ROB TIELMAN

THE International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) defines humanism as "a democratic, non-theistic and ethical life stance which affirms that human beings have the right and the responsibility for giving meaning and shape to their own lives. It therefore rejects supernatural views of reality." (IHEU Board meeting, 11-13 July 1991, Prague) In many countries humanism is accepted legally as a life stance being an alternative to religion. In some languages a specific word is used to identify a theistic life stance, whereas another word indicates a non-theistic life stance. In English the word religion is often used in two ways: indicating both theistic and non-theistic life stances. To avoid any misunderstanding I will only use the word religion to mean a theistic life stance and therefore different from humanism.

The word non-theistic includes both atheistic and agnostic perspectives. It reflects the shift in the history of the modern humanist movement from predominantly anti-religious activities to the creation of a constructive alternative helping society face its psychological, social and legal questions. This shift took place in Europe as an answer to the terrifying experiences of the Second World War and gave birth to national humanist movements from 1946 on, to the international humanist movement in 1952, and to the European humanist movement in 1991.

The humanist movement identifies itself with democratic values as opposed to theocratic or technocratic systems. Humanism is not tied to one specific political ideology but supports the development of an open democratic mentality. Democracy is not interpreted as majority dictatorship but as a social construct guaranteeing the self-determination of individuals and groups. Theocracy (as seen in many Islamic countries) is rejected because it imposes one specific religion upon others and is therefore against both democracy and the human rights formulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. ("Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change one's religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest one's religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948).)

The IHEU states that humanism "seeks to use science creatively -- not destructively. It advocates a world-wide application of scientific methods to problems of human welfare. Humanists believe that the tremendous problems with which humankind is faced in this age of transition can be solved. Science gives the means, but science does not propose ends". {IHEU founding declaration, 1052} Science is a necessary but insufficient condition for humanism.

In the past many humanists assumed that education in itself guaranteed the development of an ethically responsible world. The assumption was that spreading knowledge meant spreading ethical awareness. The reality is that theocracy tended to be replaced by technocracy. Democracy is more than spreading information freely. It demands the concrete training of the capacity to give meaning and shape to life by respecting freedom and conscience. In the battle between theocracy and technocracy, humanists defend democracy. Education is essential to create a society respecting pluralism.

One could argue that pre-modernist theocracy tends to be replaced by modernist technocracy. One could question whether humanism is basically modernism. Humanists do believe in potential scientific and economic progress, but are no technocrats. Post-modernism should be distinguished between anti-modernist and neo-modernism. Anti-modernism assumes that all science is bad; "back to nature" means the elimination of human values as basic principles. Neo-modernism incorporates nature without making it sacred, recognising that we are free and responsible to give meaning to our existence. Neo-modernism takes the best of the Renaissance and Enlightenment with their humanist tradition of self-determination.

In modem humanism, the ideals of the French and American revolutions play an important role. Freedom is not considered to be the absence of rules but rather the presence of self-determination. Equality does not mean uniformity but rather equal access to human rights by all people. Solidarity is not imposed but rather seen as the consequence of implementing self-determination.

In many countries the debate centres around the tension between freedom and equality. Freedom is frequently misinterpreted as the right to discriminate against others, whereas equality implies the right not to be discriminated against. This dilemma can only be solved by a principle higher than freedom or equality. This higher principle is self-determination.

Self-determination means the right to give meaning and shape to ones own life as long as others are not prohibited to apply their right to self-determination. More practical than the concepts of freedom and equality, the principle of self-determination is able to settle tensions among individuals and among minorities. It implies freedom of conscience, pluralism and tolerance.

It is very understandable why some countries (like the Netherlands) did incorporate this principle as the leading concept guiding their constitution. The Netherlands has a long tradition of dealing with religious, ethnic, and other minorities, and most Dutch are aware of the fact that they themselves belong to various minorities. When everybody recognises their minority status and need for minority rights, all will become sensitive in defending minority rights for everyone else. This awareness will guarantee a true pluralist democracy defending freedom of conscience and tolerance.

Perhaps we all feel at times powerless, trying to save our world with limited resources.. It is important to recognise that we are neither isolated nor completely dependent on higher authority. We all have the capacity to give meaning to our own lives, to establish cooperative relationships with other free and responsible beings, and by doing so, develop a worthwhile world community. This capacity to nourish freedom and responsibility does not develop automatically but must be stimulated by pluralist education.

The modem humanist movement has always been in favour of a pluralist school system where people of different life stances participate. No religion is imposed upon others, and information about various life stances are taught as objectively as possible. Pluralist education is not value neutral because it recognises that values play an important role in daily life. Students are encouraged to give shape to their lives in a non-dogmatic way.

The modern humanist movement did not found humanist schools because life stance based schools might become dogmatic and indoctrinate their philosophy of life. From a humanist perspective, children are not the possession of parents but only of themselves. This implies that parents and educators have to guide children in such a way that they are increasingly capable of creating their own life styles. This human right to self-determination is so fundamental that children should understand it at an early age. Humanists support this process by offering optional religious education classes in a pluralist school system.

A pluralist school system incorporates the separation of church and state, but does offer parents and their children the choice of optional humanist or religious education hours in the state school buildings. Humanist educators give humanist education under the jurisdiction of the humanist movement. Optional religious education is taught under the jurisdiction of churches. The education in factual knowledge on all important life stances should be the responsibility of the state schools. By this division of jurisdictions, a state can guarantee the separation of church and state and at the same time offer an opportunity to give life stance based education to those who want it.

In some countries the separation of church and state is interpreted as a "wall of neutrality": no state money is given to any religious activity. In other countries a pluralist interpretation has been given to the separation of church and state. This means that the state has to play an active role in creating the conditions under which religious and other life stances can function without interfering in the ideological content of their activities. Institutions like schools, hospitals, prisons and the army are funded by the state. People being part of those institutions have to deal with ethical dilemmas. Why should the state pay for all activities in those institutions but exclude those which are fundamental for giving meaning to life?

One might argue that who pays wants to determine what happens. This is not necessarily so. A state does not have the right to intervene in religious or life stance related matters. In a pluralist interpretation of the separation of church and state the state finances activities taking place in state funded institutions, but implemented under the jurisdiction of the churches and the humanist movement. A state has the right to control the quality of the activities, such as demanding professional training of those performing them. Also, those activities should not violate the human right of self-determination and other constitutional rights. Within these limits the ideological autonomy of religions and humanism is respected.

In some countries problems have arisen with Islamic fundamentalists. Should democracies be so tolerant as to allow intolerant activities? Democracy is not the dictatorship of the majority but the implementation of the rights to self-determination. Fundamentalist parties that want to take over power to end democracy should therefore not be tolerated in democratic elections. But it is a mistake to think that all Islamic people are fundamentalists. In fact, most are not. By excluding Islamic religious education from neutral state schools, we create a vacuum that can easily be exploited by fundamentalists. By allowing optional Islamic religious education under the same conditions in pluralist state schools, we support the integration of minorities in society.

We could speak of an integration paradox. By excluding religious education from state schools we create a vacuum that supports segregating fundamentalist tendencies. By including religious education in state schools without making it optional we violate the rights of non-believers such as humanists. By integrating both religious and humanist education in an optional way in state schools we prevent both theocratic and technocratic tendencies and strengthen democracy. Comparing the Netherlands with Northern Ireland, Lebanon and former Yugoslavia we start to understand the importance of life stance pluralism for real democracy.

According to the IHEU, the state funding of optional humanist education is in line with the separation of church and state. "whereas the IHEU recognises that many countries offer financial support either to established churches or religious groups in general, and it promotes moral education and development and transmission of moral values as an alternative to the teachings of theistic religions, be it resolved that the IHEU demands that countries which support organised religions follow the pattern developed in Norway and the Netherlands {and others} of giving financial support to humanist organisations which provide other services to the non-believer, on the same basis as those states do to organised religions". (IHEU Board meeting, 11-13 July 1991)

From an historical perspective, the concepts of human rights were developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. The original theocratic views on humankind were (partly) replaced by ideas influenced by the Enlightenment and the following American and French revolutions. Scientific research started to replace revelations in books interpreted as being of divine origin. Self-determination of nations, minorities and individuals got more emphasis compared with authorities who looked upon themselves as representatives of higher powers.

In the past and present, many examples can be given of theistic views imposed upon others through legislation. The separation of state and church/religion is essential for pluralist democracy, freedom of conscience and tolerance.

Theocratic societies act against the human right of freedom of religion or belief. {Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 12; European Convention on Human Rights, article 8) Those religions or beliefs which explicitly support the right to self-determination of individuals should therefore be respected by all countries.

The right to individual and social self-determination also implies the right of adults to believe in supernatural powers more important than themselves. But at the same time, it means that no person has the right to impose their view upon others. In many countries - especially in the Islamic world -- the new theocratic threats are growing, attacking equal rights for humanists among others.

Usually, fundamentalism is perceived as a revival of religions, but that's questionable. Fundamentalism also could be defined as an attempt to keep the religious flock together in a secularising world. When secularisation is seen however as a positive process {creating new life stances based upon the fight to self-determination) people learn to live with the uncertainties of the modem world and are less susceptible to demagogic manipulation using minorities as scapegoats.

Science replaced religion in many aspects. As human beings we are able to know how the reality we live in functions. But unfortunately many scientists assume that science is ethically neutral. In the choice of topics to be studies and in the application of the results science can never be neutral. Even in the process of studying, scientists have to be as neutral as possible but never can achieve this. Scientists can use neutrality to hide moral judgements to protect vested interests or culturally biased views. Fortunately, more and more scientists became aware of their hidden moralistic bias.

Technocratic theories implemented in legislation prohibiting behaviour among consenting adults is against the human right to respect for one's privacy. This has been supported in two cases {against Northern Ireland in 1981 and the Republic of Ireland in 1988} by the European Court of Human Rights. Unfortunately, the American Supreme Court does not support this view, allowing states to continue to criminalize homosexuality between consenting adults. {Second ILGA Pink Book, Rob Tielman and Taco de Jonge, Utrecht 1988)

The nature versus nurture debate is quite well known. Intelligence, gender identities, sexual preferences: are they determined by genetic or environmental influences? There is not enough evidence for an exclusive nature or nurture position. The real question is: so what? What does it mean if the biological or environmental origin of certain behaviours could be proven? Neither nature nor nurture is an excuse for behaviour we are ultimately responsible for ourselves.

Justifications for our behaviour should not be based upon the fact or assumption of its biological or environmental character. Biological and social factors can help us to understand how some things happen, but science can never replace ethical judgement. In democracy, legislation has to be based upon human rights, including the right to privacy. This makes the nature versus nurture debate irrelevant from the social, legal and political point of view.

Many people think democracy is just the rule of majority vote. This interpretation of democracy can lead to the dictatorship of a majority of voters (being even a minority in society} over the rest of society. Based upon the human rights to privacy, to non-discrimination, and to the freedoms of conscience, opinion, expression, assembly and association, individuals and minorities have a right to self-determination even if a majority in society is against those rights. By respecting individuals and minority rights democracy is strengthened instead of weakened as many people assume.

Majority vote is a necessary but not sufficient condition for democracy. The real test of a tolerant democracy is its equal treatment of consenting adults who are engaged in minority behaviour without damaging anybody.

PROHIBITION PARADOX

As stated before, the underlying principle of human rights like the rights mentioned above, is the right to self-determination. This means the right to give meaning and shape to one's own life as long as the right to self-determination of others is not violated by this. Alcohol, drugs, euthanasia, sex and outlawing acts among consenting adults one does not prevent but create criminality. Each legal system which neglects the right to self-determination creates problems it cannot solve even by reshaping society into one huge prison. The alcohol ban in the United States did not ban alcohol but did stimulate the mafia in an almost irreparable way. In countries where the use of drugs is legal under certain conditions, the use is declining whereas it is rising in those countries trying to forbid it completely.

Humanists tend to support the legal regulation of abortion, voluntary euthanasia, recreational drugs, prostitution, non-marital relationships, homosexual parenthood, etc., based upon the principle of individual self-determination. They try to create bridges between the humanist movement and other movements directed towards self-determination, like the women's, peace, gay and lesbian, human rights and environmental movements. They are developing coalitions against the attacks of fundamentalists and co-operate in favour of freedom of conscience, pluralism and tolerance.

A unifying Europe might enable fundamentalists to impose their views upon others. But at the same time it might enable humanists and others to defend the right to self-determination of individuals and minorities. It will depend on the co-operation of European humanists and their allies who will win: theocrats, technocrats or democrats.