A Rebuttal to the Humanist Manifesto

Rebuttal to Humanist Manifesto

Jim Berge

Part Five: World Community

The Following quote is taken from the Humanist Manifesto II:

TWELFTH: We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government. This would appreciate cultural pluralism and diversity. It would not exclude pride in national origins and accomplishments nor the handling of regional problems on a regional basis. Human progress, however, can no longer be achieved by focusing on one section of the world, Western or Eastern, developed or underdeveloped. For the first time in human history, no part of humankind can be isolated from any other. Each person's future is in some way linked to all. We thus reaffirm a commitment to the building of world community, at the same time recognizing that this commits us to some hard choices.

The separation of human beings on nationalistic grounds can be seen as an overt act of God. Acts 17:26 states that “From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.” Of course, this may have been a whole different story had the Tower of Babel incident never occurred, but we must live with the history we have inherited. Christians and humanists can obviously agree that the nations and ethnic groups in existence today ought to learn to get along, and that this world would be a lot happier and safer if they did. But to advocate a “system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government” is a very dangerous idea indeed.
     Just look at the evil wrought by such cross-cultural multi-national groups as the United Nations. Hardly has there been a more corrupt organization. World law and a world order would not “appreciate cultural pluralism and diversity,” but would do the opposite; from history we have already seen that such attempts only tyrannize those groups who are not popular enough to be included in the fraternity of “diversity.” Christianity is one such group, under attack even in a society which insists that all belief systems are welcome, all are part of the family, all are equally valid and deserve the same rights - all, that is, except Christians.
     The reason nations exist is roughly the same as the reason so many religions exist. Different ideas abound, different opinions about how life ought to be lived and society ought to be governed, and like-minded individuals congregate to form a geographically distinct society who together practice these ideals. Or is it the other way around? Perhaps it is more by virtue of the geographical distinctiveness of people groups that prevents them from changing their customs and unique societal habits. If so, people groups are governed in a certain manner and possess cultural distinctiveness because they are born and raised in a particular country and accept that particular standard of life. This is a very interesting topic which is well beyond the limits of this discussion, but nevertheless there exist distinct reasons why people groups are unique. I think it would be a shame to lose that distinctiveness by “deplor[ing] the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds.”
     Either way, cultural uniqueness is important, and of course would be lost if we became one big, happy family. I would like to be clear that I do not necessarily believe that a one-world government in inherently anti-Christian. Most evangelicals would shudder to hear me admit that a world government would be a desirable thing, but were it ruled by a wise and benevolent leader, it could be wonderful. This is precisely the problem. There is no such thing in today's political economy as wisdom and benevolence. It is a dream to believe, given the fallen state of human nature, that we could make a world government work for the benefit of all, with true equality and freedom for all. I am not suggesting that the humanist ideal of world peace is somehow improper. I am merely facing the fact that it cannot work.

War and Violence

The Following quote is taken from the Humanist Manifesto II:

THIRTEENTH: This world community must renounce the resort to violence and force as a method of solving international disputes. We believe in the peaceful adjudication of differences by international courts and by the development of the arts of negotiation and compromise. War is obsolete. So is the use of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. It is a planetary imperative to reduce the level of military expenditures and turn these savings to peaceful and people-oriented uses.

Had the United States renounced war, striving to keep the peace between factions philosophically at odds with each other during some of the major conflicts of the last couple centuries, the world we live in today would be far different. And not for the better. At times the lessons of war are needed to discipline unruly dictators. True, life would be much more serene without the threat of nuclear or chemical weapons. The absence of war is a utopian ideal for which we all should strive. To casually dispose of all defensive weapons, however, is not only foolish but is an invitation to disaster.
     I freely admit that calling on negotiation and compromise as methods of solving disputes is preferable to war, but by decreeing international courts we open ourselves as a nation full of liberty to a resounding volley of freedom-corroding tactics wrought by those who hate what our founding fathers have accomplished here. I realize that this is the very argument the humanists would use against us freedom lovers - that other countries deserve the same freedoms and material abundance we enjoy in America. The freedoms we enjoy, however, were established by leaders who believed that an omnipotent God led them to America to found a nation in which true freedoms could be enjoyed by all, not just by Christians, and these freedoms were bought with the blood of men and women who deemed it worthy to die for true liberty, a thing which is admittedly rare in this world, and is worth fighting for and keeping.
     I want to see an end to war, nuclear weapons, meaningless death and violence. But I want also to preserve our freedom in a world full of freedom haters. If this requires the maintenance of the strongest arsenal on Earth, so be it. I feel this is truly unfortunate, but it is the price we must pay for recognizing the basically evil nature of the unregenerate human spirit. Until Christ reigns eternally, we must defend what we know to be true and just and not be subjugated by a world court or any other political power.
     To champion the cause of a world court is also antithetical to the humanist's cry for situational ethics and autonomous individuality. They state in “THIRD” that “Ethics stems from human need and interest.” They must realize that human needs and interests in Indonesia are significantly different than those in Switzerland. True, basic human needs and desires such as a warm house, food to eat, clean water to drink and freedom from terrorism are common to all peoples, but the means of achieving those ends will be radically different among different cultures. A single world court can no better arbitrate such matters than a single church can fulfill the religious desires in every nation. What on the surface appears as freedom and equality for all actually becomes enslavement for those who disagree with the majority rule. This is where democracy fails as compared, for instance, to a republic based on natural law.

Protecting the Environment

The Following quote is taken from the Humanist Manifesto II:

FOURTEENTH: The world community must engage in cooperative planning concerning the use of rapidly depleting resources. The planet earth must be considered a single ecosystem. Ecological damage, resource depletion, and excessive population growth must be checked by international concord. The cultivation and conservation of nature is a moral value; we should perceive ourselves as integral to the sources of our being in nature. We must free our world from needless pollution and waste, responsibly guarding and creating wealth, both natural and human. Exploitation of natural resources, uncurbed by social conscience, must end.

Christians have been blamed for many of the environmental problems that exist today. Some say that we don't care about the earth because some day soon we'll be raptured away from here and we won't care any more. Whether this is true I cannot say; there may be Christians who feel this way, and if so, they are wrong. I, for one, care deeply about the environment, and am offended by New Age friends of nature who wail over the environment but drive old cars that belch smoke. It angers me to see the wastefulness of western societies - especially America - and the worldwide pollution caused by lazy and profit-crazed industrial superpowers. It sickens me to see a fast-food meal that costs three dollars generate a whole tray full of plastic and paper waste. I grew up with a love for nature, and a hatred for meaningless pollution, and as a Christian I have always understood that it is our responsibility to safeguard the planet on which we live, because it is the home which God himself created for us. I also agree that the “conservation of nature is a moral value.” God has created this earth and all its abundance and beauty specifically for us. We have a heaven-sent responsibility to care for this planet, to keep it clean, to use it but not abuse it, to take advantage of its resources in order to improve our quality of life, but without creating hazards we cannot or will not deal with.
In all of the above, Christians and humanists ought to stand shoulder to shoulder and fight against waste, pollution and the defilement of our natural resources. Once again, however, we must be wary of the tendency to insist on international consensus regarding the methods of pollution abatement and conservation of natural resources. A world court responsible to judge and punish offending nations for their waste infractions is too subjective, too powerful, too intrusive into the lives of individuals. I see a logistical nightmare in balancing the humanists' demand for individual autonomy with the responsibilities of abiding by international rules of conduct for societal, environmental, social and political behavior. The two tend to be mutually exclusive, and cannot be easily reconciled.
Further, the mandate that “excessive population growth must be checked by international concord” is very troublesome. The United States government has far overstepped its bounds by demanding that certain other nations provide contraceptive or abortion services as a token of concern over human rights, and is so doing have made mortal enemies of those cultures which view abortion and contraception as morally reprehensible. A nation is responsible only to itself concerning its goals for growth, but even a sovereign nation must abide by certain natural laws. We know from experience that involving the government in the process of checking population growth is an invitation to abortion and other acts of disposing of unwanted lives. Rather than instituting international accords to address population growth, we must actively resist any attempt to involve governing bodies other than our own constitutionally established ones in the control or growth of our population. Even if the limitation of population growth can be shown to be a noble ideal, it must be accomplished without abortion, the murdering of unwanted pre-born babies.

Redistribution of Wealth

The Following quote is taken from the Humanist Manifesto II:

FIFTEENTH: The problems of economic growth and development can no longer be resolved by one nation alone; they are worldwide in scope. It is the moral obligation of the developed nations to provide -- through an international authority that safeguards human rights - massive technical, agricultural, medical, and economic assistance, including birth control techniques, to the developing portions of the globe. World poverty must cease. Hence extreme disproportions in wealth, income, and economic growth should be reduced on a worldwide basis.

The liberal ideal subsists literally in rewarding those who do not deserve it and punishing those who deserve rewards. To demand global economic equality would in many (not all) instances necessitate stealing from the successful, the hard-working, the industrious, and giving to the oppressed, the selfish, the undisciplined. This is liberalism plain and simple. The redistribution of wealth can be an honorable thing if done out of love and concern for the indigent and needy. God, in fact, commands us to give, even sacrificially, to those who are in need. But coerced redistribution is meaningless and empty, it is counterproductive, and only results in waste and degradation of character. Giving must be cheerfully voluntary.
Very few countries lack the natural resources with which to feed and clothe their people. Those resources which are lacking are readily available from other countries. To end world poverty first requires that we get rid of all selfish dictators who, although their countries may have the capacity to be fertile and productive, trample their compatriots and hoard the country's wealth. One of the effective (but not necessarily the best) ways to deal with such folks is the threat of war, which of course the humanists disagree with. Then we must break communistic, socialistic and fascist societies and convince their leaders and constituents that they must fork over their share of the pie for the benefit of the unfortunates among us. Finally, we must convince all the prosperous nations of the world to give up their affluence and abundance and become subjugated by a world authority who demands that they tithe to the church of global equality. Once again, coerced kindness and equality simply will not work. The answer, my friends, is to change the hearts of humans worldwide so that they will be willing to help those in need. There is only one way to do that - fill all of those hearts with the truth found in God's word. If Christ lived in each one of us, there would be no more hunger, famine, war or inequality anywhere in the world.

The Wonders of Technology

The Following quote is taken from the Humanist Manifesto II:

SIXTEENTH: Technology is a vital key to human progress and development. We deplore any neo-romantic efforts to condemn indiscriminately all technology and science or to counsel retreat from its further extension and use for the good of humankind. We would resist any moves to censor basic scientific research on moral, political, or social grounds. Technology must, however, be carefully judged by the consequences of its use; harmful and destructive changes should be avoided. We are particularly disturbed when technology and bureaucracy control, manipulate, or modify human beings without their consent. Technological feasibility does not imply social or cultural desirability.

With the exception of the first sentence, there is much to agree with here. The problem I have with sentence one is in stating that “Technology is a vital key to human progress and development” this is just plain wrong. Once again, we are faced with the humanist definition of “progress,” given earlier in their own words as “commitment to the building of world community” (see “TWELFTH”). Technology is not even remotely related to the building of world community or to bringing peace and prosperity to the global village. On the contrary, technology makes it easier for those who would oppress others and profit from it to do their dirty work. Has the quality of life increased with our rise in technological prowess? I submit that for the average world citizen, whether in an affluent western industrialized nation or a third world country struggling for survival, life is more stressful, less peaceful, more agitated than before the technology boom of this century. The problem with technology is its tendency to propagate human nature more efficiently than before. We as Christians believe that this is a bad thing, given the initially corrupt state of the human body, soul, and mind.
     Before television, before long distance transportation, before the Internet and a car in every garage, life consisted of living. People were more concerned about doing a good job, being a good neighbor, participating in the community. Now we are concerned with the copious amounts of information flooding us from all directions about everything; CNN promises all the news in the world in 30 minutes (a ridiculous premise). The saturated fat merchants promise us a complete meal in two minutes. Computer marketeers promise us blazing microchips, which enable us to play computer games with infinitely diminishing reaction times. The Internet promises us all the information known to humankind in the neat little package on our desktop. Corporations farm out work to slave labor in indigent nations, hungry to realize the extra few cents profit per widget. Wall Street inflates the global debt bubble to incomprehensible dimensions, ignoring the harbingers of the grave consequences to follow. The Fed fuels the fire by making false pronouncements about an economy decaying from the inside. Banks collapse, real wages decline, abortion continues virtually unchecked, pollution causes our frogs to grow seven legs. What has technology accomplished for us during the past 50 years?
     Technology can be useful and even advantageous, but we must realize, as the Manifesto suggests, that “harmful and destructive changes should be avoided.” In a burst of admirable insight, they correctly state that “Technological feasibility does not imply social or cultural desirability.” If ever there was a maxim which we as a human race could use to reign in the harmful side effects of technology, this would be it, and I commend the humanists. In my job as a consultant to users of robotic welding technology, I am continuously perplexed by the desire of many companies to try to utilize a particular technology merely because it exists. This can be a very dangerous thing, especially when dealing with such contemporary issues as cloning, all the various means of artificial reproduction, and chemical weapons development.
     “We would resist any moves to censor basic scientific research on moral, political, or social grounds.” This is the only other part of “SIXTEENTH” I want to comment on, because it makes a sweeping statement about interfering with any scientific research. I can immediately think of a few scientific research topics that should be censored on moral grounds, including harvesting of aborted baby brains for medical purposes. Some ideas are simply out of bounds for a moral people. Let us not raise science on so high a pedestal that we can no longer see what is we are worshipping.
     Let us not assume that technology is inherently beneficial. And let us stand together with the humanists as they try to reign in the influence of technology for technology's sake, and take captive this powerful force to control it, so it does not control us. But let us also use technology wisely, as a means to provide a higher standard of living for all nations in the world, to generate a peaceful existence on this planet, to improve our health and longevity, and to better explore the universe in which we live.

One Big, Happy Family

The Following quote is taken from the Humanist Manifesto II:

SEVENTEENTH: We must expand communication and transportation across frontiers. Travel restrictions must cease. The world must be open to diverse political, ideological, and moral viewpoints and evolve a worldwide system of television and radio for information and education. We thus call for full international cooperation in culture, science, the arts, and technology across ideological borders. We must learn to live openly together or we shall perish together.

What does it mean to be “open to diverse political, ideological, and moral viewpoints”? This question hinges around the word “open.” Since a common theme running through the Humanist Manifestos is one of world unity, a breaking down of political, philosophical and geographical differences, then “open” must refer to a widespread acceptance of all viewpoints as equally valid and equally valuable. Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Mormonism and Eckankar are all equally valid religious systems. Fascism, socialism, communism and capitalism are all equally valid socio-economic systems. This is quite a troublesome opinion, one which we can accurately describe as relativistic. With no moral absolutes, it is no surprise that humanism should embrace this “come one, come all” mode of thought. Problem is, all are not welcome.

Part Six: Humanity

Gel Home