Hugo Estrella*

In order to respond carefully to the question of what are the prospects for Humanism in the years to come, one must necessarily take a look at the past to see what was right and what was wrong. What were the conditions that enabled humanists to enjoy equality, to make their own choices, to advance their ideas and institutions inside their-our-societies? On the other hand, it can also be interesting to look at the opposite side of the coin: what happened in societies where the Humanist approach was missing or was disregarded? I would like to take the Balkans as an example of the latter case, and from it, derive what I think is the best lesson of what should and should not be done. For many of us, the Humanist stance is a very lonely one. Humanists are people that generally go against the stream, placing doubts on what others accept as absolute truths. From white flies to black sheep, according to the time and space we live in; ours is not the easiest way to go through life. Living among religious people, or in a religious environment, is quite a normal situation and one that in general doesn't worry us. Secular institutions enrich our lives through the diversity they preserve and promote. We've been living together for years, and often even our parents or grandparents are believers. Where that is not the case, attacking religiously biased public institutions is a task we have never evaded. As Babu Gogineni puts it, Humanism is like ketchup in some respects. And that dual capacity makes it more appealing. We feel we have to destroy the unequal order, and build a better one. Sometimes we are supported by the many, sometimes we are almost alone. But our usual tools are powerful: science, commitment, and bright personalities. But coming back to the point I wanted to raise: after being engaged in conflict research for many years, I observe that the religious dimension appears major in most conflicts.

The case of the Balkans is a typical one. People who had been living together for years suddenly turned their backs on each other and started a massacre of huge proportions. They all identified themselves and the enemy as members of a religious/ethnic community. We can hardly understand the issues that justified the war, but it happened. Croats, Serbs and Muslims could no longer live together. Different analysts agree on the fact that after decades of living in a system that took care of everything, even of balancing (in authoritarian ways) the expectations of the different groups inside the country, once Big Brother disappeared, the in-fighting between political leaders started fragmenting what was, once, united. What were the categories to go back to in the conflict? How could they identify one another, protect themselves and their families from attacks, ethnic cleansing and slaughter? By recovering their lost identity-an identity based on ancient religious and ethnic roots. Pure Middle Ages. And slaughter, ethnic cleansing and systematic rape took place just as they had over a thousand years ago-but this time with the added destructive power of modern technology. We all know the result, and still have to deal with it. My question is, and I think it's a very important point for the coming debate: how can we, as humanists, help create a sense of community? How can we create a new identity, satisfactory to everyone? Is it possible to promote the feeling that, being humanists, we are not alone, defenseless? I like the ketchup example, but I think we need to emphasize its solid component. Nobody wants to live a miserable life. It takes much energy and courage to fight all the time, for ourselves and for others. Humanism and the fight for a humanistic environment is a good choice, of course, and it has changed the world for the better. But while we know we can rely on each other, we must make this evident for all.

At a time in which the world is again witnessing the consequences of religion-driven violence, war and terrorism, our voice is needed more than ever. Religious leaders who have praised or tolerated violence as a stock part of their tools of salvation are now hypocritically moving away from the fire they started. And then, for reasons of greed or demagogy, political leaders enter the game. We have to be clear and we must be effective. Putting two and two together means showing how religious intolerance de-humanizes people and promotes violence, threatening the very existence of humanity. On the other hand we have to be effective in promoting humanist institutions-accepting that we may never get to be a consistent majority in terms of numbers but a strong and outspoken minority committed to a better world for all. How can we move from our isolation? That I cannot answer, but we must be up to the task. The more we feel part of a community, the better we can work. IHEU is taking proper steps for networking, for identifying individuals and communities who have taken up the humanist stance. IHEU's role is, therefore, vital. But it does not replace the part that every national group and every humanist must play.

Personally I have enjoyed this sense of community since the very first moment I met an organized humanist group. And my activities, as well as those of the group of like-minded people who engaged with me, were pushed forward exponentially. Every day we are present in the social and political life of Argentina. We have won respect and a place of concern in people's minds, as well as in the media. Our existence is acknowledged, and we are speaking clearly about human rights, freedom, education and secularisation. We are creating a community. If we succeed, then maybe in the future there will be fewer Balkan-like conflicts, rather the opposite: a community of reliable human fellow beings.

---

* Hugo Estrella (1965, Argentina) is a journalist and political analyst. He is the founder and Executive Director of the Argentine Ethical and Humanist Association, and member of IHEU's Growth and Development Committee. He is also a member of several international organizations for peace and human rights.

---

International Humanist and Ethical Union 1952-2002
Past, present and future
Bert Gasenbeek and Babu Gogineni (eds.)
Copyright © 2002 by De Tijdstroom uitgeverij.
Republished 2006 at http://www.iheu.org with permission
ISBN 90 5898 041 3 nur 730, 740
This book has been semi-automatically reformatted to fit this web site. Please tell us of any formatting errors that you encounter.
The entire book is also available, with illustrations, as a PDF ebook on this web site.