In response to the article in the latest Newsletter, ‘Replicating the social functions of religious organisations’.

Firstly, a quick nod to Margaret.
Margaret, I see you often end forum posts and have signed-off the most recent Newsletter with an appeal for more activity.
I haven’t (as yet) attended any of the Suffolk Humanist meetings and (until now) haven’t really posted on the forums with any conviction. This doesn’t mean I’m shy or less than a committed Humanist. I (I’m sure like many others) occasionally browse the website and read the Newsletter with enthusiasm.

Topic:
Is a Humanist Movement a bad idea?

Humanism is a rallying point for those with a substantial doubt about metaphysical matters; for those who can clearly see that a Society mixed with Religion can only result in social divisions and eventually conflict.

Maybe Darwin wasn’t right, and maybe Dawkins isn’t right; but they’ve made or are making a way of thinking about the world and our collective existence that dares to challenge religiosity and absolute truths.
These people and their contempories have helped to publicise or helped to advance human thinking. However, it is important to not deify Humanism or it’s most public figures lest we fall into the trap of immutable truths.
Humanism it seems to me, is as unique to each of us as individuals. And it evolves.

For me, Humanism is about demonstrating clear, flexible and objective thinking rather than subscribing to any doctrine; this is what makes Humanism unique.

Surely a Humanist movement would become a rallying point for those whose appeal of the apparent rebelliousness nihilism of Humanism deem as the ‘new thing’. It would become a hook for those for whom religion is ‘so yesterday’.

Humanism, doesn’t need logo’s, badges, flags, colours, evangelists or champions. It is a quiet revolution in thinking, objectivity, freedom and compassion.

Therefore, the notion that Humanism can represent itself via a Humanist Movement that sets itself against others seems entirely wrong.

MA.