1952- 2002 by Bert Gazenbeek and Babu Gogineni to the Dutch Prime Minister, Mr. Wim Kok. To a man with the highest humanist values, Kurtz declared "As humanists we believe in global ethics. That is exactly what you represent. Your decision to visit Bosnia has deeply impressed us. It is a unique project we applaud you for." Wim Kok was warmly applauded by the congress. In a brief acceptance speech, Wim Kok congratulated the IHEU on its 50th anniversary. "I would like to pay tribute to the important contribution you have made to the international world. We are in the middle of the process of globalization. We must pay attention to neglected groups of people and to neglected values." Rethinking our values is a necessity, he said: "We cannot stop the course of the world, but we can influence its course. What you have been doing for the past 50 years has had an influence. I want to say, continue on the same basis as you did before."

 

Jan Pronk: 'Globalization needs global values and global ethics.'

With the World Summit in Johannesburg imminent, Mr. Jan Pronk spoke of globalisation and sustainability. Despite the opportunities presented by the end of the Cold War, the world is riven by many conflicts; many continue to suffer in poverty; and globalisation, the force that has developed during this time, has both positive and negative effects. Many feel excluded. If the opportunities are not grasped, they will turn their backs on it, when globalisation could be a force for good, enabling people to work together on issues such as climate change, sustainability, and social policy. He hoped that a global system of ethics could be built, a shared system of values to guide future decision- making, and make societies resilient in a world of change. Gatherings such as the IHEU Congress play an important part in the forging of a global system of ethics.

 

Urvashi Butalia: 'Every society finds its own level of violence towards its women.'

Ms Butalia's talk focused on violence against women and women's rights. Her speech reflected the urgency and passion of a feminist activist coming from a region that had just been on the brink of war. Why was it, she asked, that violence was increasingly acceptable in so many societies? Why have we allowed violence to become an important way both of asserting difference and suppressing it?  No one knows better what it means to live with violence than women. Violence against women is worldwide, and not restricted to domestic violence. "It is my belief - a conclusion I have come to after many years of working on women's issues - that every society in the world finds its own level of violence towards its women, and that those levels are in line with the cultural mores of that society. Whether it is domestic violence or the violence caused by anorexia nervosa, these different forms continue to keep women in a state of oppression." She spoke of the need to find ways to retain the differences that enrich society, while preventing them from being manipulated into causes for conflict. A recognition and respect for different cultures might hold the key; but perceptions of superiority of one culture over another - especially that of the West over the others - was still rife. She ended her speech by reflecting on the closeness of humanism and feminism: "Before I came to this Congress I was asked if I was a humanist. I responded by saying that I was - and am - a feminist. To me, feminism means recognizing the right of every human being to live with dignity and security. As a woman, I have always done this, and have always expected it in return. If this is humanism, then feminism and humanism are close cousins. Together we can create a world which rejects violence and works for peace."

 

Abdullahi An-Na'im: 'Every single person has to act, every single person counts.'

Professor An-Na'im's speech was on the power of difference and the difference of power. He argued that ways must be found for all to contribute to the humanisation of the world from their respective positions: "Because we cannot expect people to abandon who they are, and where they come from, what they represent, and what their life means, in order to join our shared cause." This, he said, was the challenge he posed to all fundamentalisms, "including humanist fundamentalism". An-Na'im spoke of September 11th and questioned the appropriateness of the American response. As a Muslim, he said, the question for him was how to challenge both Islamic fundamentalism and an American exceptionalism which was undermining international law. All individuals should act at all levels from local to global, with special responsibility for those with more powerful voices and resources. The choices made should, he believed, be guided by a recognition of the reality and power of difference, and of differences in power which apply between East and West, North and South, women and men. "Affirmation of shared values is a step in that direction." Action should involve upholding these values - of respect for humanity, and respect for difference. "That's why I challenge fundamentalist humanists who claim that religion cannot have a voice in the shaping of those values." According to An-Na'im, religion, for believers, plays a critical role in shaping values, and this must be acknowledged by humanists. The upholding of values can only occur through accountability - of the United Nations, the European Union, or national governments. "After all, how can a superpower like the United States have a foreign policy so irresponsible except through the failure of the American public to hold its government accountable." An-Na'im ended his speech on a note of turning inwards: "…ultimately for me, as a Muslim, as a believer, the challenge is to my own religion, to my own tradition. What you can do is support me in that challenge and to undertake your country's challenge to your respective demons. We all have our demons."

 

Rob Buitenweg: 'Secular humanism is the foundation of human rights.'

After the Second World War, hope pervaded the world that a new international order could be established to promote a humane world. Yet now, fifty years on, fundamentalism appears to be growing, genocide and armed conflicts continue to plague the world, and the gap between rich and poor is widening. What can the IHEU offer this world in the twenty-first century? Buitenweg perceived a two-fold task for organised humanism: to make a stand against religious fundamentalism, and unmask the irrational illusions of dogmatic religions; and to promote humanism and the rights of humanists. "Our ideal is a humane world with universal human rights." Despite lip service to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and later international declarations, human rights are not wholeheartedly supported. Many Western countries embrace freedom rights, but neglect socio-economic rights such as the right to adequate housing. The reverse occurs in a number of non-Western countries. How can a situation be achieved where all human rights are accepted wholeheartedly by all people? This is where humanism comes in.

 

"Secular humanism," said Buitenweg, "is the foundation of human rights." In a direct response to the arguments of the previous speaker, Buitenweg declared: "Can we expect people of other life stances or religions to accept the humanism of human rights, whereas at the same time maintaining that humanism is an alternative life stance to religion? I think we can." He spoke of the humanist tree having two branches - an existential branch concerned with the meaning of life and the morality of a good and meaningful life; and a socio-ethical branch focusing on the morality of a humane society, on how people from varied life stances might enable one another to lead a dignified life.

 

"This socio-ethical humanism is the moral foundation of human rights." While these two branches of humanism are congenial, it is through recognition of the distinction between them that we can expect people of other lifestances to accept the humanism of human rights, while at the same time maintaining that humanism is an alternative lifestance to religion. "We do accept that they believe in God. But we hope that they are prepared to accept the values of the socio-ethical branch of the humanist tree, the humanism that underlies human rights." Humanists should take the lead in initiating this debate, and in reaching universal agreement on these values. "We have a special responsibility we cannot neglect. After all, it is humanist values that underlie human rights."

 

To be taken seriously in such a dialogue, humanists should be prepared to reflect on our existential values. It may be that too much emphasis on the values of autonomy and freedom  is detrimental to other values such as solidarity and well-being, while too much emphasis on equality may be detrimental to diversity and the specific needs of particular groups. "We should know that the opposite of equality is not diversity but inequality, and that the opposite of diversity is not equality but uniformity."

 

‘‘ I would like to pay tribute to the important contribution you have made to the international world… What you have been doing for the past 50 years has had an influence. I want to say, continue on the same basis as you did before. ’’

 

-Wim Kok, Prime Minister, The Netherlands

 

 

Humanism In Action

Friday, 5 July 2002

The plenary session of the third day of the Congress focused on humanism in action. Four short films showed humanists at work in education, the community, the armed forces, and at the end of life. Each film was followed by an opportunity for Congress participants to question members of a panel. The members were Mr Giampielo Alhadeff, Solidar, Belgium; Ms Sylvie Durán, InCorpore, Costa Rica; Mr Chenjerai Hove, writer and poet originally from Zimbabwe now living in France; and Dr Mikhail B. Konashev, Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute for the History of Sciences and Technology, St Petersburg, Russia.

 

International Humanist Award 2002

The jury announced Professor Amartya Sen as the winner of the Humanist Award 2002 for his contribution to the issue of poverty. The Indian economist and winner of the Nobel Prize 1998 for Economic Sciences has developed an alternative way of measuring poverty that focuses on the quality of life of people, rather than focusing on economic definitions. "A man who asks himself questions," said Mr Roy Brown, member of the IHEU Executive Committee. "His work shows how countries as well as humanitarian programmes should invest in people rather than in infrastructure."

 

Distinguished Service Award to Humanism 2002

The jury presented the Distinguished Service Award to Humanism 2002 to Mr. Phil Ward for his Humanist Millennium Walk. "Humanists are good at promoting our views by talking, very few do it by walking," commented Mr Levi Fragell, President of the IHEU. Two years ago, Phil Ward walked from Belfast to Jerusalem and talked to people about humanism. Halfway his feet could not take any more but he continued on a bicycle. Through this remarkable effort and perseverance, Ward has promoted humanism to many people in many countries, the jury declared. "It was a fantastic journey," said Phil Ward. "I had to bring down humanism from an intellectual level and talk to ordinary people, most of whom had never even heard of humanism. Hundreds of people listened to me, gave me a place to stay, carried my rucksack. I am very grateful for that. During the walk I have been interviewed many times and now I have written a book. I sincerely hope this ethos may steer the world in the right direction. We need to wake the sleeping giant. Humanism is the giant."

 

Facing the Challenges  - The Next 50 Years

Saturday, 6 July 2002

Humanism in the future: what are our aims for the next 50 years? That question formed the focus for this last morning of the Congress, during which the recommendations of the workshops were presented and discussed, and the new Amsterdam Declaration was presented to the assembly.  Mr. Harry Kunneman, chairman of the Dutch Humanist Alliance and vice-chancellor of the University for Humanistics, Utrecht, the Netherlands, gave the final keynote speech, and young humanists reported on the IHEYO conference.

 

Workshop recommendations

Yvonne Breuk, chair of the congress, welcomed the assembly and invited participants to consider the recommendations of the workshops that had been held during the past two days, which had been written out on large sheets of paper and placed around the beautiful rotunda. Members of the Congress were asked to indicate their approval or disapproval by placing green and red stickers (and yellow for 'don't knows') against the individual recommendations. The chair then invited Mr. Babu Gogineni, Executive Director of the IHEU, and Mr. Marius Ernsting, of Humanitas to comment on the recommendations, as well as the Congress.

 

A number of workshop recommendations were discussed by the commentators and the Congress. What follows is a small selection of recommendations and comments.

 

Social Inclusion

'It is important to know about the values and cultural aspects of social exclusion in different countries in order to develop effective ways of approaching excluded groups and persons and to develop effective programmes of intervention to obtain full participation in society.' Sixty per cent of the assembly agreed to that recommendation. "We know little about inclusion," commented Gogineni. "What is the standard? What are the objective figures? Does a person feel excluded when we think he is? It is very possible that authorities cannot reach a group of people, but that they are in fact socially included. We should be careful about intervening."

 

Reception of Refugees

The workshop on refugees recommended starting practical relief projects like SAMAH and advised more cooperation and alliances between development organisations, refugee organisations and humanist organisations. Most of the members of the congress agreed.

 

"What struck me is that in a world we call global, when it comes to people there are so many boundaries," commented Ernsting. "Secular countries like Holland consider refugees as a separate group," said Gogineni. "In the past, when the economy needed them, people were allowed in. That is hypocritical. If our economy needs people, we should make different arrangements." He also commented on the fact that many African humanists were denied visas to participate in the IHEU conference.

 

Human Rights, Human Values, Humanism

All recommendations of this workshop had been rewarded by green stickers and a few yellow ones. The workshop pleaded for the promotion of humanist values, which strengthen both human rights and humanist organisations. It also recommended education in human rights and human values. Rob Buitenweg, as a member of the Congress, fully agreed. "Last evening I watched a programme of the Humanist Broadcasting Corporation. The reporter interviewed people on the street. She asked them to name five human rights. I was astonished to observe that most young people couldn't name five. So education is very important."

 

Humanism and Islam

A key recommendation of the workshop on Humanism and Islam was that Sharia law should be abandoned. It also proposed that communities of religion and faith should develop a notion of sharing the world; the idea of any faith commanding the world should be abandoned. A majority of the Congress agreed; yet there had been some red stickers marked against the proposal to abandon Sharia. This caused astonishment among the speakers at the workshop and among a number of people in the assembly, especially those from Islamic countries. It produced a swift and sharp response from Babu Gogineni.

 

"Clearly there are people in this room who approve of lashes, amputation of limbs, and stoning to death. Perhaps they would care to stand up?" Some participants defended the reluctance to endorse the recommendation to abandon Sharia: "The difference between the letter of the law and practice of the law is a double-edged issue," one member of the assembly declared. "We might disapprove, but for other people Sharia law might be a deep source of inspiration." Supporting the speakers of the workshop, who included first-hand victims of Sharia, Gogineni remarked: "I am shocked and disturbed that anyone could not agree to abolish Sharia law. There should be a clear distinction between religion and State. There should not be any religion in legislation."

 

Gender

The workshop on poverty, population, gender equality and human development came with recommendations that were questioned by a number of Congress participants. Red stickers appeared on recommendations such as equal representation of men and women in the IHEU and on the shortlist of humanist prizes, and a gender- sensitive jury. Ernsting commented that he did not understand how anyone could put a red sticker on such recommendations. A member of the congress responded: "I do not want a job simply because I am a woman." She was applauded. Gogineni commented "We need to be cautious about trying symbolically to equate the numbers in terms of gender, because in this symbolism the real struggle of women is lost."

 

"But if you do not pay specific attention to gender quality all the time, we'll easily get into a situation in which women are being discriminated against," remarked another Congress participant. "I do not want a job because I'm a woman, someone said. I agree. But I can give other figures, about numbers of educated women and men. In some countries that ratio is fifty-fifty. In my country 75 per cent of the women are illiterate. As a literate woman I feel I deserve the chance to be selected as a woman to the job, because I went through so much trouble to get educated. This way I can show other women, all the 75 per cent, that it is worth the trouble to get educated."

 

Closing Comments

Marius Ernsting and Babu Gogineni closed the session with a few observations. "Humanism in practice means you try to find areas in which humanism is relevant in day-to-day life, which means trying to develop practices for ordinary people in day-to-day life," Ernsting commented. "Humanism then gains influence. Humanism is not only about rights for the individual, it is about the capacity for every individual to build meaningful relationships with others. You don't have to be a professional worker to establish that." Gogineni agreed.

"This Congress is a nice snapshot of what the movement is all about. Discussing, disagreeing, arguing, agreeing. Humanism has a perspective to offer on humanity, on the globalizing world. Our challenge is to work internationally. What is humanism when it is not international? A gathering of humanists from all over the world, this dialogue, I believe that is what humanism is about. We stand for the universality of our values."

 

The Amsterdam Declaration 2002

Mr Roy Brown then presented the Amsterdam Declaration 2002 on Humanism to the assembly. In a formal count the members of the Congress voted unanimously in favour of the Declaration. (See below for text of Declaration and Roy Brown's introductory speech.)

 

Harry Kunneman: 'Humanism cuts through our private and professional lives.'

Praising the inspiring nature of the conference, Kunneman proposed his own four-point agenda for the movement for the next ten years, as a supplement to the Amsterdam Declaration, to help realise the full potential of humanism. He argued for further internationalisation and feminisation of the movement and increasing emphasis on sustainability; for the recognition of contributions to practical morality from religious as well as secular sources, while continuing the struggle against dogmatic forms of religion; a general move from theory to a focus on practical humanism; and reworking of concepts such as freedom and autonomy to recognise the interdependence of society, while also broadening ideas of free enquiry and rational debate to include recognition for other forms of understanding and insight. Humanism should be an open quest embarked upon by people of very different cultures and all parts of society, sharing the same hopes for humanity. It was to be hoped that some of these principles will have been realized over the coming ten years.

 

Report from the IHEYO Conference

A delegation of four young humanists was welcomed on to the stage: Mr Vincent Lloyd from the USA, Ms Gea Meijers from the Netherlands, Ms Gosia Minta from Poland and Mr Andreas Palmqvist from Sweden. They represent their countries in IHEYO, the International Humanist and Ethical Youth Organisation, and they reported on the IHEYO Conference that had been held in Utrecht the week before (see IHEYO Report, opposite).

 

Close of the Congress

On behalf of the French Federation of Freethinkers (Libre Pensée) Mr Roger Le Peix invited the general assembly to the next IHEU Congress in 2005 in Paris. "When we proposed organising the conference, we had in mind that it would be exactly a hundred years after the very important year of 1905," he said. "That was the year when the lawful separation between Church and State was voted in by the French parliament. The French Federation of Freethinkers took a large part in that important event. We are proud of that date and we would like to have you all come to commemorate with us. See you in Paris in 2005."

 

Yvonne Breuk, chair of Congress, announced the closing of the Congress. Harry Kunneman then thanked the people whose efforts had made the Congress a success. Ed Huijg, Sandra Wüst and Ingrid Ernsting were applauded and presented with flowers. There were special thanks for Jaap Dijkstra, representative of HIVOS, which had funded the trips of many participants of the Congress. Kunneman thanked the organising committee, the incomparable Roy Brown and, last but not least, Yvonne Breuk.

 

Yvonne Breuk thanked the Human (Humanist Broadcasting Corporation) and Human Media Support. "We didn't see them, but they worked with a big crew and made three programmes and HMS made sure that there  was also a Congress on the Internet. The President of the IHEU, Mr. Levi Fragell, ended the Congress with a few final words. He complimented the organisers on the programme of the Congress. "The content has been marvellous. It was so interesting. I have enjoyed it, I think everyone has. Thank you very much.’’

 

 

Introduction to the Amsterdam Declaration

 

Roy Brown’s Introduction to the Amsterdam Declaration

 

The following is an extract of the speech given by IHEU Vice President Roy Brown in presenting the Amsterdam Declaration 2002 to the IHEU 50th Anniversary Congress in Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands, on 6th July.

 

At the founding Congress of the IHEU in Amsterdam in 1952, our founding fathers thought that it would be a good idea for the Congress to issue a simple one-page statement on the principles of Humanism. That document became known as the Amsterdam Declaration. It achieved its objective of summarising the fundamental principles of Humanism on a single page, but it was a child of its time. It defined Humanism in relation to religion: Humanism is not... Humanism does not ... And there was a strong emphasis on democracy as opposed to totalitarianism - hardly surprising in the early days of the Cold War.

 

In the lead up to the 50th Anniversary Congress the Executive Committee thought it would be a good idea to update this document. The objective remained the same: a short, clear definition of the fundamentals of Humanism - but presented as what Humanism stands for rather than what it is opposed to. In the words of the old song: accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative.

 

In January this year we embarked on the revision process - and it turned out to be far from simple. I was asked by the EC to canvas ideas and to produce a revised draft. Apparently my main qualification for this task was that I could read and write. I am not a philosopher and these ideas are not mine, they come from our founding fathers, from our philosophers and indeed from all of us. Between January and June this year I prepared no less than 14 revised drafts, involving an ever-widening circle of people who commented and made suggestions. I apologise now to all of you who would have liked to have been involved in this process but were not. But time was of the essence and we needed to finish the process in time for the Congress.

 

The declaration that we have now produced defines Humanism in positive terms. Unlike the earlier version it recognises our dependence on, and responsibility for, the natural world. It also recognises that we are more than just rational beings, that art and creative imagination play an important part in our lives. It also answers some of the criticisms often levelled at Humanism as being "soulless" and "amoral".

 

I must add a few words about what the Amsterdam Declaration is not. It is not a manifesto. Nor is it a plan of action. It is purely and simply what it claims to be: a simple statement of fundamental principles, of guiding principles from which we hope position papers, plans of action and manifestos can be developed.

 

At the General Assembly meeting on 3rd July I presented the then final draft and asked delegates for suggestions for amendments. I want to thank all of you who responded. I must also thank the many people who contributed to the process of preparation. The final proposals for amendments were considered by the drafting committee last night and a number were incorporated into the final draft that you have in front of you.

 

One final point. Although this Congress is being held in Noordwijkerhout we felt that "Noordwijkerhout Declaration" didn't have quite the same ring as the "Amsterdam Declaration" so we have retained the earlier name. I believe that the Amsterdam Declaration 2002 will meet the needs of humanists around the world for a clear and simple statement of the principles of Humanism. I recommend it to the Congress.

 

The motion to recommend the Amsterdam Declaration 2002 to the General Assembly was passed unanimously by the conference. The General Assembly later voted unanimously for Amsterdam Declaration 2002 to become an official document of the IHEU.

 

 

Below is the final agreed text in full.

 

The IHEU Amsterdam Declaration 2002

 

Humanism is the outcome of a long tradition of free thought that has inspired many of the world's great thinkers and creative artists and gave rise to science itself. The fundamentals of modern Humanism are as follows:

 

1. Humanism is ethical.  It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others.  Humanists have a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations. Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction.

 

2. Humanism is rational. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively. Humanists believe that the solutions to the world's problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention. Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry to the problems of human welfare. But Humanists also believe that the application of science and technology must be tempered by human values. Science gives us the means but human values must propose the ends.

 

3. Humanism supports democracy and human rights.  Humanism aims at the fullest possible development of every human being.  It holds that democracy and human development are matters of right.  The principles of democracy and human rights can be applied to many human relationships and are not restricted to methods of government.

 

4. Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. Humanism ventures to build a world on the idea of the free person responsible to society, and recognises our dependence on and responsibility for the natural world. Humanism is un-dogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents.  It is thus committed to education free from indoctrination.

 

5. Humanism is a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion.   The world's major religions claim to be based on revelations fixed for all time, and many seek to impose their world-views on all of humanity. Humanism recognises that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises through a continuing process of observation, evaluation and revision.

 

6. Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination and recognises the transforming power of art.  Humanism affirms the importance of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts for personal development and fulfilment.

 

7. Humanism is a life stance aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living and offers an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our times. Humanism can be a way of life for everyone everywhere.

 

 

Our primary task is to make human beings aware in the simplest terms of what Humanism can mean to them and what it commits them to.  By utilising free inquiry, the power of science and creative imagination for the furtherance of peace and in the service of compassion, we have confidence that we have the means to solve the problems that confront us all. We call upon all who share this conviction to associate themselves with us in this endeavour.