Verified by 
The following post is adapted from the newly released Creating Change Through Humanism by Roy Speckhardt
Humanism—the not so radical idea that you can be good without a god— doesn’t particularly sound like the next big subversive development in politics today. But with its numbers rapidly growing, humanists are beginning to realize that they can play a major role in influencing governmental policy.
Herb Silverman is the founder of the lobbying organization the Secular Coalition for America. Writing for the Washington Post, Silverman pointedly remarked: “Theist or nontheist, we are all evangelists for issues that matter to us. The question isn't whether we should proselytize, but how and how often? . . . I think we shouldn't be screaming atheists, nor should we go door-to-door spreading the word that there are no gods. But many of us are comfortable writing letters to the editor, participating in forums or debates, writing to members of Congress, or coming out of our atheist and humanist closets at appropriate times. For all of us, religious or not, people are likely to respect our worldview more for what we do, than for what we preach.”
When we think about Silverman’s approach toward outreach and activism, it’s easy to see that identities, whether or not they’re religious, require public action in order for people to consider adopting them for themselves.
The call to civic responsibility on behalf of reason-based values has never been more sorely needed in America than today. Religious Right leaders continue to get their supporters in federal and state governments to advance their extreme conservative, sectarian agenda. They work publicly and behind the scenes to push the appointment of far right judges and regressive legislation, and they also directly espouse their narrow religious views. The dangers of the government’s public embrace of religious beliefs are that it inhibits academic freedom, compromises civil liberties, and tears down the all-important wall of separation between religion and government.
Adopting humanistic reasoning can hold back this assault on our protections and prevent us from going down the perilous path of theocratic despotism. And while humanism provides a necessary philosophical foundation to counter such a risk, it stops well short of being dogmatic, with rigid, unchangeable rules. Still, a consensus exists among humanists as to how issues need to be approached. Without cataloging political positions, it frames the debate by highlighting the centrality of equality, dignity, global responsibility, civil liberties, a secular society, the environment, and the commitment to science over blind faith and pseudoscience.
In light of the above, it’s evident that while humanist positions aren’t doctrinaire, they’re by no means apolitical. And they do exhibit a pronounced tendency toward liberalism. Exploring the numbers, there are indeed very few humanists who call themselves “conservative.” In the last survey of American Humanist Association members, less than three percent claimed to be members of the Republican Party, and of that small number many aim to reform Republicanism to be more socially liberal than it is today. Exploring the issues mentioned above, and then comparing those positions to those found in the Republican Party platform, I think it all makes very good sense.
Certainly, it’s possible to hold conservative views about any number of issues, especially when competing values are at stake. I know of dedicated humanists who would seem to emphasize liberty over anti-violence measures when they express their strong interest in maintaining the ability to buy, own, and carry guns. But those same folks tend to be moderate in their view, willing to accept waiting periods for gun purchases, mandatory registrations, and limitations on the right to carry them in various places—all as ways to affirm their values without inadvertently fostering violence.
Similarly, I know humanists who believe that affording people the freedom to die can, in its application, be precarious. It can endanger those going through a mentally difficult time and expose infirm people to risks of manipulation. But those humanists yet hold their position conditionally, frequently agreeing with Oregon’s Death with Dignity laws, which include safeguards that limit euthanasia to terminally ill patients with doctor-certified control of their mental capacities. In general, I’ve found that humanists who describe their politics as “conservative” aren’t anywhere near as conservative as average Republicans and their often religiously motivated staff, with whom I’ve interacted on Capitol Hill.
There are also a minority of humanists who identify as libertarian, believing that people (and often businesses) should be allowed to do what they like without the government’s interfering. The home of the extreme right-wing Tea Party, libertarianism, isn’t immediately recognizable as having anything humanist about it. Still, there are issues where the Libertarian Party platform and humanism coincide. Both support keeping government out of abortion and other reproductive rights matters; both condemn ethnic, sexuality, age, and belief-based bigotry; and both are reluctant to employ military force. Personally, I find many of libertarianism’s assumptions—for example, relying on self-policing and rejecting the potential of government to effect positive results—to be wrongheaded. But I acknowledge others’ freedom to disagree.
Either way it’s not automatically inconsistent for humanists to—rationally—reach the libertarian-compatible conclusion that local government is often preferable to federal government, that the private sector can do a number of things better than the public sector, that we shouldn’t be burdening our grandchildren with debt, or that the cost/benefit ratio of some governmental regulations is out of whack. If folks arrive at a traditionally conservative position through scrupulous reasoning, empathy, and compassion—rather than through dogma and narrow self-interest—not only are they still humanist, but they may have developed knowledge about a subject that’s eluded others.
Regardless of individual differences, humanists of all stripes recognize that we need to work together to make things better because no deity is going to do it for us. While we don’t agree among ourselves on everything (and we may even change our minds from time to time!), we have the insight to realize that this can be a strength, not a weakness. We know we have to work together because a particularly virulent form of religious fundamentalism has been gaining ground across this country—one that’s not simply anti-secular and political, but that presents a grave threat to our democracy and the values we hold dear.
Frederick Douglass’s point that “Power concedes nothing without a demand” still very much applies today. But it’s through the strength of politically minded humanists that currently dominant conservative and regressive policies may soon fall out of favor.
The increase we’ve seen in conservatism since George W. Bush ascended into office may now be entering its decline. The development of government sponsored faith-based initiatives, legal grounding for fetal personhood, and opposition to same-sex couple equality may all be overcome by secular humanists and progressive religious Americans’ interest in keeping government out of the religion business. And finally, it’s not really subversive that humanism is providing the bedrock for such positive political change: It’s actually reinforcing core American democratic values.
What’s truly subversive is the Religious Right‘s aim to make this a Christian nation. It only weakens us when government caters to special religious interests rather than the general populace. Such religious imposition favors one faithful group while relegating the rest of us to second class citizenship. Instead of allowing our democracy to be undermined in this autocratic way, let’s embrace the diversity of our approaches and work together to seek humanistic change that benefits everyone.
NOTE 1: Readers interested in learning more about, and possibly purchasing, a copy of my recently published Creating Change Through Humanism (July, 2015) can go either to the website for Humanist Press or to Amazon.
NOTE 2: Anyone interested in finding out more about my background, or my work with the American Humanist Association (AHA), might click on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Speckhardt
