A rock band in Pretoria, South Africa, is rocking the pious with a concert calling for "freedom from religion" (the National Secular Society reports). The 777 Rock Against Religion show, featuring seven of South Africa's "most outspoken rock and metal" acts is organised by local trio Architecture Of Aggression. It has already angered some Christians who have made their voices heard on the band's website. Brothers Anton and Van Alberts and William Bishop say the concert would be a "a peaceful protest against the injustices caused in the name of religion against people of different faiths or the non-religious. Anton said: "We want to bring to people's attention all the atrocities committed in the name of religion."

The Hon Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 10

Dear High Commissioner

On behalf of the 87 member organisations of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, an International NGO in Special Consultative status with the United Nations, I extend our whole hearted support to your untiring efforts in organising the forthcoming World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (South Africa, 31 August - 7 September 2001).

The International Humanist & Ethical Union:

Having regard for the right to life as recognised by article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Considering that the prohibition of the death sentence increasingly comes within the ambit of international human rights standards adopted by governments, the United Nations and within regional intergovernmental organisations,

Reiterating its total opposition to any form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment,

Apartheid in South Africa, which is systematic racism, violates fundamental principles which humanists believe must be basic for all people. Every man and woman the world over has a right to self-determination and equality.

At this time economic sanctions are the best and most effective non-violent means of influencing the government of South Africa to change its attitudes and its policies.

Therefore, the 1986 Humanist World Congress supports those nations which have already decided to impose economic boycotts against South Africa. And, it urges all other nations in the world to take appropriate actions against apartheid and the racist regime in South Africa.

Believing

1. That Apartheid and other forms of discrimination on the grounds of race are against the principles of humanism;
2. That the right to knowledge and to express opinions should not be impaired;
3. That the right of objection to undertaking compulsory military service should be allowed not only on religious grounds but also on the grounds of humanist conscience;
4. That the right to religious liberty should extend the right to humanists and others, and that the right of religious dissent should be fully protected by law;

Noting:

1. The undue influence of the White Dutch Reformed Churches in South Africa over the South African government;

That their moral and other values are imposed on South African society, on those who do not hold these values;

That such people include those who are of other Christian denomination and those who have other religious beliefs as well as those who have no religious beliefs;

In accordance with the charter of the United Nations and basic human rights, the IHEU calls for an end to ethnic or racial discrimination wherever it exists.

The International Humanist & Ethical Union, meeting in Cambridge, Massachusetts for its 5th International Congress, records its deep concern about the violations to human rights which are occurring in many countries.

We affirm our commitment to working for the implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights throughout the world.

To Mr. J. de Klerk,
Minister of Education, Arts and Science, South Africa.

Excellence

With reference to the October 31 New York Times article, the correspondence between your secretary and Dr. Roy Fairfield and your view that a new Afrikaans University will attempt to "defeat humanism" or combat what your secretary calls "neo-humanism":

We believe that you do the good name of humanism a disservice in linking it (and liberalism) to the forces of communism. All semantic hair-splitting to the contrary notwithstanding, we believe that you might better use the term "pseudo-humanism" to describe what you have in mind. Or better still, perhaps you should invent a more apt term to refer to what your secretary calls a "smear campaign" against your country. When your secretary used the term "neo-humanism" to describe an illness afflicting the minds of thousands of quasi-intellectuals in the Western world today - journalists, writers, ministers of the church, lecturers, professors, politicians and the like, he certainly does no justice to the thinking of modern humanists. When you are quoted in the New York Times as linking "humanism and liberalism and communism as among the dangerous forces that are threatening the Afrikaner way of life", don't you ask for criticism? The New York Times is an extraordinarily influential newspaper among "journalists, writers, ministers of the church, lecturers, professors, politicians and the like" who can hardly be called "pseudo-intellectuals". Nor are they "stooges of the hidden powers seeking to destroy proven Christian-Western values and our Western way of life". (quoted from your secretary's letter)