The 1962 Oslo Congress in some respects marks the coming of age of IHEU. The preceding decade can be characterized as a period of preparation: IHEU's purposes and philosophy had been defined, headquarters had concentrated on exchanging information between member organizations so as to help them in getting to know each other better, a working organization had been built up. At the Oslo Congress enthusiastic and ambitious plans for the future were launched: IHEU should be a kind of command center to stimulate humanism and humanist organizations worldwide. Another sign of IHEU's maturity is that it concentrated increasingly on practical activities instead of theoretical self-definition. Specific projects were set up, such as the Bihar Third World development project and various dialogues; working parties were created to discuss specific areas of practical activity; the frequency of the congresses was increased. A trend from theory to practice is also visible from the central themes that were chosen for the congresses. The period may be divided in two, a subdivision that parallels developments in world history. The 1960s, with its struggle for civil rights in the USA, increasingly comprehensive worldwide student protests, the growth of an independent youth culture, sexual revolution, and decolonization on a global scale, were a period of imagination, new ideas, high expectations. However, 1968 was not only the high point of the 1960s' protest movement, but also the year in which Richard Nixon became president of the USA and, in Czechoslovakia, Dubcek's 'communism with a human face' was crushed. Likewise, 1968 was a turning-point for IHEU. Before 1968 IHEU's membership and budget grew, after 1968 both stabilized. Before 1968 many new activities were started, after 1968 few activities were entirely new. The main exception was the International Humanist Award, which was presented for the first time in 1970.

Financial hardship

Humanist organizations are proverbially poor and IHEU was no exception, especially not in the 1960s and 1970s. Paul Kurtz would later remember this period as 'the lean years'. From 1960 until 1977 thirteen out of eighteen years ended on a deficit, three had a zero balance and only two, 1963 and 1967, ended on a surplus.

Saving on the office costs of IHEU, which amounted to some 90% of the budget, was hardly possible. IHEU already relied heavily on volunteers, the paid staff only consisting of one and a half person (the Organizing Secretary, later Executive Director, and a typist). Since office costs could hardly be reduced, everything depended on income. 80% of this was brought in by the IHEU full member organizations. Other classes of members, consultative and registered or associated, paid much less, and other sources of income such as the sale of brochures hardly made up for the costs involved. The dues for full members were proportional to the number of personal members these organizations had. In practice this meant that IHEU income depended largely on only three member organizations, each of whom paid approximately one fifth of the total budget: the American AEU and AHA, and the Dutch HV. The other full members, being smaller, paid considerably less. This situation made the functioning of IHEU heavily dependent on prompt payment by the big members.

Investing in publicity

In 1963 at the request of the Oslo Congress an 'ideal budget' was composed. This ideal budget, though minimal and explicitly aiming at 'practical possibilities realizable within five years', amounted to more than double the current budget. It summed up the tasks that were deemed indispensable 'if the IHEU is to be able to keep in step with a growing international development'. Most items were virtually doubled-bureau costs, Board, congress costs-with two exceptions. The item 'Promotion of new groups' (in countries where humanist organizations did not yet exist), which already was a minor entry, was reduced further, from 7% to 1% of the budget, because activities in this field had never met with much success.

The other exception was a drastic eightfold increase in the proposed budget for public relations. The circulation of the quarterly International Humanism, 'really our own means of outside communication' was to be boosted from a few hundred to 2000 copies. Quite optimistically it was thought that 1500 paying subscribers could be found, but even if that cheerful wish were to come true, the periodical would still suffer a yearly deficit of 2500 guilders. However, 'the importance of having a quality magazine [...] weighs up against the disadvantage of a deficit.' The second spearhead of the public relations effort was to be a paid part-time pr officer, because 'again and again we are asked to pay more attention to propaganda and public relations'. In the end it was Jaap van Praag who took it upon himself to perform some pr tasks-as a volunteer, and a capable one at that; when 'more attention was paid to [the 1966] Congress in the press than usual', this was credited to his being the pr officer.

Failure of the 'ideal budget'

In 1963 the membership dues were indeed doubled. The next year IHEU doubled the budget for its quarterly International Humanism, and for the first time a Board meeting was organized between congresses. This extra meeting, however, led to a financial debacle. The crucial blunder was that IHEU had decided that from now on all documents for Board meetings were to be translated into French and German. These translations absorbed more than 10% of the (enlarged) total annual budget, and the year ended in an appalling deficit. Never again was the experiment repeated, but other projects were to follow which, in spite of a growing budget, led to dramatic and persisting financial losses of up to 40% (!) of the budget. On four occasions between 1961 and 1967, the Dutch HV donated large sums of money to bridge over the shortages, but clearly this could not go on indefinitely, especially not after the 'personal union' of IHEU and Dutch Humanist League (HV) ended in 1969, when Van Praag resigned his chairmanship of the Dutch HV. In its 1967 annual report IHEU stated that a choice had to be made between either 'remaining as we are' or 'exploring new horizons'. In the latter case IHEU was to become 'the more vital force in the general humanist movement either through its influence on members or the exciting and desperately needed dimension of entering into development in Africa and Asia'.

Membership and recruitment

In fact, the financial sacrifices had not really resulted in a marked growth of IHEU. At first sight, between 1962 and 1968 IHEU had grown by more than 50%: the number of member organizations rose from 22 to 34. However, this growth was entirely due to new members with the lowest status, so-called 'registered groups' (since 1967 renamed 'associate members') who were not much more than correspondence contacts, and barely even that-some hardly ever answered the mail that was sent to them. There was only one new full member, the Rationalist Press Association from London. To be sure, the Italian Centro-Coscienza and the Humanist Association of Canada became full members in 1968 and 1971 respectively, but for both of them the financially exacting full membership turned out to be too much of a burden, so after a few years they stepped down and became consultative members again. The aim of keeping a class of associated groups was to stimulate humanist organization-building outside the core areas of modern humanism, North-West Europe and North America. To further this aim, in 1967 a Board member was assigned to each associate group, who would personally keep contact with them. Each year the annual report to the Board included a detailed continent by continent report of achievements, setbacks and prospects regarding humanist initiatives, especially in mission areas such as Eastern Asia and Africa. However, many parts of the world were hard to reach and the groups quite often ephemeral. Year after year the Board and the Executive Committee discussed dropping the Nigerian humanists from the membership list. They never answered any letters and it was not at all clear whether they still existed. However, again and again the Nigerians were given the benefit of the doubt, because for many years they were the only 'bridgehead' of humanism in Africa. In Latin America too there was, until the 1990s, only one member, the Argentine Humanist Association. Mediterranean Europe, heartland of the freethinkers that were organized in the WUFT, was hardly more accessible. Only in Northern Italy a few organizations like Centro-Coscienza were ready to join IHEU. In the Arab and the communist world only a few individuals kept in contact with IHEU (the Chinese branch of IHEU still consists of four individuals on a total population of more than a billion). By 1969 it had become clear that IHEU's chances for expansion were finite. As the 1969 annual report notes:

'For several years there has been talk that the IHEU should play a more active role in the world's humanistic revolution. This dream will remain only talk until there is more support from member organizations. During 1969 there was no significant increase in support and, as a result, no significant increase in IHEU activities.'

From 1968 onwards, both membership and annual budget (corrected for inflation) remained virtually constant for many years. After 1972 IHEU even succeeded in reducing the annual deficits to manageable proportions. By 1975 it looked as if IHEU had consolidated its position. When in that year Jaap van Praag retired, having been Chairman for 23 years, it was said that IHEU now really had come of age: '1975 marked the end of IHEU's beginnings'.

Congresses

After Oslo, world congresses were organized every four years: Paris (Puteaux) 1966, Boston 1970, Amsterdam 1974. A regional European congress was held at Hannover in 1968; a regional congress in India in the same year was planned but had to be cancelled. These congresses tended to focus less and less on theoretical expositions and more on the practical consequences of being a humanist in today's world. The Paris congress was notable because it attracted lots of young participants, which seemed promising for the future of humanism, though probably this was a bit self-deceptive because many young people had come to Paris in the first place to visit a congress of the Ligue Franà§aise de l'Enseignement. In any case, the trend did not last, in spite of the fact that two years later at Hannover a Youth Secretariat was formed. The Boston congress in 1970 was the first to be held outside of Europe. Influenced by recent developments, such as the youth protest movement, rethinking democracy, and growing concerns about the environment (the first International Humanist Award was presented to a proponent of ecological concern, Barry Commoner), it focused so strongly on social issues that Van Praag at its closing felt compelled to remind his audience that this was supposed to be a humanist congress. Concern for the environment and the future of man, and the way humanists should react in those fields, featured even more prominently in 1974 at the second IHEU congress to be held in Amsterdam.

Working Parties

At congresses humanists from all over the world met in person. This presented an opportunity to organize collateral personal meetings, such as Board meetings, national and specialized conferences, and Working Parties. The latter were permanent committees, generally consisting of between five and thirty members from the various full member organizations, that discussed specific areas of IHEU or humanist activity. The groups exchanged information, experiences and opinions in their own specific area, in order to provide the staff of member organizations with first-hand documentation regarding relevant activities by humanist organizations in other countries. Between congresses the working parties maintained contact by post mail. At first the discussions were rather theoretical, but from 1966 the emphasis shifted to more practical issues, such as producing materials that might be used by other humanist organizations in their educational, pr or counseling activities. The first two Working Parties (WP's) had been set up in 1959. One dealt with 'Public relations', the other, called 'Group work' or 'Groups', concentrated on the problem how best to organize humanist groups. A year later WP's on 'Counseling' and on 'Moral education' were constituted. These four WP's had fruitful meetings at the Oslo Congress in 1962, but thereafter it proved difficult to keep up the planned mail contacts. Neither the secretariat nor the convenors succeeded in stimulating the member organizations to respond, let alone to become active. In 1964 the two oldest WP's were already dissolved and replaced by a single new and broader WP on 'Advancement of Humanism'. The other two WP's did not meet the expectations either, and three years later all WP's were restructured. Through new regulations and by asking the member organizations to appoint 'interested and expert people', it was hoped to stimulate continuing activity of the WP's, 'which they have sometimes lacked in the past'. However, changing the regulations did not really solve the moot problem, which consisted in a shortage of adequate participants in the WP's. In the end the new rules were applied flexibly. For example, the WP on 'Advancement' was disbanded in 1971 and replaced by ad hoc meetings of the Managing Directors of humanist organizations at the IHEU congresses. The malfunctioning of existing WP's had not made the Board refrain from making plans for a new WP on 'Youth' in 1964, to activate the work among young people and to tighten the bonds with organized humanist youth. At the Paris congress, where many youths took part, the new WP had a successful meeting and as a result it was decided to transform it into a Youth Secretariat. The Secretary, a volunteer of course, with a limited budget, resigned within a few months. But after this false start the Youth Secretariat (later called Youth Section) was founded anew two years later at the Hannover congress. In 1970 and 1971 disagreement arose between the Youth Section and Board on the issue whether the Youth Section could make public statements and carry on political campaigns independently of IHEU. The Board was rather skeptical about the political fervor of the youths, but decided that it would not dictate a youth policy, and the Youth Section was given the right to elect a consultative representative on the Board. Among the activities of the young humanists we may note the conferences they organized, for example in 1969 at Milan on birth control, and in 1974 at Amsterdam, immediately before the IHEU congress, on problems of consumption. However, attempts to organize conferences in 1975 (Cambridge, UK) and 1976 (Arnhem, the Netherlands) collapsed, and in 1977 the Youth Section was dissolved.

Contacts by mail were strenuous, but WP meetings at the congresses were generally appreciated by the participants as 'profitable', and on these occasions numerous new WP's were proposed. Most initiatives dragged on for a few years and then ran aground. Examples of abortive WP proposals between 1966 and 1975 are 'Law reform', 'Social work/social services', 'Multinational corporations', 'Politics', and 'Humanism and science'. The only WP that got off to a flying start was 'Social reform', founded in 1972, which intended to serve as a watchdog for guarding the open society. It had been proposed in 1970 by Peter Draper of the British Humanist Association (formerly the British Ethical Union) out of dissatisfaction with the little effect that IHEU statements on political issues had had so far. Apparently, many Working Parties had difficulties in keeping up their momentum. The role of the convenor was crucial, as is demonstrated by active convenors like Lisa Kuhmerker of the WP on Moral education, or Piet Pols of the WP on Counseling. The Youth Secretariat in particular was vulnerable because of its intrinsically frequent changing of the guard. Yet, external circumstances may also have contributed. Even when in the 1990s the working parties returned in the form of Secretariats, in a much smaller world where European Community networks, e-mail and fax made contacts much simpler, it was not always easy to keep them alive and thriving.

The Bihar project

At the 1962 Oslo congress, S.N. Ray of the Indian IRHM, put forward a proposal for a development project in a poverty-stricken part of Bihar in Eastern India. The project, to be organized by IHEU and IRHM as co-partners, sprung from the Freedom from Hunger Campaign of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). Its aim was not only to raise production and improve living conditions, but also and in particular to stimulate the local population's self-reliance-which was at the time a groundbreaking approach. The population was to be educated in more modern agricultural and handicraft techniques, such as the use of fertilizers and tapestry looms, and they would be stimulated to form co-operatives. Within IHEU the proposal was enthusiastically received, a Bihar Fund was installed, and a Bihar Action was held to raise money. However, the noble aims of the project got frustrated in actual practice. In 1971, nine years into the project, an IHEU inspector squarely concluded: 'It is sad to say that this plan failed'. The main reason, he thought, was that it had proved very difficult to convince the population that they could improve their situation by their own effort.

'The trainees did not understand it, and refused the system. Their mentality is not yet ripe for independence, for being responsible for helping themselves. They wanted to be a simple wage-earner, which gave them certainty.'

However, it seems that it was not only the population, but also the project management that failed. Though a variety of industrial activities had been planned- shoemaking, basket making, rug production, carpentry, blacksmith work, cotton yarn production-in 1971 only a teacher for rugmaking had been made available. Only in 1967 the first ten rug makers were ready to start production. Other elements in the project went wrong as calamitously. The supply of fertilizers and seeds, which should have been provided on credit, ran out owing to lack of funds: they were sold on a profit basis to whoever was able to pay for them. Two bullocks had been bought to help plough the land, but as no one knew how to take care of them, the first died and the other then was sold. In 1975 the Board decided that as long as there was money left in the Bihar Fund, the project should continue. Efforts were made to restart activities, such as training in the use of handlooms and carpet weaving, and building a river dam for irrigation purposes. This seems to have been the last anyone ever heard of the traumatic Bihar project. With the members of the Board the word Bihar became synonymous with a prolonged and hopeless fiasco.

Humanist awards

In 1968 the IHEU Board decided, at the suggestion of the Israeli humanist movement, to establish an International Humanist Award, to honor exemplary humanists at the IHEU World Congresses. People who had stood firmly by their humanist principles might thus be put in the limelight, but it was realized that an award might also be useful to spark off publicity and offered an opportunity for IHEU to present itself on controversial issues. The International Humanist Award consists of a parchment scroll, bearing a text with the motivation for the prize. In the course of time, two kinds of people have been honored with the award. First, there are people from outside the organized humanist movement-sometimes internationally famous-who have been active in such implicitly humanist fields as human rights, defense of democracy, or the environment. Examples are Alexander Dubcek, Andrei Sakharov and Barry Commoner. Second, prominent humanists from within the organized movement have been presented with the award, such as Harold Blackham or V.M. Tarkunde, as well as an organization-the Atheist Centre. In 1978 a second award, the Special Award for Service to World Humanism, was presented to three IHEU pioneers: Harold Blackham, Jaap van Praag, and Sidney Scheuer. So far this has been the only occasion this particular award was presented. However, in 1988 a comparable award, the Distinguished Humanist Service Award was established; it has been presented at every IHEU World Congress since. In addition, from 1988 onwards several other IHEU awards have been given on an ad hoc basis, and national humanist organizations have also sometimes awarded prizes of their own at IHEU congresses, especially at IHEU's regional congresses.

IHEU representation at the United Nations and UNESCO

The 1952 Amsterdam congress had in three out of its five resolutions pledged support for United Nations ideals. One of the first tasks the Executive Committee took upon itself, was therefore to become a consultative member of UNESCO. In 1953 and 1954 three letters were sent to UNESCO, but they remained unanswered. This experience made the Executive Committee aware of the necessity of being informed beforehand of correct procedures, as well as the need to foster personal contacts instead of simply sending a letter. In 1955 an alarming message was received, stating that a Belgian organization which called itself humanist but was in fact Catholic, had 'jumped the queue' by also applying for representation at UNESCO, and allegedly had received a willing ear at that organization. The Executive Committee kept calm and continued its controlled approach. For years the procedure dragged on. As an alternative, IHEU thought of seeking representation instead at ECOSOC, the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, but this was considered less fitting in view of IHEU's aims. Then at last in November 1958 UNESCO decided to admit IHEU as an NGO (non-governmental organization), but regrettably with C (informative) status. Not only was this the lowest status, 'practically without any rights or privileges', but to make things worse, within weeks after IHEU had been admitted UNESCO decided to restrict its future conferences to organizations of A (associative) and B (consultative) status only. Jaap van Praag visited the 1960 NGO conference as an IHEU representative where, as the new rules regarding C status had not yet come into effect, he was allowed to make some interventions. He took the opportunity to correct the chairman of a proposed UNESCO working group on 'Humanists and scientists: the man of to-morrow', who had pictured humanism as the counterpart of science. Perhaps thanks to this appearance IHEU status was upgraded in 1961 to B status, which conferred the right to submit written information and to take part in the deliberations of the NGO conferences that UNESCO organized every two years in Paris. From 1962 to 1967 Theo Polet was the IHEU representative; he was succeeded by Ernst van Brakel (1967-1980). Now that IHEU was accepted by UNESCO, it was also allowed to appoint a representative at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. Mrs. May Weis, who was an observer at the United Nations for the Women's Conference of the AEU, took this task upon herself (1959-1975). There is a marked difference between the annual reports sent by Polet and Mrs. Weis. Polet was quite skeptical of UNESCO procedures. Starting with his first report (1962) he criticized the amount of talking. 'After someone had read [aloud] a report, which everyone had lying in front of him, he was thanked by the chairman in a long speech.' In addition he complained that he 'had heard a great deal about the way in which NGOs wished to use UNESCO money for their own [italics Polet] activities but that little had become apparent of interest in each other'. After Polet had voiced his discomfort at one of the meetings, 'quite a number of people informed [him] during the interval for lunch [...] that they fully agreed with the remarks made. The general discussions became a little more matter-of-fact, at any rate on that day'. Polet concluded that the main use of the meetings lay in the opportunity for informal personal contacts. The annual reports by Mrs. Weis are quite different from Polet's: they sound enthusiastic and convey the impression that she was confronted with an embarrassment of riches. Unlike the biennial UNESCO conferences, the UN meetings in New York were a continuous happening. Every month she had to pick those activities that looked the most useful or interesting. It was not uncommon for her to report that she visited only selected parts of a conference since it coincided with another UN activity that she found of interest too. Mrs. Weis also organized activities herself, such as parties at her New York apartment for UN dignitaries or various humanists. For example in 1962, when Harold Blackham visited New York, she arranged for a lunch with him at the United Nations, while in the evening she organized a meeting at her home for members of the two American IHEU member organizations, where Blackham delivered a speech on humanism.

Dialogues

In the mid-sixties a series of 'dialogues' was started. The main dialogues were those with the Roman Catholics and Marxists, but many others were attempted-though only few attempts were successful. The dialogues were meant: 1 to clarify ideas and correct misunderstandings about the other party; 2 to bridge ideological gaps-not by minimizing differences but by establishing modes of communication; 3 to support humanist minorities within for example the Catholic Church. 'By our communication we say: you are not alone'; 4 as 'a critique of our own self-righteousness [...] We learn that humanism is not the sole possession of an "elect"; that our "wisdom" is only wise in confrontation and [...] before the continuing question'. The importance that IHEU attached to these dialogues is apparent from the fact that in general heavy delegations were sent to the meetings, consisting of prominent Board members and often including Chairman Van Praag himself. It was the Vatican that in the wake of the Second Vatican Council took the first step in this series of dialogues. At the invitation of the Vatican Secretariat for Non Believers (founded 1965) explorative discussions were held in 1966 at Amersfoort, The Netherlands, which showed that traditional differences between Catholics and humanists 'were losing their relevance'. After several national dialogues between humanists and Catholics in Britain, the Netherlands, the United States and Canada, a further IHEU-Vatican dialogue took place at Brussels in October 1970. This dialogue was slightly hampered by a public statement of pope Paul VI in his 1969 Christmas Message that 'without Christ there is no true humanism' (which none of the Roman Catholic participants in the Brussels dialogue was inclined to defend) and by his opinion on population policy and his categorical condemnation of contraceptives in the encyclical Humanae vitae (1968). The Board, by a resolution earlier in 1970, had made clear that it thought differently of contraceptives. Some thirty people took part in the three-day dialogue. The dialogue was in general appreciated by the participants, though it was realized that only left-wing Catholics were present, and that to reach a common view on lofty abstract ideas did not guarantee that an agreement could also be reached on things practical. However, the spirit at the dialogue was sincere and cooperative, as is exemplified by an episode described by Howard Radest. With regard to the aforementioned statement of the Pope that 'a true humanism without Christ is impossible', the conference agreed that a message should be sent to the Pope to refute this attack:

'While those of us from IHEU were prepared to submit a rather diplomatic statement, it was the unanimous opinion of the Catholics present that IHEU Chairman van Praag's very strong attack on the Pope's sectarianism should be sent to the Vatican from the Dialogue. When some of us asked if, perhaps, the Catholic participants would want to discuss this matter privately, it was Father Gà³mez Caffarena (Spain) who said, "There is nothing I would want to discuss with my Catholic brothers that I cannot discuss as freely with all of you".'

A second dialogue was held at the American Ethical Union in 1972, bringing together many famous American humanists, such as B.F. Skinner, Corliss Lamont, Sidney Hook, Ernest Nagel, Paul Kurtz, Howard Radest, and atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair. Many well-known Catholic dissidents were present. A third and last dialogue was held in Amsterdam, 1988. Among the Catholic participants were two Cardinals, Paul Poupard of France and Godfried Daneels of Belgium. Half of the IHEU representatives were women, a fact that, as Kurtz remembers, 'seemed to annoy the Vatican delegation!' By then the mood of the Vatican had turned very conservative, and, as a consequence, no further humanist-Catholic dialogues have been held.

Dialogues with Protestant Christians have never been very successful. Since 1967 IHEU approached the World Council of Churches (WCC) to discuss the possibilities of constructive co-operation, and in 1968 the IHEU Chairman and Secretary personally visited Geneva for talks with the WCC. To no avail, the Council turned out to be not interested. On the other hand, an IHEU dialogue with the Marxists seemed more promising. In the late 1960s, several Eastern European countries tried to carve out a more open and progressive political course that was less dependent on the Soviet Union than before. In particular Dubcek's Czechoslovakia (until 1968), Tito's Yugoslavia and Ceauescu's Romania showed various forms of 'communism with a human face'. This seemed to make a dialogue with them interesting. After several prominent Marxists had been approached in 1967 and 1968, three dialogues took place: Vienna 1968, Herceg-Novi 1969, and Boston 1970. Subjects discussed were alienation, bureaucracy, tolerance, freedom, human nature, social structure, revolution, and social change. The Marxists professed being 'humanists with a Marxist flavor' rather than 'Marxists with a humanist flavor', yet there were profound differences:

'The Marxist humanists were inclined to condone less humane means for the achievement of high purposes and ideals, the non-Marxists from principle did not want to resort to inhumane means, at the risk of not realizing their ideals.'

The hoped-for establishment of a separate section for humanism and ethics by the national philosophical societies succeeded only in Yugoslavia. This Humanist and Ethical Section of the Yugoslav Association of Philosophy (HESYAP) became an associate member of IHEU in 1970 and was promoted to consultative status one year later, apparently as a token of support. In 1970 the dialogue with the Marxist humanists could be continued in Boston, though on a small scale, as only a few Eastern Europeans were able to participate. After that, the dialogues were hampered by increasingly uncooperative Eastern European authorities, and planned dialogues in 1972-1974 were cancelled. Not until 1979 would there be another meeting. However, IHEU found other ways to support the Marxist humanists in their struggle for human rights. When in the early 1970s the HESYAP group was put under increasing pressure by the Yugoslav authorities, IHEU intensified its support, both by issuing public declarations, and by choosing HESYAP figurehead professor Mihailo Markovi as an IHEU co-chairman. From the late 1960s IHEU started to conduct so many dialogues that it sometimes looks as if they called any meeting a 'dialogue'. Among others there were dialogues with South African Apartheid defenders, the Club of Rome, Buddhists and Hindus, homosexuals and freethinkers. The dialogue with the freethinkers was hindered at first by the fact that it proved difficult to find out whether the WUFT still existed. However, another international freethinker organization was traced, the International Association for Liberal Christianity and Religious Freedom (IARF). In 1974 IHEU and IARF co-operated in organizing a seminar in Dortmund, Germany.

The end of the Van Praag era

In the late 1960s there are signs of doubt whether IHEU was going in the right direction. At the 1968 Board meeting, Van Praag even posed the question whether there should continue to be an IHEU. Possibly these were rhetorical questions, only meant to act as a shock therapy-the next item on the agenda would be a revision of the contribution system. The other Board members hastened to declare that they thought IHEU and its aims were indeed very important, and that surely it should be continued. Two years later, as a consequence of the stagnation in membership, the Board expressed its worries about the way IHEU was perceived by outsiders, and doubted whether IHEU was on the right course. A Committee was instituted to investigate this issue, but the problem kept cropping up. In 1973 Van Praag once more asked whether continuation of IHEU was useful. Van Praag himself clearly had strong doubts by then. A few months after his resignation as Chairman in 1975 he suggested in an interview-published only in 1997-that he did not consider IHEU all that important. 'Altogether, it didn't amount to very much. To be honest, it still doesn't.' How should the significance of Van Praag for IHEU be rated? The original building of the organization was largely his personal merit. Van Praag could apply the vision and experience he had acquired in building the Dutch Humanistisch Verbond. As he was a president of both IHEU and Dutch HV, IHEU could heavily depend on Dutch resources. Van Praag, who was a meetings addict who had 'twenty solutions ready even before a problem arises', had the capacities to guide IHEU into the directions he saw most fit. However, this entailed the risk of dominating the Board meetings that he presided and 'crushing' his partners. Maybe his resignation freed the way for his successors to follow their imagination and this might explain the abundance of novel ideas in the late 1970s that we will encounter in the next chapter.

---

Some financial cris de coeur from the Annual Reports

1964: 'All in all the financial situation remains precarious.' 1965: 'It has to be recorded, unfortunately, that our financial situation is critical.' 1971: 'The prospects in 1971 were very gloomy.' 1974: 'Our liquidity is put in jeopardy.' 1978: The financial situation continued to give cause for anxiety.'

The voice of IHEU, 1962-1975
1962-1965 Second Vatican Council: reforms in the Roman Catholic Church 1963 Partial nuclear test ban 1963 US: President John F. Kennedy assassinated 1964 USSR: Khrushchev ousted by Brezhnev and Kosygin 1964-1975 Increasing US involvement in the Vietnam War 1966-1969 'Cultural Revolution' in China 1966-1977 India: Indira Gandhi in power 1966 Third feminist wave 1967 Third Arab-Israeli War (Six-Day War) 1967-1970 Biafran War in Nigeria 1968 Soviet invasion in Czechoslovakia ends liberal Dubcek regime 1968 Student riots in US, Paris, Japan 1968 Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy killed 1968 International treaty to prevent spread of nuclear weapons (61 countries) 1969 Man lands on the moon 1969 Catholic-Protestant violence in Northern Ireland starts 1969-1974 Nixon presidency (resigns after Watergate scandal) 1969-1975 West Germany: Willy Brandt government, Ostpolitik 1971 Communist China admitted as a UN member 1973 Fourth Arab-Israeli War (Yom Kippur); oil crisis; start of world economic crisis 1974 Death of Salazar; end of the Portuguese colonial empire 1975 Death of Franco 1975 Bangladesh secedes from Pakistan 1975 Helsinki agreements

1968 (Board of Directors), Student Revolts: 'We deem the [students'] demands reasonable, and extend our sympathy and solidarity to the student movement striving for a more equitable society.

1970 (Board of Directors), Population Control, Family Planning and Abortion: 'The IHEU ... makes UN urgent appeal to the Catholic Church to ... stop opposing effective family planning and the liberalization of abortion legislation ...'

1970 (Board of Directors), US Policy in South-East Asia: '... calls upon the US Government to cease its appalling destruction of life and liberty in South-East Asia and to withdraw its forces without delay ...'

1974 (IHEU Congress), Dr. Henry Morgentaler: '... whereas, the [IHEU] has repeatedly expressed its view that women ought to have the right to discontinue an unwanted pregnancy with competent medical assistance ... Therefore: be it resolved that [the Congress] urges that the sentence passed against ... Morgentaler should be remitted ...'

1974 (IHEU Congress), Beneficent Voluntary Euthanasia: 'We ... declare our support on ethical grounds for beneficent voluntary euthanasia ... We appeal to an enlightened public opinion ... to move in the direction of a compassionate view toward needless suffering in dying.'

What ethical humanism stands for In 1965 the IHEU Board amplified the 1952 Amsterdam declaration by formulating ten characteristics of what humanism stands for. It was explicitly stated that these should not be taken to constitute a definition, for humanism was too complex and adaptable to be truly represented by any list of absolute statements. The ten characteristics were adopted at the 1966 congress and are therefore known as the Paris statement.

1 Ethical humanism expresses a moral conviction; it is acceptance of responsibility for human life in the world. 2 It represents a way of life relying upon human capacities and natural and social resources. 3 Humanist morality starts with an acknowledgement of human interdependence and the need for mutual respect. 4 Ethical humanism calls for a significant existence made worthwhile through human commitment and acceptance, as a basis for enjoyment and fulfillment. 5 Man becomes human in society; society should provide conditions for the fullest possible development of each man. 6 Human development requires continuous improvement of the conditions of free inquiry and of an open society. 7 Scientific knowledge progressively established and applied is the most reliable means of improving welfare. 8 Human progress is progress in freedom of choice; human justice is the progressive realization of equality. 9 Justice does not exclude force, but the sole desirable use of force is to suppress the resort to force. 10 Ethical humanism affirms the unity of man and a common responsibility of all men for all men.

World Congress, Paris, 1966

The theme of IHEU's 4th World Congress, held on July 25-30, 1966, in Puteaux, a Paris district, was 'The humanist response to the problems and aspirations of man'. IHEU chairman Jaap van Praag identified in 'The humanist outlook' the various trends in the humanist tradition, and discussed what they have in common and what distinguishes them from non-humanist ways of thinking and living. In his view humanism is life-affirming, not merely God-rejecting. Humanists hold a common moral conviction, that men themselves in their humanity shape the world in a free, creative and responsible way. In his talk on 'The Humanist contribution' Gerald Wendt, a former UNESCO Director, defined the humanist role concerning the social problems and the aspirations of mankind. He proposed IHEU to proclaim that humanism is uniquely dedicated to the enrichment of life for all men. Sidney Scheuer, Vice-President of the American Ethical Union and IHEU Treasurer, presented in his talk 'An ethical approach to peace and a practical suggestion for implementation' an imaginative proposal for a lend-lease type, world-wide operation to mobilize resources to meet basic human needs. He won the enthusiastic support of the congress. Young humanists were notably present at this Congress. They organized a working party which proposed to set up a youth secretariat within IHEU, and they made some of the most effective and important contributions to the discussions. IHEU at this congress has been described as 'moving towards a fuller, more hospitable, open and mellow humanism. Its members came from different backgrounds, followed different approaches, and insisted on emphases, or even aims, of their own. This time more was heard of the imaginative and aesthetic side of man; aspects of the inner life and of the arts figured in the program of discussions. A dialogue within IHEU began to take place in Puteaux'.

European Regional Congress, Hannover, 1968

The second European IHEU Congress took place on July 14-19, 1968, at Hannover, Germany, and was devoted to the pressing problem of 'Conservation and human fulfillment'. Dutch Vice-President of the European Economic Community Sicco Mansholt argued that a reasonable solution had to be found for the contradiction between the tremendously increased intellectual demands on the individual and the petrified structures of a prehistoric form of society. Conservation Society co-founder Douglas MacEwan dealt with 'Conservation as the intelligent and purposeful control of the environment'. He said that the fundamental humanist principle of respect for human life as such implied that 'if humanist morality is to mean anything, it must mean that unwanted human beings must not be born and the total numbers of [them] must be adjusted to the available resources'. Student-activist and co-founder of the Institut de l'Homme, André Niel, argued that in the twentieth century the problem of human fulfillment was most urgent. Humanity's existential failure in this respect caused trouble and conflict, and threatened civilization. As a solution, man was to become a social being without conflict. Niel envisioned 'a humanism dedicated to man's maturity and definitive fulfillment'.

World Congress Boston, 1970

The theme of the fifth IHEU World Congress, held at Boston on August 4-9, 1970, was 'To seek a humane world (How can man direct his future evolution?)'. This theme was chosen because it was felt that the decade of the 1970s would be dominated by the urgent problems of pollution, waste of resources, ecology, nuclear weapons, and the survival of mankind, and by the idea that man had been enabled to shape his future as never before. Emphasizing man's complete responsibility for his own future, humanists from around the globe had to identify, to analyze and to respond to this new situation by devising a value system compatible with survival in such a revolutionarily changing world. British UN consultant Lord Richie Calder discussed 'The twenty-first century-a look ahead'. He set forth his views on the great influence of science and technology, biotechnology in particular, on the constitution of man and on the state of his environment, and he proposed to constitute a multicultural worldwide body of wise men. American environmentalist Barry Commoner, who received the First Humanist Award, argued that people should get mastery of themselves again and reinstate the power of science and technology to the service of mankind. The American linguist and anarchist Noam Chomsky severely criticized the capitalist system and the foreign policy of 'imperial America' in his talk 'The crisis of power'. He saw solving America's problems as a precondition for solving the world's problems, and expressed his unconditional support for the revolutionary student movement that, he said, contained his hope for the future. American senator Walter Mondale discussed the problems of poverty, exploitation, and racial discrimination. In his talk 'What can we do-what must we do. Critical liberalism and social action' he suggested creating community-based power as a means to attain social reforms of the American system.

World Congress Amsterdam, 1974

Over four hundred humanists from nineteen countries assembled at the sixth IHEU World Congress, held in Amsterdam on August 5-9, 1974. The general theme, 'The humanist revolution', referred to the challenge to make humanist values function within a fundamentally different kind of society which would take into account The limits to growth (as the Club of Rome had named its report). Indian former High Court Chief Justice V.M. Tarkunde presented 'Twentieth-century Renaissance' as a second humanist revolution. He offered a number of recommendations to invigorate democracy by new institutional forms, for example by the foundation of a network of People's Committees, and by the exposition of its basic humanist values. K. Kaluratnam (Ceylon) dealt with 'The quality of life', emphasizing the necessity of global politics and co-operation to ensure a minimum standard of living and to counteract population growth, ecological problems and social and economic inequality. Dutch sociologist Piet Thoenes, discussing 'Ends and means of humanist social change', was one of those who emphasized that formulae alone are not adequate. In his view organized humanism could do more and better if it was able to give humanism a face of its own by shaping a humanist subculture and expressing itself as a way of life. As is clear from the program, environmental and ecological problems were central issues at this congress. However, there were some complaints that the ethical aspect, the humanist philosophical underpinning of rights and duties, had not been brought out well, no more than the issue which political and economic system should be applied in view of these urgent problems.

Sidney Henry Scheuer Sidney Henry Scheuer (1893-1987) had a career in the textile business and took part in several international missions for the American government. He was active in the American Ethical Union and helped found IHEU, of which he was the Treasurer from 1952 to 1987. In 1966 Scheuer delivered an important address at the IHEU Paris World Congress: 'An ethical humanist approach to peace and a practical suggestion for implementation'. In 1978 Scheuer was elected Honorary Member of the IHEU Board. At the London Congress of that same year Scheuer was presented with a Special Award for his services to IHEU.

A mini portrait of the winners of the prestigious International Humanist Awards:
1970 Environmentalist professor Barry Commoner (USA), for his activities in the field of preservation of the world environment. Commoner played a major role in achieving worldwide commitment to the cause of ecology.
1974 Harold John Blackham (UK), who had played a key role in founding IHEU, for his long-standing involvement with ethical humanism in Britain, and his achievements in the field of moral education.
1978 V.M. Tarkunde (India), a former judge of the Bombay court, who had shown great courage during the state of emergency in his country. He defended the values of democracy and dealt with many cases that were related to the repressive measures of the Indian government in that period.
1982 Kurt Partzsch, a former Minister for Social Affairs of the German federal state of Lower Saxony, for his contributions to the cause of human well-being and for his initiatives in social work in particular.
1986 Arnould Clausse, a Belgian professor emeritus of education, who as president of the Ligue Internationale de l'Enseignement had promoted a public educational system based on the principles of equal chances for all, free inquiry, and high quality. The Atheist Centre (India) for their efforts to bring humanism in practice, by means of education, social work and their fight against superstition and religious intolerance.
1988 Andrei Sakharov (USSR), atom scientist and winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace, for his indefatigable struggle for the cause of human rights in his country, and for his humanist ideals. The Award was presented in absentia, as at that time the Soviet authorities refused to give him permission to leave the country.
1990 Alexander Dubcek, in recognition of his attempts in the 1960s to give communism in Czechoslovakia a more human face. Dubcek, who after 1968 had to pay a heavy toll for his dedication to his ideals of democracy and humanity, stressed in his speech that it is morality and humanity that give meaning to life.
1992 Pieter Admiraal, a Dutch anaesthesist, for advocating the right of self-determination in the field of voluntary euthanasia. 1996 Nettie Klein (Netherlands), humanist counselor, for her long-standing volunteer work for IHEU. In her last 'Nettie's Column' in International Humanist News she wrote that she felt 'very honored to be admitted to the ranks of such distinguished recipients of this Award as Sakharov, Dubcek and Admiraal'.
1999 Professor Paul Kurtz, in recognition of the immensely important role he has played for both the American and the international humanist movement.

The value of dialogues Some humanists have expressed doubts regarding the usefulness of the dialogues. Paul Kurtz, however, who has been present at nearly all the dialogues with Marxists and Catholics, is convinced that they were constructive and they had a significant influence. The dialogues with Marxists, he says, have 'in a modest way helped to convince intellectuals about the importance of humanism. [...] In retrospect, Stojanovi and other philosophers believe that Marxist Humanism had an important role in moving communist countries away from Stalinism and towards democracy.' The dialogues with the Catholics inspired many liberal Catholic thinkers, by 'our defense of the right of privacy, self-determination, freedom of conscience, women's rights, gay rights, our defense of euthanasia, abortion, contraception, etc. Today, many of the critics of the Roman Catholic Church do so from a humanist perspective, at least in part. Thus the dialogues were important and are of historic significance, and at least have been read by liberal theologians (such as Hans Kü ng and others).' The key point, Kurtz says, is that IHEU and humanists defended the open society, human rights, and civil liberties.

---

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.