Though raised a devout religionist, I repented by my mid-twenties and have for two decades been a

converted secular humanist. I am pas-sionate in the conclusion that secular humanism is best described as a moral, wholesome, wise, and accurate philoso-phy concerning questions of belief and meaning. On the flip side, I have an

intense personal animus toward reli-gion in general and theism in particu-lar, for I’m convinced it’s the inherent nature of theism to be destructive of human good.

I say this as context for oblique dissent—“oblique” because my dis-

agreement is not concerning anything that’s part of secular humanism prop-er. Instead, it regards an attitude, an adjunct philosophy that’s frequently expressed incidentally by leaders and writers in the movement. I’m referring to the political/economic philosophy known as socialism. Though enthralled by everything else that comes from sec-ular humanism, I’m not sold on what seems to be the predominant view on this matter.

A past op-ed piece in FREE INQUIRY by John J. Dunphy (“No Milk-and-Water Faith Indeed,” Fall 2002) exemplifies my objection. Dunphy wrote of alarm within the religious Right over a suggestion he’d made in an earlier, 1983 piece advocating direct, state-sponsored pros-elyting of humanism in public schools (see box). Though vehemently opposed by the likes of Pat Buchanan and Phyllis Schlafly, I find it curious that in one respect he and they are much in league.

I can summarize the reason in one word: compulsion. The religious polit-icos believe in the moral probity of ini-tiating governmental violence (or threat thereof) to achieve their own vision of a

better world. So does Dunphy. The only difference is in the particular end each camp believes compulsion should be

worn message” that modern science can debunk ancient superstition is in fact the moral of the story and that scientists should not shy away from this conclusion, if and when it is substantiated by facts.

If Hale and coworkers felt compelled to end their fascinating article with such a whimpering remark about the debunking of a religious myth nobody actually believes in anymore, one can only imagine the lengths they would have gone to in order to save religion from science if they had discovered, say,

how Moses parted the waters of the Red Sea, or how Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes. Why is it that we cannot face the simple truth? Religion is at best unsubstantiated superstition. When-ever it comes close enough to reality that its claims can be investigated by science, they invariably end up falsi-fied. Religion’s record as truth-reveal-ing is abysmal, and it is getting worse every year, thanks in part to people like

Plutarch, as well as to Hale and his collabo-

rators.

Note1. As I have argued, for example, in

“A Case against God: Science and the Falsi-fiability Question in Theology,” Skeptic 6, no. 2 (1998): 66–73.

Massimo Pigliucci is a professor of evolutionary biology at the Uni versity of Tennessee. His latest book is Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science (Sinauer, 2002). Many of his ramblings can be found at

OP-ED

Feb. / March 200419 http: / /www.secularhumanism.org

Humanism and Compulsion

GLADE ROSS

“As secular humanists, we should disavow the

use of compulsion to achieve our purposes.”

What John Dunphy

Said“. . . the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the pros-elytizers of a new faith: a reli-gion of humanity . . . the class-room must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and miseries, and the new faith of humanism . . .” — John Dunphy, “A Religion for a New Age,” The Humanist, January-February 1983

directed toward. In specific regard to Dunphy’s topic,

both camps believe in having the gov-ernment forcefully extract the fruits of my labor from me—at the point of a gun if need be (for that’s how all taxes, ulti-mately, are collected)—for use in fund-ing a system of public education (where children are indoctrinated according to their own vision of the good, but that’s only incidental). If my phrasing of this sounds extreme, it’s only because it’s unusual to plainly state the reality of so

wicked a practice.Of course, wicked is also a strong

word, but I use it because I believe it best describes the immorality of force-fully taking from another that which he’s created via his own intelligence, creativity, and ambition. When done by anyone other than government, we call it thievery. I do not believe it makes a difference—in its morality—whether it’s done privately or governmentally.

For very good reasons, blatant slav-ery was politically rejected more than a century ago. Yet today it’s with us still, though in subtler forms. Am I not a slave to the politically powerful when, if I’m to work at all to produce sustenance for myself and family, I’m compelled to devote a sizable percentage of my output to other people’s welfare and purposes?

You may say I’m selfish for resenting this so-called slavery. You may think I’m wicked for wanting release from such compelled “generosity.”

But you’re wrong. In truth, it’s those who covet more

than just the merit of their own labor (and so embrace compulsion to force-fully extract from others) who practice true greed. Any one of us may share our own resources voluntarily. But when my own, morally owned resources are not enough for my purposes, and when what I can persuade others to voluntari-ly give is still deficient, how can it be called other than wrong when I connive to force others to join my cause?

I think it’s high time secular human-ists (or at least more of them) began to recognize this.

Indeed, given our usual disdain for theistic themes, we might consider the extent to which their premises lie behind socialistic thinking. After all, don’t each of the monotheisms teach that we are children of God, spiritual siblings, part of a giant family, each of us with joint obligations one to another? We do not own and cannot justly claim title to ourselves; our responsibility and obli-gations are to God and to our spiritual siblings too, for He ordains it. Thus, it’s not unjust if I’m forced to labor for my siblings. How can it be, when that which I’m deprived of I did not own in the first place? Indeed, it’s sensible in this view to aver that I am wrong for coveting the fruits of my own labor, for since I don’t own myself—God and/or others do—I’d be robbing them.

Certainly, secular humanists should reject such thinking. Instead, we should celebrate the moral conclusion that each person is born holding a complete and just title to him- or herself—to do with, in moral impunity, as he or she wishes.

Happily, the moral course is often also the most practical. Consider the rancor caused by Dunphy’s 1983 piece and the great mileage theists gained in reaction. What fueled them so? Obviously, it was that he’d use force to indoctrinate their children in a man-ner contrary to their preference. I’m alarmed, too.

Of course, their reaction goes further. Since Dunphy feels it’s fine to forcefully indoctrinate their chil-dren, they feel emboldened in a compli-mentary vein.

What if, instead of advocating slav-ery-based education (don’t object to that phraseology, for when you use my

forced labor to fund it, that’s what it is), Dunphy had instead suggested human-ists unite voluntarily to fund humanist schools? Surely, this would have created little ire, and certainly taken wind from the sails of religionists who themselves covet my forced labor to indoctrinate according to their purposes.

Of course, it’s not just about public education. Dunphy also wrote of the hope to end poverty. I like the objective, but implicitly, you can guess that his intended means would again involve using compulsion to forcefully extract my labor from me. Regardless of how salutary the purpose, that’s wrong, and ultimately I believe in every case must be counterproductive.

As secular humanists, we should dis-avow the use of compulsion to achieve our purposes. If it so happens that, incidentally, this means we must aban-don every related trapping of theism/fascism/socialism, so be it. We should be infected with no artifact of the notion that human beings do not own them-selves.

To summarize and sharpen the point, consider the following: theism holds that God owns me. Fascism holds that the State owns me. Socialism holds that the People collectively own me. Regardless of which, the State inevitably initiates force to trespass my claim to self-title.

It’s not that secular humanists should be anarchists. Government has a legitimate role in protecting citizens from trespasses by others against their own self-title. But more emphatically, it should never in itself become the instrument of such trespass, and secu-lar humanists should cease to advocate this. Instead, we should champion the freedom, liberty, and self-title of all. Implicitly, this means socialism, social-istic thinking, and socialistic tendencies should be rejected.

Let us have compassion, yes, but let us express it voluntarily. And especial-ly, let us never allow such beneficent themes to become the excuse by which we justify making slaves of others to our own purposes.

Glade Ross is a former antitrust law-yer who now owns a software busi-ness.

OP-ED

http: / /www.secularhumanism.org 20free inquiry

“We should celebrate the moral conclusion

that each person is born holding a

complete and just title to him- or herself—to

do with, in moral impu-nity, as he

or she wishes.”