Contents
Editorial
Bill Cooke
Marvin Farber & Evolution
H James Birx
Southern Lights
Russell Dear
New Zealand's Freethought Heritage
Jim Dakin
Frank Langstone, Rationalist
David Verran
Trilobites
Keith Kersting
The Menace of Ignorance
Imran Aijaz
Heathen in Godzone
Replies from parliament
Another Hurrah
Pakistani Humanist on Trial
Humanist Manifesto 2000
The need for New Planetary Institutions
The Perils of Belief
Peter Hansen
Adam's Rib
Anne Ferguson
Current Comments
Book Reviews
Letters to Editor
NZARH Winners
Oddities
"My religion is to learn"
Vivekananda (1863-1902)
|
|
Editorial
A Closed Mind?
An old friend of mine told me recently that I have a closed
mind. This is because I turned down his offer to be subjected
to hypnotherapy. He believes implicitly in this process,
which even the otherwise-credulous Dictionary of Mind,
Body and Spirit admits has had a 'chequered history'.
Hypnotherapy claims to be able to' cure physical and
emotional ailments by resolving the cause of the problem
while under hypnosis. It assumes, much like psychoanalysis,
that our rationality acts as a barrier to our 'real selves' which
harbour all sorts of phobias and illnesses waiting to happen
and which can be reached and averted only by hypnosis. In
my friend's case, it is even more bizarre than this, as he
believes that he can regress his patient to a past life, where
the cause of the ailment may well have originated.
To me this is complete and utter nonsense and I refuse to
waste my time with it. To my friend this is a symptom of
my closed mind. Many people have come across variations
of this theme. It is notorious that Rationalists and Humanists
know more about religions and pseudosciences than the
average believer. But the minute we decide some new
example of supernaturalist flummery is too silly for words,
we are accused of having a closed mind. There is a piece of
intellectual sleight-of-hand going here. Let's follow this
example. The hypnotherapist (or any other purveyor of
pseudo-science or supernaturalism) claims to have
knowledge of some aspect of the universe 'beyond' reality.
The moment anyone claims to see or know something
significant which lies 'beyond' the material world as
investigable by science, it is appropriate for thinking people
to be on their guard. The burden of proof lies entirely on
the claimant to demonstrate that their claim is valid. Merely
asserting it, or providing anecdotal evidence of what
someone's sister's second cousin's friend once said is simply
not good enough. If that is enough, then I can demand people
believe my claim for the existence of pink (yet invisible)
leprechauns at the bottom of my garden. It is just that their
existence is beyond your limited powers of understanding.
The purveyors of pseudoscience often confuse their
knowledge as 'beyond' science or reason simply because
their knowledge is discredited by science and reason. The
two are not the same thing.
Now, of course, in my case, my hypnotherapist friend did
offer a demonstration. He offered to hypnotise me and cure
me of the raft of ailments and stresses he claims I suffer
from. And it was here that I refused. To me, the case against
reincarnation and past-lives-regression is so overwhelming
that it is simply a waste of my time to undergo therapy for
an ill-defined miscellany of ailments. For my friend, all my
objections fail, for one reason or another, to invalidate his
claim, which is different. So the onus falls back on me to
justify why I am refusing to grant his claim more credence
than any other claim of its type.
So why am I refusing? It boils down to my willingness to
apply scientific principles as I understand them to each new
case, versus my friend's claim that either my scientific
understanding is faulty, or that his claim can somehow go
beyond those principles. This is the dilemma for the
Rationalist. Every now and then, we have to be prepared to
take some time out to submit to the pseudoscientists's
demonstration of proof. After all, it always remains possible
that the outrageous claim being made is actually
true. That proved to be the case with the heliocentric
universe, natural selection, relativity, continental drift,
and so on. It then remains for all Rationalists to set their
own toleration barometer as to which claims being put
to them demand a serious response.
This is another good reason for having a sound general grasp
of the sciences, because claims which seem to us to require the
breaking of a large number of scientific principles are more likely
to be fallacious than claims which merely suggest an unusual or
novel interpretation of one or two principles. In areas
where we are ignorant we should be more willing to take the
pseudoscientist's claim at face value, originally at least.
Now, in my case, hypnotherapy is beyond anything my
toleration barometer can take seriously, but for other
Rationalists and Humanists, it may be different. Maybe my
limit is set too low. That's always possible. Where we set
our toleration barometers is one of those many decisions
rational individuals need to make. And every now and then
we might need to adjust the measurements a little.
Bill Cooke
Return to Contents
Marvin Farber & Evolution
From Phenomenology to Materialism
H. James Birx
Naturalism displaced
supernaturalism in the
theory of human existence.
Although philosophical
criticism had long before
anticipated this result, it
was the large array of
scientific evidence offered
by Darwin which delivered
the most distressing blow
to the supernaturalist.
Marvin Farber,
Basic issues of Philosophy (1968).
Marvin Farber (1901-1980) was a distinguished
philosopher who wrote scholarly works which
recognised the essential value of the scientific fact of
organic evolution in both its terrestrial and
cosmological aspects. No single theory in the history
'of natural science demonstrates more clearly than
evolution the true place of our species within nature.
Human mental activity and its resultant social
behaviour and cultural milieu are but a relatively recent
(geologically speaking) product of ongoing evolution.
Humankind is a fragile animal on a cosmic speck we
call the planet earth, and has no meaning or purpose
other than those judgments and values that our species
create in order to adapt, survive and fulfill itself. The
material universe is totally indifferent to the ephemeral
existence of our zoological group.
As a philosophical naturalist, Farber never
underestimated the predictive, explanatory and
exploratory powers of the fact of evolution. Like the
philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach, whom he greatly
admired, Farber saw all religions and theologies as
being essentially grounded in the psychosocial wants,
needs and desires of our very vulnerable species. For
both thinkers, the human being is a product of,
dependent upon and totally within natural history.
Similar to Karl Marx, whose thoughts and writings
had a pervasive and lasting influence on his own
philosophy of humankind, Farber saw the human
predicament with all of its problems and aspirations
as being historically and, to a significant extent,
economically conditioned. One cannot remove a
scientist, philosopher or theologian from the influences
of a particular sociocultural milieu.
In the history of western philosophy, there has been a
continuing dialogue between the subjectivists and the
naturalists concerning an accurate interpretation and
proper evaluation of humankind's place in this cosmos.
This exchange of viewpoints is directly related to basic
ontological and epistemological questions about the
very nature of reality and even the possibility of
knowing it. Both idealists and materialists in the rich
history of western philosophy have, in fact, contributed
to our understanding of and appreciation for human
experience and the position which our species occupies
in this universe. However, their respective views on
the relationship between natural existence as the object
to be known and the human being as the knower are
radically different. These two schools of thought are
diametrically opposed. Marvin Farber's teacher
Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) was a philosophical
idealist giving preference to a rigorously critical
subjectivist methodology which metaphysically
aspired to support a transcendental idealism. But
Farber was a philosophical materialist drawing from
the advances in the special sciences within a naturalist
framework that recognized the recent appearance of
our species in earth history.
Almost alone in recent world philosophy, Farber
represented a philosophical naturalist and rational
humanist viewpoint that is ontologically grounded in
an uncompromising and unapologetic materialism. To
a significant degree, this pervasive materialism was
the direct result of his steadfast commitment to the
far-reaching scientific implications and, at times,
sobering if not devastating religious consequences of
the fact of organic evolution. There can be no doubt
that Farber championed the process philosophers and
evolutionary naturalists. He unequivocally maintained
a materialist explanation for cosmic evolution in sharp
contrast to the various idealist interpretations of
dynamic reality and the place of our species within it.
Farber spoke of the philosophical quest for
understanding and appreciating values, experience and
reality. As one of its major functions, he saw
philosophy as committed to the critical evaluation and
holistic synthesis of the natural and social sciences.
His lectures and publications stressed the basic
'themes of inquiry' in the history of philosophy. They
gave special attention to the major thinkers of the
recent past (e.g., Kant, Hegel and Marx). He
maintained that the fundamental questions are always
open to critical analysis and rigorous re-evaluation in
light of both the advancing special sciences and the
plurality of methodological procedures.
Farber especially respected the discipline of
anthropology as an academic area and held it to be a
very valuable subject to study in preparation for
philosophy. In that sense, at least, Farber was a
philosophical anthropologist. Furthermore, there is a
qualified optimism in Farber's level-headed view of
this physical universe and the tenuous place of human
existence within it. He gave preference to the empirical
facts and natural relationships of the material world
rather than to religious beliefs and personal opinions.
His rational orientation acknowledged that reality is
increasingly knowable to the human intellect, but it
rejected completely the Kantian dichotomy between
the knowable world and an unknowable reality
(allowing only for the difference between the already
known and the as yet unknown).
Farber's own materialist viewpoint had been
particularly influenced by the works of three
philosophers: Ralph Barton Perry's General Theory
of Value (1926), a major contribution to axiology and
especially naturalist ethics; Alfred North Whitehead's
Symbolism: Its Meaning and Effect (1927), which
Farber admired; and Clarence Irving Lewis's Mind and
the World-Order (1929), which outlines a theory of
knowledge in terms of a common ground where
philosophy and mathematics meet. Similarly, as with
his critically revered mentor Edmund Husserl, logic
played an essential role in Farber's evaluation of all
philosophical arguments and their implications. In this
respect, he had been greatly impressed with the works
of the logicians Henry Sheffer and Ernst Zermelo.
In his writings and lectures, Farber frequently
contrasted the naturalist viewpoint with the
phenomenological attitude or subjectivist framework.
He saw the phenomenological standpoint when
isolated from naturalism as an unfortunate position.
Idealists often failed to recognise the indispensable
value of the special sciences as well as the fact of
evolution; therefore, idealists do not resist a personal
inclination to adopt a mentalist or spiritualist
epistemology and ontology (often for religious
reasons). In Farber's own philosophy, there are no
purely subjectivist or idealist elements. In fact, Farber
always claimed that science and reason are sufficient
to substantiate the recent emergence of human thought
as a vitally important adaptive device for our species
in terms of successful evolution.
In his classic volume The Foundation of
Phenomenology (1943), Farber pointed out that
Husserl's subjective philosophy neglected both
developmental psychology and scientific evolution,
not only in establishing a rigorous methodology but
even in the great phenomenologist's attempt to
constitute ontologically the realms of natural and
social existence. Although the phenomenological
method is a rigorous device for describing mental
activity (especially intentionality and symbolic
creativity), Farber is quick to point out that subjective
inquiry alone cannot pretend to give a philosophically
convincing and scientifically reliable metaphysics in
any meaningful sense of the word.
Farber's Naturalism and Subjectivism (1959) is a
major statement clarifying the crucial" distinction
between ontology and epistemology. This book first
appeared in the centennial year that celebrated the
publication of both Charles Darwin's On the Origin
of Species and Karl Marx's Critique of Political
Economy as well as the births of Samuel Alexander,
Henri Bergson, John Dewey and Edmund Husserl. In
this critical work, Farber wrote that the process of
human experience occupies only an infinitesimal part
of this material cosmos and it occurs only when there
are sentient beings in action. He held that the
documented empirical evidence for the fact of
biological evolution is firm, sufficient and
indisputable. Evolution is a basic theme within his own
materialist philosophy of process nature.
As a result of incorporating the evolutionary
perspective, with its obvious ramifications for
humankind, Farber's pervasive materialism taught the
all-important 'principle of independence': the natural
world is prior to and independent of the human knower
and its sociocultural milieu. Consequently, the whole
range of human experience is seen to be a relatively
recent emergence in the vast organic history of our
planet earth. He appealed to the awesome cosmic
perspective for a true interpretation and proper
evaluation of the fleeting place of our species within
the flux of this physical universe.
Farber was particularly influenced by the writings of
Herbert Spencer and Ernst Haeckel. He singled out
Spencer's First Principles (1862) and Haeckel's The
Riddle of the Universe (1900) as having had, each in
its own way, a lasting impact on the ultimate
orientation of his own thought. He also had a high
regard for the naturalists among the Presocratics and
ancient Greeks (e.g., Aristotle) and particularly for the
greatest Renaissance philosopher Giordano Bruno
(1548-1600). Yet, perplexingly, throughout Farber's
own writings, there are only occasional, fragmentary
and cursory references to the pivotal works of Charles
Darwin and Thomas Huxley.
Farber adopted Spencer's cosmic perspective, but he
warned about the fallacy of illicit transference. This
fallacy of reasoning consists in the unwarranted
transfer and application of explanatory principles valid
in a particular field of inquiry to other areas of
investigation and realms of reality to which they cannot
validly be extended and applied. A glaring example
of this is Spencer's own overextension of the concept
of the 'survival of the fittest' from biology to sociology
with devastating ethical consequences, i.e., the illicit
transfer of explanations from raw nature to human
society. The distinction between these two levels of
evolution was first recognised by Thomas Huxley:
nature itself is guided primarily by necessity in the
form of biologically inherited instincts and
characteristics, while human society is guided
increasingly by the emerging freedom of choice and
social responsibility. Spencer's concept of the 'survival
of the fittest' may be, to some extent, a useful
descriptive generalisation applicable to biological
evolution, but it is neither logically nor ethically
applicable when extended to human sociocultural
development. As a secular humanist, Farber was
opposed to social Darwinism, which actually would
be more correctly described as social Spencerism.
Farber followed in Haeckel's footsteps by embracing
both a cosmic perspective and an evolutionary
framework grounded in a monistic interpretation of
dynamic reality. By adopting such a viewpoint, he
rejected the basic thesis of philosophical idealism; he
also rejected all forms of spiritualism. For Farber, the
existence of the material world is not contingent upon
human or divine experience. He stressed the crucial
distinction between a true ontology and a critical
epistemology. Farber also appreciated Haeckel's
extension of organic evolution from our earth to other
worlds in this universe. The existence of life forms
and intelligent beings on planets elsewhere among the
-galaxies seems highly probable in light of both the
uniformity and immensity of material reality. Neither
the earth nor our species is the necessary centre of
this expanding cosmos.
Farber recognised the value of the phenomenological
method solely as a rigorous form of subjective inquiry.
Yet unlike Husserl, he never accepted the idealist
metaphysics of a myopic application of this
subjectivist methodology taken out of its naturalist
context. Instead, his own philosophical commitment
was to an evolutionary naturalism and a rational
humanism rooted in the special sciences, logic and a
keen sense of compassion and justice.
Farber's writings are lucid, intellectually honest and
scrupulously accurate. They stress humankind's
natural, social and cultural conditions within a historic
overview. Farber's philosophy acknowledges the
importance of human values, methodological and
logical procedures, and rational speculations (in that
order). He was opposed to every sense of
otherworldliness. For him, naturalism is able to
incorporate all the rich findings of subjectivism
without adopting the latter's idealist ontology and/or
cosmology. His own naturalist phenomenology
advocates enhancing human freedom, happiness and
longevity through the cautious use of the special
sciences within the rational guidelines of a materialist
philosophy and a humanist morality.
Farber rightly pointed out that philosophy is a human
activity that requires presuppositions. He drew
attention to the basic fact that the human animal as
knower and doer can never get outside of its natural,
sociocultural and mental environments. Those who do
not suffer from what he refers to as the error of 'illicit
ignorance' realise that methodological and logical
pluralism is required for handling adequately the broad
spectrum and great diversity of human problems.
Therefore, he emphasised repeatedly the need for a
multiplicity of complementary research methods and
logical procedures.
There is always a need to clarify the proper place of
our species within this material cosmos and to assess
the status of mental activity in the context of biological
evolution. As a frankly pervasive materialist, Farber
would sometimes refer zestfully to the human animal
as a 'bag of bones' to draw attention to the relatively
insignificant place that our species occupies within
the sidereal depths of this universe.
Farber's devotion to philosophy recognised the value
of such diverse thinkers as Ludwig Feuerbach,
Friedrich Nietzsche and John Dewey. With icy logic
and subtle humour, he fought against obfuscation,
superstition and ignorance in the recent philosophical
literature. He was particularly dissatisfied with Max
Scheler's idealist evolutionism, Martin Heidegger's
contestable statements, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty's
philosophical confusion regarding the crucial
distinction between epistemology and metaphysics.
For Farber, scientific progress destroys any anti-
scientific synthesis (e.g., philosophical anthropology
cannot ignore the empirical findings of Galileo and
Darwin). The phenomenologist and existentialist must
admit that human experience is not necessary for the
objective reality of this material universe. Clearly, the
existence of this natural world is prior to and
independent of human consciousness. As such, Farber
found value in the materialist writings of Marx,
Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin.
Farber summarised Edmund Husserl as an unfortunate
foe of scientific naturalism who, as a result, was not
in step with those ideas that constituted the
evolutionary movement from Darwin to modern
biology.
However, Farber warned that the emergence of
evolutionism in the special sciences, philosophy and
theology did not bring to an end the old type of idealist
and fideist worldviews. In his judgment, Farber
claimed materialist naturalism to be a major blow to
all forms of metaphysical idealism and lingering
supernaturalism; especially because evolutionism is
supported by an impressive body of empirical evidence
from geology and paleontology to biology and
anthropology.
Differing from Edmund Husserl (among others),
Farber never limited phenomenological inquiry to
merely an analysis of immediate human experience.
Instead, his materialistic stance recognised the
historical nature of all human experience. Farber often
stressed that no closure should be placed on the future
direction of human inquiry as long as it is ethically
defensible. In short, he claimed phenomenology to be
a meaningful but restricted method of definite but
limited usefulness in the study of mental activity.
According to the Farberian worldview, philosophical
inquiry has four major functions:
- a clarification of the perennial problems
(questions) and basic ideas concerning material
reality
- a recurring attempt at synthesising the findings
of the special sciences
- a rigorous analysis of all methods and human
experiences
- the ongoing critical examination of values
within the context of human evolution and
sociocultural development as well as an
obligatory cosmic perspective.
As did Augustine and Kant, Husserl abandoned his
early interest in astronomy for an excessively
subjectivist approach to things. This unfortunate shift
from cosmology to egology is an anathema to all
serious naturalists, whether essentially scientific or
philosophical in orientation. In sharp contrast, Farber
acknowledged and incorporated the findings of
scientific cosmology, evolutionary biology,
comparative anthropology and descriptive psychology.
His philosophy of humankind within nature is free
from geocentrism, zoocentrism, anthropocentrism,
ethnocentrism and egocentrism. Until the end of his
life, he followed the developments in the special
sciences with keen interest and assessed the ongoing
findings in physical anthropology as striking
confirmation of the fact of evolution.
How delighted Farber would be with the recent fossil
hominid evidence from central East Africa! These
discoveries document the complex emergence of our
remote ancestors over a period of five million years.
Likewise, comparative primate research clearly
demonstrates the remarkable similarities between the
great apes and our species in terms of chemistry,
biology, psychology and behaviour.
Farber both espoused and built upon the values of the
Age of Enlightenment. As did Dewey, he held human
concepts and ideas to be symbolic instruments of
adaptive value. In a moment of wit, Farber called a
belief the 'principle of sufficient wishing'. Yet, in
establishing values within the cosmic flux of reality
(in which time is brutally real), one must never
underestimate the significance of both human
fallibility and finitude.
Farber's intellectual sensitivity and unabashed atheism
were undoubtedly one of the reasons for the great
attraction he felt for Nietzsche. He found in Nietzsche
a kindred spirit, whose iconoclastic sarcasm and
dazzling eloquence Farber not only relished but at
times even followed in his own outpourings of wit
and wisdom.
Farber acknowledged that the arts enrich and ennoble
the human condition. As with Einstein, Farber was an
accomplished violinist. He was especially fond of great
music (e.g., the works of Bach, Beethoven, Wagner
and Richard Strauss) and literature (e.g., the writings
of Goethe, Stendhal, Gogol and Dostoevski). Indeed,
it is refreshing to see such an acute intellect enjoy the
aesthetic dimension of human experience.
Farber may be regarded as the philosophical founder
of materialist phenomenology. He was a dedicated
teacher, uncompromising scholar, internationally
respected and admired thinker, and loyal friend to all
students and colleagues committed to the pursuit of
truth, excellence and integrity. Although a materialist
philosopher outside the conventional views of his day,
Farber nevertheless belongs to the great tradition of
serious thinkers. Despite his devotion to social justice
and human liberty (being always scrupulously tolerant
of ideological viewpoints significantly different from
his own), he never condoned nonsense, cruelty,
fanaticism or totalitarianism of any sort. However,
Farber never had a fixed sociocultural programme. He
anticipated objections wherever logically foreseeable
and did his best to prepare adequate responses.
No doubt, Farber would be appalled at the return of
biblical fundamentalism as religious creationism and
the emergence of myopic postmodernism; he would
correctly see both movements as dangerous threats to
science and reason. But like the evolutionist Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin (but for vastly different
philosophical reasons), Farber would welcome and
enjoy the global convergence of our species as a result
of the planetary Internet. He would view this
technological advancement as a powerful means for
the dissemination of empirical evidence and rational
thought around the earth.
After twenty years, I still remember Farber's twinkling
eyes, warm smile and imposing presence. He was as
formidable in intellect as he was gentle in demeanour.
His worldview was always open-ended to
accommodate new facts in science and new ideas in
philosophy. Surely, the findings in and challenges of
both space exploration and genetic engineering are
relevant to any convincing naturalism and meaningful
humanism.
Marvin Farber always encouraged intellectual
development and, as such, is an example of the human
intellect at its luminous best. In the history of serious
thought, he has left indelible and admirable
contributions to naturalist philosophy.
Dr. H. James Birx,
Professor of Anthropology at Canisius
College, U.S.A., was a Visiting Scholar at the University of
Zaragoza in Spain (May 2000) and a Visiting Fellow in the Slovak
Philosophical Association of the Slovak Academy of Sciences
(June 2000). Dr. Birx is an Honorary Associate of the NZ
Association of Rationalists & Humanists.
Major Writings of Marvin Farber
- Basic Issues of Philosophy: Experience, Reality, and Human
Values. New York, Harper Torchbooks, 1968, esp. pp. 219-229.
- "Descriptive Philosophy and the Nature of Human Existence"
in Philosophic Thought in France and the United States, 2nd
edition, ed. by Marvin Farber. Albany, State University of New
York Press, 1968, pp. 419-441.
- "Edmund Husserl and the Background of his Philosophy" in
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 1(1): 1-20,
September, 1940.
- "Humanistic Ethics and the Conflict of Interests" in Moral
Problems in Contemporary Society: Essays in Humanistic
Ethics, ed. by Paul Kurtz. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall,
1969, pp.255-267.
- Naturalism and Subjectivism. Albany, State University of New
York Press, 1968, esp. pp. 297-329.
- Phenomenology and Existence: Toward a Philosophy within
Nature. New York, Harper Torchbooks, 1967, esp. pp. 175-195.
- "The Ideal of a Presuppositionless Philosophy" in
Philosophical Essays in Memory of Edmund Husserl, ed. by
Marvin Farber. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1940,
pp. 44-64.
- "The Ideal of a Presuppositionless Philosophy" in
Philosophical Essays in Memory of Edmund Husserl, ed. by
Marvin Farber. New York, Greenwood Press, 1968, pp. 44-64.
- "Subjective Method" in The Structure of Philosophy, ed. by
Jack Pustilnik and Dale Riepe. Totowa, Littlefield/Adams,
1966, esp. pp. 209-223.
- The Aims of Phenomenology: The Motives, Methods, and
Impact of Husserl's Thought. New York, Harper Torchbooks,
1966, esp. pp. 120-162.
- The Foundation of Phenomenology: Edmund Husserl and the
Quest for a Rigorous Science of Philosophy, rev. 3rd edition,
1967. Albany, State University of New York Press, 1943, esp.
pp. 537-573.
- The Search for an Alternative: Philosophical Perspectives of
Subjectivism and Marxism. Philadelphia, University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1984, esp. pp. 83-128.
Further Readings
- Cho, Kah Kyung and Lynn E. Rose, "Marvin Farber (1901-1980)"
in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 42 (I): 1-4
September 1981.
- Grossmann, Reinhardt. "Phenomenology" in The Oxford Companion
to Philosophy, ed. by Ted Honderich. Oxford, Oxford
University Press, 1995, pp. 658-660.
- Kockelmans, Joseph J., Phenomenology: The Philosophy of Edmund
Husserl and It's Interpretation. Garden City, Anchor Books, 1967.
- Mathur, D.C., Naturalistic Philosophies of Experience: Studies in
James, Dewey and Farber Against the Background of Husserl's
Phenomenology. St. Louis, Warren H. Green, 1971.
- Riepe, Dale, ed., Phenomenology and Natural Existence: Essays in
Honor of Marvin Farber. Albany, State University of New York
Press, 1973.
- Ryder, John, ed., American Philosophic Naturalism in the Twentieth
Century. Amherst, Prometheus Books, 1994, esp. pp. 194-213.
- Welch, E. Parl, Edmund Hussserl's Phenomenology. Los Angeles,
University of Southern California Press (Philosophy Series,
No.4), 1939.
- Welton, Donn, ed. The Essential Husserl: Basic Writings in
Transcendental Phenomenology. Bloomington, Indiana
University Press, 1999.
The author acknowledges his deep appreciation to
Sylvia S. Bigler for her excellent secretarial assistance.
"If philosophy is to bring wisdom to others,
it must not be misled by narrow and unclarified motives,
or warped by irrationalism and verbal jugglery, which at times
seems indistinguishable from downright lunacy."
Marvin Farber, 1959 |
|
Return to Contents
Southern Lights
When Change Hurts
Russell Dear
Little Johnny clutches his mother's hand in a
tight grip, an apprehensive look on his face. He
turns away from the stranger and wraps his other
arm round his mother's leg. Little Marie, eyes
wide like saucers, finger in mouth, clings to her
father's thumb as the noisy engine revs up. These
are young childrens' reactions to unfamiliar
events. Who hasn't seen them? Visiting the doctor,
the first day at school, meeting new baby sitters,
there are many stressful situations where children
turn to their parents for the comfort of a smile, or
a hug to let them know that everything's OK. With
encouragement and reassurance we learn to cope
with perceived changes in our world. As we get
older, we manage them on our own. At least, most
of us do. There are some people, though, who find
change worrying, unacceptable even. They tend
to hold fixed world views on important issues and
are not flexible in outlook. When circumstances
change, or quick decisions have to be made they
have no recourse but to fall back on fixed personal
guidelines. For them, a set of rigid rules makes
life bearable.
One of the subjects that gains immediate response
in our local paper's Letter to the Editor column is
the issue of creationism versus evolution. The
creationists fall back on authoritative, rigid
Biblical interpretations to make their arguments,
ones that are essentially quite straightforward. The
evolutionist, knowing that the issues are more
complicated, has a flexible approach. Perhaps it
is not surprising that people have problems with
the seemingly shifting sands of scientific
knowledge, where models are continuously
changing to adapt to increased understanding of
our world.
A classic example of model evolution is that of
our solar system. Early Greek philosophers placed
the Earth at the centre of the universe with the
sun, moon and known planets rotating around it.
Despite this poor model Thales, in the sixth
century BCE was able to predict the year of a solar
eclipse. As more accurate measurements of the
positions of the planets were obtained the simple
concentric model broke down. It didn't explain,
for example, why some planets changed direction
in the sky. To overcome these problems, in about
120 BCE Hipparchus proposed a system of
epicycles in which each planet was assumed to
rotate in a circle, the centre of which rotated about
the Earth. Later the system was refined until, at
its most complicated, 77 circles were necessary
to account for the motion of the nine heavenly
bodies. This Earth-centred model gave fairly
accurate measures of the positions of heavenly
bodies. Lunar eclipses, for example, could be
predicted within a few hours and the time of one
year calculated to within a few minutes. In the
sixteenth century Copernicus suggested a sun-
centred system, based on circles, and fifty years
later Kepler refined the new model to one based
on ellipses. And so it went on, with Isaac Newton's
laws of motion and gravitation, Einstein's
relativity laws, each model having wider
application and greater predictive value. The
process never ends.
Contrast this type of knowledge with religious
knowledge. Although different schisms of the
Christian Church have different emphases, the
core of knowledge is fixed. For some people, such
a reassuringly unchanging belief system is bound
to come into conflict with one where
understanding evolves. For them change is
tantamount to not knowing, and that is in direct
conflict with religious dogma and therefore in
direct conflict with their own personally held rigid
beliefs.
Return to Contents
New Zealand's Freethought Heritage
Chapter 1: Freethought arrives in New Zealand
Jim Dakin
The origins of the current of freethought that
emerged among the early European settlers in New
Zealand can be traced back at least to the time of the
European Enlightenment of the eighteenth century.
Around the beginning of that century more and more
well-educated people throughout Western Europe
showed themselves to be deists. As deists they believed
that the existence of God could be proved by human
reason, but they did not believe in the Christian
revelation nor in the intervention of God in human
affairs.(1) Among the early deists in Britain was John
Toland whose book Christianity not Mysterious (1696)
was burnt by the public hangman.(2) Another deist,
Anthony Collins, who was suspected of being an
atheist, wrote a Discourse of Free-thinking (1713).(3)
Freethinking modes of thought became more apparent
during the century among intellectuals encouraged
by the example of Voltaire and the Encyclopedists
in France and by the writings of such religious
sceptics as the historian Gibbon and the philosopher
Hume in Britain. On the fringe of Christianity
Unitarianism, which rejected such doctrines as the
Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, gained a
significant following.' It was especially influential
in the 'dissenting academies'. In these
institutions of adult education religious dissenters who
were denied access to the universities of Oxford and
Cambridge, but freed from the religious constraints
and the classical curriculum of those universities,
pursued studies in experimental science and the
modern humanities. The pioneer scientist Joseph
Priestley (1733-1804) was a Unitarian and a leader in
these circles.(4)
Almost as a culmination of the spread of freethought
throughout the century Thomas Paine, revolutionary
politician and deist, in 1793 published his seminal
work The Age of Reason which, in spite of being
banned, became one of the best known serious works
of the time. Not a few of the educated British settlers
who came to New Zealand in the 1840s and later
would have known of the notorious Tom Paine and
his work. In 1819 Richard Carlile, who had carried
on Paine's campaign for greater political and religious
freedom, was imprisoned for publishing Paine's books.
Less popular than the works of Paine, but influential
in political circles were the writings of Jeremy
Bentham (1748-1832), the celebrated law reformer
who was a freethinker, if not an atheist. He condemned
the administration of oaths in the name of God and
propounded the principle 'maximize morals; minimize
religion'.(5)
Owenism and the organisation of Freethought
Robert Owen (1771-1858), a self-made industrial leader
and social reformer, was a deist and regarded the
churches as obstacles to progress. In the 1830s he
played a leading part in the trade union and cooperative
movements. He sought to enlist followers of these
movements in his own special communitarian organisation
the Association of All Classes and All Nations
(AACAN) which was formed in 1835. Through the
activities of this organisation and its successor the
Universal Community Society of Rational Religionists
Owen propagated socialistic and deistic ideas
throughout much of industrial Britain. In 1837
AACAN began to send out 'social missionaries' to
spread the Owenite message and to promote the
founding of 'halls of science' which would be centres
for socialistic activities and for the practice of 'rational
religion'. These halls were owned by groups of
working men and were used for many social and
cultural activities as well as for promoting the Owenite
movement. The social missionaries were
propagandists and organisers for the movement and
sometimes delivered the equivalent of sermons and
even performed baptisms. Indeed the Owenites often
saw themselves as an alternative to the Christian
churches.(6)
Owenism, as this combination of socialism and
rationalism came to be known, never established itself
as a really effective movement, but it pioneered the
organisation of freethought in Britain. At this juncture
one of the Owenite social missionaries, Charles
Southwell, becoming impatient of Owen's
paternalistic attitude and his concern to placate
Christian and capitalist opinion, broke away from the
Owenite movement and in 1841 published a journal,
The Oracle of Reason, which was openly atheistic. In
the fourth issue of this publication he wrote an article
attacking the Bible as 'that revoltingly odious Jew
production'. He was arrested, convicted of
blasphemous libel and sentenced to a year in prison
and a fine of £100.(7) The trial of Southwell was widely
reported and an account of it appeared in a newspaper
in distant New Zealand.(8) After his release from prison
Southwell continued his career as lecturer and
campaigner for a variety of freethought and anti-
clerical causes. In 1855 he emigrated to Australia and
became involved in local politics in Melbourne. His
campaign for election to the Legislative Council of
Victoria was wrecked when the newspaper, The Age,
revealed something of his past record in Britain.
Southwell then reverted to his former vocation as actor
and came across to Auckland as a member of Foley's
theatrical company in January 1856.(9)
In the meantime another social missionary George
Jacob Holyoake had renounced Owenism and become
an atheist. He soon took over the editorship of the
Oracle of Reason. Holyoake was more moderate and
less impetuous than Southwell, but when lecturing to
a Chartist and socialist group at Cheltenham in 1842
he suggested, inter alia, that since the people were
too poor to have religion, the Deity should be put on
half-pay. As a result he was convicted of blasphemy
and was sentenced to six months in prison.(10) John
Osbome's television play A Subject of Scandal and
Concern (1960) effectively recreates the character and
the predicament of Holyoake. After his release from
prison Holyoake continued his lecturing and
publishing in the freethought cause and in 1846
founded the journal The Reasoner. It was in this journal
that in 1851 he first used the word 'secularism' to
describe the doctrine that he was busy promoting.
Secularism, according to Holyoake, indicated 'the
province of human duty which belongs to this life'
without recourse to belief in God or in a future state.
The practical implications of secularism were
expounded when a Central Secular Society was
founded in London in December 1851 and the
following principles adopted:
- Science is the true guide of man
- Morality is secular, not religious in origin
- Reason is the only authority
- Freedom of thought and speech are basic human rights
- Owing to the uncertainty of survival man should
direct his efforts to this life only.
These principles were adopted by the secular societies
that were founded in various parts of Britain in the
1850s, many of them being reconstituted Owenite
groups.(11)
Early Freethinkers in New Zealand
Such was the general state of development of
organised freethought in Britain at the time when the
early European settlers were coming to New Zealand
after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. There is
evidence that there were at least a few individual
freethinkers in the country before 1840. For instance
Captain Jimmy Jackson who was whaling from Te
Awaiti in Tory Channel from 1827 onwards was a kind
of deist and expressed his opinions freely.(12) In
selecting people for free passages to New Zealand,
the New Zealand Company gave preference to rural
labourers and artisans who were required to produce
testimonials from local clergymen and employers and
who might be expected to be conforming in matters
of religion. However, sufficient numbers of such
people did not offer themselves for emigration and
some labourers and artisans from the towns and cities
were recruited. Some of these had been exposed to
the influence of radical movements such as Chartism
and Owenism. Aboard the Company's emigrant ship
Birman the surgeon superintendent of emigrants
complained of the recalcitrant behaviour of Chartists
and atheists.(13) The early colonial government of New
Zealand was certainly aware of the likelihood that
some of the early settlers would be Owenites or other
'infutels'. When the Legislative Council in 1842
passed the Church Extension Ordinance providing for
religious denominations to receive subsidies for
church-building and for ministers' stipends, it deemed
it necessary to stipulate that neither Socialism nor
Owenism could be recognised as a religion. In the
event this ordinance was disallowed by the Secretary
of State for the Colonies, a decision which was
applauded by the Auckland newspaper the Southern
Cross & NZ Guardian.(14) In early colonial New
Zealand freethought of any kind was generally
frowned upon. In Nelson in 1842 the Rev. Reay
complained of the 'awful blight of infidelity' that
affected the surveyors of that district, two of whom
were 'heathens unbaptized and professors of German
philosophy'.(15) In 1849 a Wellington newspaper
deplored the New Munster Legislative Council's
'anxiety to consult the morbid sensibility of the few
rationalists and infidels to be found in each
community'.(16) That there were indeed rationalists in
one community was confirmed in the Nelson census
of 1849 in which four farming families at Wakapuaka
were shown to be 'rationalists'.(17) As late as 1858 an
English immigrant writing from Auckland to The
Reasoner, Holyoake's journal in London, remarked
that there was a sprinkling of people in Auckland who
regarded religion with indifference or contempt, but
who for professional or business reasons 'put on the
mask of religion'.(18) Nevertheless it is possible to
identify several persons of some prominence who
were freethinkers. George White JP, a 'freethinker of
the Voltairean school' lectured on political economy
to the Wellington Mechanics Institute in 1842 and later
moved to Nelson.(19) Samuel Chapman, who served
as a judge in Wellington from 1844 to 1852 and who
was President of the Mechanics Institute there in 1848,
was known to be a thorough Benthamite and
Philosophical Radical.(20) In 1854 a Wellington
Provincial Councillor, Andrew Brown, was
sarcastically referred to in the local press as 'the late
disciple of Robert Owen'.(21) Among the steerage
passengers aboard the Birman whose attitudes
provoked the reprobation of Surgeon Motherwell was
R.H Carpenter, 'socialist and atheist', who in later
years was elected to the Wellington Provincial
Council.(22) Ernest Dieffenbach, the German scientist
engaged by the New Zealand Company and who
travelled widely in the country in 1839-41 was an
agnostic and was often critical of the Christian
missionaries.(23)
In Nelson Alfred Domett who was very prominent in
public affairs and editor of the Nelson Examiner was
an enthusiast for the writings of heterodox Thomas
Carlyle and later was known as 'a kind of pantheist'.(24)
In 1848-49 he found a congenial spirit in Thomas
Arnold the younger who at that time saw himself as
'a secular missionary of the gospel of fraternity to
men who work with their hands, but still value the
cultivation of their minds.' Arnold noted the presence
in the Nelson community of a Dr Bedborough who
was a 'materialist and fatalist'.(25) In Auckland William
Brown, a leading merchant and local politician who
was elected Superintendent of the Province in 1854
was generally regarded as an 'infidel'.(26) From an
article in The Reasoner of London we learn that even
in 1855 there were people in Auckland who named
their children after 'the Venerable Robert Owen'.(27)
From the same source we learn of a of a meeting in
May 1859 of a few admirers of Robert Owen. They
met to celebrate his memory after his death in 1858
and to consider the influence of his ideas. The meeting
was chaired by William Boyd and attended by James
McLeod, Archibald Campbell and others.(28)
The Rise and Fall of Charles Southwell
It was in Auckland that the first organisation of
freethinkers in New Zealand was formed. The
founding of the society was noted in The Reasoner of
London and, significantly, seems not to have been
reported in the press in New Zealand. Thanks mainly
to the initiative of Archibald Campbell, the Auckland
Secular Society was formed during 1854 by a small
group of freethinkers. They adopted, pro tem., the rules
of the London Secular Society. Campbell, a bookseller,
was the secretary of the society and James McLeod,
an iron founder was appointed president for 1855.
Campbell was in touch by correspondence with the
Secular Society of Paisley, Scotland, which was one
of the societies founded by Holyoake and his
associates. The members of the Auckland society
whose number never exceeded fifteen contributed a
total of some twelve pounds to the society's funds
almost all of which was sent to Britain for the purchase
of secularist literature. The society was active in 1854
and 1855, but activity seems to have died down in 1856
after Campbell left Auckland to take up farming with
two others on a holding of 200 acres as 'a practical
experiment in secularism'.(29) In January 1856 Charles
Southwell, the former Owenite missionary, arrived in
Auckland as a member of Foley's theatrical company,
but his career as an actor was brief, as he continually
quarrelled with his colleagues.(30) Southwell soon began
giving lectures at the Auckland Mechanics Institute
where his eloquence made a very favourable
impression. In December 1956 he launched his weekly
newspaper the Auckland Examiner and People's
Journal. It is perhaps surprising that Southwell did not
in some way support or encourage the Auckland Secular
Society after he arrived in Auckland. Writing to The
Reasoner in September 1856 he observed that the
Secular Society was meeting from time to time, but he
regarded it as of little account He wrote of it thus:
We have also a young Men's Christian Association
which beats the Secular Society hollow - if not in
pureness of intention or reasonableness of dogma,
at least in wealth of numbers, which, as you know,
always imply perfect respectability.(31)
Southwell's activities in Auckland have been well
described by both by F B Smith in his contribution to
the NZ Dictionary of Biography (Vol.1, 1990) and by
Bill Cooke in his article in the NZ Rationalist &
Humanist of Spring 1998. Bill Cooke gives a lively
account of Southwell's strenuous but unsuccessful
candidature for a seat on the Auckland Provincial
Council. Cooke also notes that Southwell had abandoned
his atheistic stance. However, more can be said on the
subject of Southwell's changing attitude to religion.
In June 1856 Southwell lectured at the Mechanics
Institute on the policy of a certain Freedom of Religion
Society which had submitted a memorial to the
Provincial Council urging that schools receiving grants
from the Council should be conducted on
'commercial, scientific and unsectarian principles' and
that the Bible should be excluded from the curriculum
of such schools. Somewhat surprisingly, considering
his past attitude, Southwell praised the Bible for its
literary merit and its value as part of the social heritage
of the community. In response to critical references
to his past by a Congregationalist minister the Rev
Mr Hamer, Southwell asserted that he had given up
Owenism and was a 'believer in the Bible'. Mr. Hamer
welcomed the change in Southwell's views and
expressed the hope that he would progress still further
and be not almost, but altogether a Christian.(32) In
September 1858 Southwell made a statement which
throws further light on the change in his religious
stance. When a preacher called Cartwright threatened
to expose 'atheist Southwell', writing in the third
person in his own newspaper Southwell described his
atheism as a youthful aberration thus:
Southwell was physically as well as politically
mere boy and puffed up with little knowledge, he
imagined, yea, he proclaimed himself atheist -
that is Madman. For years he went raving against
religion without understanding it.... (33)
David Tribe in his book 100 Years of Freethought
reports a persistent legend that Southwell edited a
Wesleyan journal in Auckland but concedes that the
legend is untrue. It probably originated from G J
Holyoake who in his History of Cooperation stated
that on his arrival in New Zealand the only
employment Southwell found was as editor of a
Wesleyan newspaper.(34) It is scarcely possible that on
his arrival in Auckland and before launching his own
paper Southwell did some editorial work for John
Williamson, a leading Wesleyan who was co-
proprietor of the newspaper The New Zealander.
Southwell's own paper, The Auckland Examiner, was
in fact very independent and openly attacked John
Williamson as 'Cheap John'. On several topics The
Examiner was highly controversial. It contained hard-
hitting and sometimes intemperate articles by
Southwell. He denigrated the Chinese and sneered at
Maori culture.(35) In 1860 Southwell, then a sick man,
writing of the Maori said : 'Their boasted civilisation
is egregious humbug'.(36) Nevertheless The Examiner
to some extent seems to have served a useful purpose
in that it aired grievances and gave publicity to some
causes unpopular with the powers that be. From 1858
Southwell was able to publish his paper twice a week.
Southwell had been ailing for some time and he died
of tuberculosis on 7th August 1860. Simple death
notices appeared in the two main Auckland
newspapers but no obituaries were published. In The
Examiner of 26 July Southwell issued his final
statement under the heading 'Farewell Confidences'.
He attributed the cessation of publication of The
Examiner to bad debts, the long and serious illness of
the editor and slanderous attacks by his detractors.
His valedictory words evoked a sympathetic reaction
from his supporters. A public appeal was organised
and the sum of £200 raised, but a feeble attempt to
keep the paper going after Southwell's death failed.(37)
A Mr. Russell writing in Holyoake's paper The
Reasoner reported that Southwell's funeral was
attended by 'a large number of respectable people'
and that the funeral service was conducted by the
Congregationalist minister the Rev Mr Hamer.(38) That
Southwell finally became a Christian seems most
unlikely. Certainly a form of Christian service was
sometimes performed over the grave of a freethinker.
Later a few freethinkers including Archibald Campbell
subscribed to provide a headstone and a surrounding
fence for Southwell's grave in Grafton Cemetery.(39)
It was a sad end at the age of 46 to the career of a man
of considerable talent and grit. He was passionately
eager to expose error and pretence, but was too
extravagant in style and mercurial in temperament to
win substantial support for his efforts. In an obituary
in The Reasoner Holyoake wrote: 'Mr. Southwell was
incomparably the best speaker that arose in our time
in Socialist and Freethinking ranks. He was by nature,
one might say by profession an actor.'(40)
Freethought after Southwell
After the activities of the Auckland Secular Society
petered out in 1856 there is little evidence of group
activity by freethinkers in that city before 1866.
However, there is record of the first Unitarian services
being conducted in 1863-65 in Auckland for some
people of that persuasion by one Franklin Bradley who
had been trained for the Unitarian ministry. The
services ceased when Bradley left Auckland to take
up farming. Outside Auckland in Taranaki the
influential Richmond and Atkinson families were
known to be Unitarians but carried on worship only
in their family circles.(41)
More clearly of the freethinking kind was the
programme of the Auckland Secular Association
whose first annual report appeared in the Daily
Southern Cross of 29 May 1967. The report showed
that this association formed in April 1866 had built
up its membership to more than twenty. It had taken
over the library of more than 100 volumes from the
former Secular Society. The secretary was P Horley
and one assumes that Archibald Campbell was an
active member, if not president, as he was still an active
supporter of freethought activities in Auckland in 1883
when he became President of the newly formed
Auckland Rationalistic Association.(42) In its report the
Secular Association declared that its purpose was 'to
uphold the principles of freethought, to discuss various
opinions regarding their application and, knowing the
necessity of unity of action, to guard against all attacks
from the circle of prejudice and bigotry'. On the day
after the publication of this report a leader in the New
Zealand Herald criticised the Cross for publishing
such a disgraceful document.
There followed two columns of ridicule and abuse of
secularism. 'Secularism is a philosophic persiflage,'
said the Herald. A correspondent in its columns called
on the secularists to declare themselves: 'Let each man
therefore boldly stand forth as the enemy of
Christianity and let him openly display the stamp of
the beast upon his forehead.'
In the Cross of 31st May a regular contributor praised
the editor for 'putting the Christian community upon
its guard against the atrocious principles of infidelity.'
After a few days the correspondence in the Cross and
the Herald died down and the secularists 'poor hapless
creatures' were spared further abuse in the press.
Thereafter we hear no more of the Secular Association.
The climate of public opinion remained inimical
towards freethinkers.
Thus, so to speak, freethought went underground.
Only under the anonymity of the census do we find
any evidence of the survival of freethought towards
the end of the 1860s. In 1867 a census of the
population of New Zealand was taken. In the section
of the census report giving the religious professions
of the people, it was shown that, among the persons
classified as not belonging to any of the major
denominations and 'otherwise described' there were
a mere 57 freethinkers. The Unitarians numbered 325
or 0.12 per cent of the non-Maori population. In the
1871 census the new category of those who might
'object to state' their religion was introduced. Of the
non-Maori population 8,630 chose this option.
Freethinkers numbered only 41, but there were also
32 secularists.
Such was the quiescent state of freethought in New
Zealand at the end of the first thirty years of European
settlement and before its emergence as a manifest
movement in the late l870s and the l880s.
Notes and References
(1) Gordon Stein, The Encyclopedia of Unbelief (Prometheus
Books, Buffalo, NY, 1985), pl 36
(2) ibid, pp 668-670
(3) David Berman, The History of Atheism in Britain (Routledge,
London, 1988),p42
(4) R K Webb, 'The Unitarian Background' in Barbara Smith,
Truth, Liberty, Religion (Manchester College, Oxford, 1986),
pp8-ll
(5) David Berman, op.cit., pp 191-192
(6) S Pollard & J Salt (eds) Robert Owen (Macmillan, London,
1971), especially Chapter 5.
(7) Edward Royle, Victorian Infidels (Manchester University
Press, Manchester, 1974), pp 69-76
(8) NZ Gazette & Wellington Spectator, 30.7.1842.
(9) F B Smith, 'Charles Southwell' in Dictionary of NZ
Biography, Vol. 1 (Allen & Unwin/Dept. of Internal Affairs,
Wellington, 1990), pp 401-2
(10) Edward Royle, op.cit., pp 78-80
(11) David Tribe, 100 Years of Freethought (Elek Books, London,
1967), p 18
(12) A D Mclntosh, Marlborough. A Provincial History
(Marlborough Provincial Historical Committee, Blenheim,
1940), pp21,39-40
(13) Surgeon Motherwell, Surgeon's Log of Birman, 1841-42,
entries of 3.11.1841 and 24.12.1841 in file C.O. 208/298 in
Public Records Office, London.
(14) NZ Government Gazette, Jan. 1842 pp.38-39 and 1843 p.90.
Southern Cross and NZ Guardian, Auckland, 24.6.1843.
(15) WC Cotton, Diary in Alexander Turnbull Library, entry of
31.12.1842
(16) NZ Spectator & Cook Straits Guardian, Wellington,
23.6.1849
(17) 1849 Nelson Census, Wakapuaka District (in NZ National
Archives)
(18) The Reasoner, London, 8.5.1859
(19) J C Dakin, 'The Origins and Beginnings of Continuing
Education in Wellington' in Continuing Education in NZ,
Vol.10, No.l (May 1978) p 85, and J .M Bertram (ed.) The
NZ Letters of Thomas Arnold the Younger (University of
Auckland, 1966), p 104
(20) R S Neale, Class and Ideology in the Nineteenth Century,
Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1972. pp. 86-87, 91
(21) Wellington Independent, 1.2.1854
(22) Surgeon Motherwell, op.cit., and Wellington Provincial
Council, Votes and Proceedings, session IV, 1856-57
(23) Gerda Bell, Ernest Dieffenbach. Rebel and Humanist
(Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 1976), p 41
(24) E A Horsman, The Diary of Alfred Domett 1872-1885 (OUP,
London, 1953), p 18 and G H Scholefield (ed.) The
Richmond-Atkinson Papers (Government Printer,
Wellington, 1960), Vol II p.71.
(25) J M Bertram (ed.), op.cit.. p 104
(26) R C J Stone, The Young Logan Campbell (Auckland
University Press/OUP, Auckland, 1982), p 206
(27) The Reasoner, London, 16.3.1856
(28) ibid, 2.12.1860
(29) ibid, 29.4.1855, 30.9.1855 & 16.3.1856
(30) F B Smith, op.cit., pp 401-2
(31) Southwell's letter of 3.9.1856 in The Reasoner of 1.3.1857
(32) Southern Cross, Auckland, 1.7.1856
(33) Auckland Examiner, 24.11.1858, 1.12.1858
(34) G J Holyoake, The History of Cooperation (T Fisher Unwin,
London, 1908), pp 234-5
(35) Auckland Examiner, 4.6,1857, 12.7.1857
(36) ibid, 28.4.1860
(37) The Reasoner, London, 2.12.1860; Auckland Examiner,
21.3.1861
(38) The Reasoner, London, 2.12.1860
(39) Freethought Review, Wanganui, 1.11.1883
(40) The Reasoner, London, 2.12.1860
(41) F W Castle, Annals of the Auckland Unitarian Church
(Auckland Unitarian Church, 198), pp 1-2
(42) Freethought Review, Wanganui, Jan. 1884
Return to Contents
Frank Langstone, Rationalist
David Verran
Frank Langstone (1883-1969) had a long career in
the Labour party, being a Member of Parliament
between 1922 and 1925, and again between 1928 and
1949. He was a Cabinet Minister from 1935 to 1943.
He also served as High Commissioner to Ottawa.
Like most Labour politicians, Langstone opposed
Bible readings in schools and favoured a secular
education. However, he also publicly confirmed that
in his youth he had read the Bible from cover to cover,
and as a boy had attended Band of Hope picnics. In
adulthood he was supportive of rationalism, as were
many other Labour people, but a lack of Rationalist
Association membership records precludes any
conclusion as to when he became an active supporter.
Any formal links can only be dated from the early
1950s, once he was out of Parliament.
He first spoke to Auckland members on 12 November
1950, lauding the American rationalist Robert Green
Ingersoll (1833-1899). This was seven years after
Langstone had moved to Auckland. Ingersoll has been
described as an agnostic, a secularist and a humanist,
but more politically conservative than Langstone.
The second came when Langstone issued a limited
distribution pamphlet entitled NZ Liberty 1951, to alert
the public to assaults on basic freedoms during the
1951 waterfront lock out. He quoted Winston
Churchill and Mr Justice Stable in supporting freedom
of speech and public assembly, trial by jury, the rules
of evidence and limits on police powers. This pamphlet
was summarised on the front page of the May 1951
issue of the NZ Rationalist, with the addition of quotes
from relevant sections from the United Nations Charter
on Human Rights. At the same time the executive
committee of the Rationalist Association called on the
government to overhaul the 1932 Public Conservation
Act, enacted because of threat of riots by the
unemployed. These actions provoked a police raid on
the Auckland office of the Rationalist Association.
Langstone spoke to Auckland members for a second
time on 7 July 1952 on the 'practicability of an internal
price level', a continuing political obsession. On 30
August 1953 he spoke on the poems of Robbie Bums
(1759-1796). Further activity within the Association
then diminished in favour of his involvement with the
New Zealand Social Credit Political League. His next
speech to the Association was not until late 1968, when
at the annual dinner he extolled the virtues of
rationalism. He died in 1969.
Langstone's attraction to rationalism was consistent
over the years, but his involvement in the Association
was peripheral at most. He was first and foremost a
politician.
The main sources are the Langstone papers at the
University of Auckland Library.
David Verran is an historian living in Auckland. He spoke to the
NZARH about the life and career of Frank Langstone in 1996.
This is his first article for the NZ Rationalist & Humanist.
Return to Contents
Trilobites
Keith R.W. Kersting
Sediment epochs settling below,
Future eras lofting above,
Nature's latest form from life,
Of an ancient sea long gone;
What pierces the eye of the trilobite?
Layers of endless rains,
Seasons upon countless seasons,
Creating timeless oceans,
Extinct palms and foregone beaches;
Ebbing tides sway through an endless night!
Trilobites between rocks curl,
And new forms of life unfurl,
Ammonites, horned corals, and crinoids,
Cliff pinnacles of fossil reefs fill the voids;
What preponderance of life captured
The faceted eyes below the sea?
The trilobites' mute observance
Of life's deep struggle ever to be;
Now a stony occlusion of a mountain's eroded,
Comet-struck summit so dramatically unfolded;
The lightning-shape of crack and thrust,
In earth's rugged momentum-bent crust,
Folding layers of mountainous grandeur,
Through a mix of ocean, dust, and anger;
The power of life's recipe,
On a minute water planet,
Swimming in an endless space,
Of a possible creative gauntlet;
In an ancient sea long gone,
What may have the trilobites seen?
From the seabed looking up,
Way, oh way back then!
Return to Contents
The Menace of Ignorance
A Response to Antony Flew
Imran Aijaz
When one mentions Islam to the materialist atheist',
writes Dr. Maurice Bucaille, a French doctor, 'he smiles
with a complacency that is only equal to his ignorance
of the subject. In common with the majority of Western
intellectuals, of whatever religious persuasion, he has
an impressive collection of false notions about Islam.'(1)
This view is exemplified by Antony Flew, in his article
entitled 'The Menace of Islam' published in the Spring
1995 issue of the NZ Rationalist & Humanist. In this
rejoinder, I shall cover, in great brevity, some of the
issues raised by Flew.
Flew is correct in his statement that 'to be properly
accounted a Muslim, it is essential to be a fundamentalist
with regard to... The Koran.' Although technically valid,
such a remark can be quite misleading. As Akber Ahmed
writes:
Western commentators often use - or misuse - terms
taken from Christianity and apply them to Islam.
One of the most commonly used is fundamentalism
... every Muslim is a fundamentalist believing in
the Qur'an and the Prophet. However, in the
manner that is used in the media, to mean a fanatic
or extremist, it does not illuminate either Muslim
thought or Muslim society.(2)
One of the many shortcomings which has arisen in the
West, is judging Islam by the conduct of a minority of
its people. By doing this, segments of Western society
have deliberately played off the desperate actions of
many Muslims, and have given it the name of Islam.
Such behaviour is clearly not objective and seeks to
distort the reality of Islam. For if such a hasty
generalisation was done, one could assert all
Christianity is about is child molesting and
homosexuality by using the many cases of child abuse
and homosexuality by priests. Or that Hinduism was
all about looting and breaking up mosques, by using
the incident of the destruction of the Babri mosque in
Ayodya, India in December 1992 by Hindu zealots.
Clearly, these are fallacious and unjustified assertions.
Flew is worried however, he writes 'one class of
professedly Muslim movements cannot be distinguished
from another ... these murderously intolerant Muslim
movements ... their members claim that they are
obediently implementing the authentic teachings of The
Koran.' The objective criteria for judging the actions of
Muslims is found in the Qur'an and the Sunnah (way)
of the Prophet Muhammad. The very name Islam comes
from the Arabic root word 'salama' which means peace.
Islam is a religion which is based upon achieving peace
through the submission to the will of Allah, or God.
Thus, by this very simple linguistic definition, one can
ascertain as to what the nature of this religion is. If such
a religion is based on the notion of peace, then how is it
that so many acts done by its adherents are contrary to
peace? The answer is simple. Such actions, if not
sanctioned by the religion, have no place with it. They
are not Islamic and should not be thought of as Islamic.
Perhaps Flew is not aware of the maxim, that one should
never judge a religion by its people, but rather, judge
people by their religion.
Flew then revives the old myth of Islam being spread
by the sword, writing 'the explosive expansion of Islam
in its first centuries was an achievement of military
conquest and forced mass conversions.' This stereotype
was made popular in Europe during the Crusades, and
is totally baseless. The first point worth noting, is that
the Qur'an clearly states 'Let there be no compulsion
in religion' (Qur'an 2:256) hence 'forced mass
conversions' would contradict the essence of Islam,
which teaches that a person's faith must be pure and
sincere, so it is certainly not something that can be
forced on someone. In debunking the myth that Islam
was spread by the sword, the (non-Muslim) historian
De Lacy O'Leary wrote:
History makes it clear, however, that the legend of
fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and
forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon
conquered races is one of the most fantastically
absurd myths that historians have ever accepted.(3)
History also tells us that Muslims ruled Spain for
approximately 800 years. During this time, and up to
when they were finally forced out, the non-Muslims
there were alive and prospering. Christian and Jewish
minorities have survived in Muslim lands of the Middle
East for centuries, Egypt, Morocco, Palestine, Lebanon,
Syria and Jordan are examples. These non-Muslim
minorities could not have survived for so long in the
middle of the Islamic empire had Islam taught that all
non-Muslims were supposed to be killed or forced to
convert to Islam. Also interesting to note is when the
Mongols invaded and conquered large portions of the
Islamic Empire, they adopted the religion instead of
destroying it, quite a unique occurrence in history - the
conquerors adopting the religion of the conquered!
Now, while I agree that military conquest, to some
degree would be responsible for some conversions to
Islam, the gross exaggeration made by Flew is
groundless. There are other reasons to consider for the
early phenomenal Islamic expansion. The first is the
simplicity and direct nature of the Islamic message.
Islam had no complicated philosophy, no recognized
hierarchy based on caste or wealth, no priesthood. As
Edward Montet put it:
Islam is a religion that is essentially rationalistic
... a creed so precise, so stripped of all theological
complexities and consequently so accessible to the
ordinary understanding might be expected to
possess and does indeed possess a marvellous
power of winning its way into the consciences of
men.(4)
Another reason for the popularity of Islam is its
emphasis on the equality of people, irrespective of races
and tribes, the only criteria of merit being goodness and
piety. To those who were living in the Persian, Byzantine
and Roman empires, the message of Islam came like a
breath of fresh air. The majority of these empires were
ridden with class hierarchy, sectarian prejudices, racial
hatreds, corruption and oppression - all of which have
no place in Islam. Yet another reason for the growth of
Islam is its provision of a healthy balance between
affairs of this world (dunya) and those of religion (din),
as anyone who has studied the history of Muslim Spain
will know:
Mathematics, astronomy, botany, history,
philosophy and jurisprudence were to be mastered
in Spain, and Spain alone. Whatever makes a
kingdom great and prosperous, whatever tends to
refinement and civilization, was found in Muslim
Spain ...(5)
Flew asks, 'so what evidence, what reason is offered for
accepting this system [of Islam]?' The Qur'an, for the
Muslim, is the ultimate miracle. It is his evidence, and his
reason. As Swiss journalist, Roger Du Pasquier, states:
The central miracle of Islam was, and remains the
Qur'anic revelation. To this day no one has put
forward a defensible explanation of how an
unlettered caravan merchant of the early seventh
century might have been able, by his own devices,
to produce a text of such inimitable beauty, of such
capacity to stir emotion, and which contained
knowledge and wisdom which stood so far above
ideas current among mankind at that time. The
studies carried out in the West which try to
determine the 'sources used by Muhammad', or to
bring to light the psychological phenomenon which
enabled him to draw inspiration from his
'subconscious', have demonstrated only one thing;
the anti-Muslim prejudice of their authors.(6)
I have yet to come across a justifiable view that can
offer a better explanation than the orthodox Muslim
account, for the origins of the Qur'an. This is my
personal challenge to sceptics.
Who's afraid of textual criticism? Flew states there is
the need for an 'urgently needed critique of the
documents and doctrines of Islam' and implies that
Muslims will be resistant to this. All the classical sources
of Qur'anic exegesis had the variant readings well
documented and they were discussed extensively from
the point of view of grammar and their origin. More
than 1000 years ago, even before Biblical criticism was
conceived, Muslims knew what the variant readings of
the Qur'an were and from where they originated.
Muslims were neither scared nor uncomfortable with
dealing with the variant readings. They were rather
professional in their approach towards dealing with the
variant readings and also developed an elaborate science
called 'Ilm al-Qira'at. Bernard Lewis writes:
From an early date Muslim scholars recognised
the danger of false testimony and hence false
doctrine, and developed an elaborate science for
criticising tradition. 'Traditional science', as it was
called, differed in many respects from modem
historical source criticism, and modem scholarship
has always disagreed with evaluations of traditional
scientists about the authenticity and accuracy of
ancient narratives. But their careful scrutiny of the
chains of transmission and their meticulous
collection and preservation of variants in the
transmitted narratives give to medieval Arabic
historiography a professionalism and
sophistication without precedent in antiquity and
without parallel in the contemporary medieval
West. By comparison, the historiography of Latin
Christendom seems poor and meagre, and even the
more advanced and complex historiography of
Greek Christendom still falls short of the historical
literature of Islam in volume, variety and analytical
depth.(7)
So, long before the textual criticism of the Bible
originated, Muslims already went through the process
of textual criticism.
In conclusion, I believe Flew has raised familiar
objections to Islam, which are at best, superficial. I
would like to close with a quotation from one of my
favourite Islamic philosophers, Abu Yusuf al-Kindi
(801-873):
We should not be ashamed of recognising the truth
and assimilating it from whatever source it may
reach us, even though it may come from earlier
generations and foreign people. For him who seeks
truth, there is nothing of more value than truth itself.
It never cheapens or abases him who searches for
it, but ennobles and honours him.(8)
Imran Aijaz is a student of philosophy at Auckland University.
Footnotes
- Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, the Qur'an and Science, p 118
- Akber S Ahmed, Living Islam, 1994, pp 18-19
- De Lacy O'Leary, Islam at the Crossroads, London, 1923, p 8
- Edward Montet, Le Propagande Chretienne et ses Adversaries
Musulmans, Paris, 1890
- Stanley Lane-Poole in Introduction to The Moors in Spain
- Roger Du Pasquier, Unveiling Islam, p 53
- Bernard Lewis, Islam in History (Open Court Publishing), pp 104-5
- Quoted in George N Atiyeh, Al-kindi the philosophers of the Arabs, pp 19-20
Return to Contents
Heathen in Godzone
Replies from parliament
In July, the NZ Association of Rationalists & Humanists
sent each MP a copy of Heathen in Godzone. This was
done to remind parliamentarians that we exist, and, more
important, that there is a substantial non-religious
community in New Zealand. The following MPs had the
courtesy to reply to our letter personally.
Arthur Anae, Rick Barker, David Benson-Pope, Sue
Bradford, Chris Carter, Clayton Cosgrove, Wyatt Creech,
David Cunliffe, Peter Dunne, Phil Goff, Phillip Heatley,
Jonathan Hunt, Sue Kedgley, Keith Locke, Janet Mackey,
Ron Mark, Ross Robertson, Jenny Shipley, John Tamihere,
Georgina Te Heuheu, Maurice Williamson, Pansy Wong,
Doug Woolerton, Richard Worth, Dianne Yates, Annabel
Young.
This does not mean that they agree with our view of society
obviously, but it does mean that they observe common
decencies. The next list of MPs are those who had their
secretary respond to our posting.
Jim Anderton, Georgina Beyer, Max Bradford, Phillida
Bunkle, Mark Burton, Steve Chadwick, Helen dark, Lianne
Dalziel, Helen Duncan, Ruth Dyson, Martin Gallagher,
Laila Harré, Ann Hartley, George Hawkins, Gavan Herlihy,
Marian Hobbs, Pete Hodgson, Paul Hutchison, Willie
Jackson, Graham Kelly, Annette King, Warren Kyd, Trevor
Mallard, Winston Peters, Richard Prebble, Matt Robson,
Lockwood Smith, Roger Sowry, Tony Steel, Paul Swain,
Lindsay Tisch, Judith Tizard.
The MPs not listed are those who have not responded in
any way. What follows are a few of the more interesting
replies we received. Perhaps the most generous reply came
from Tony Simpson, who is Jim Anderton's senior advisor
and is a historian of note himself. Simpson wrote:
Jim Anderton has asked me to write to you and acknowledge
your generosity in sending him a copy of the recently
published Heathen In Godzone. As you will no doubt
appreciate Jim doesn't get a great deal of spare time for
reading purely for the sake of interest and pleasure but he
assures me that in this instance he intends to find the time.
I hope so, and that he gets on with it; I've told him that I
want to be the next in line to read the book. It looks excellent
and very interesting. I should add, perhaps, from a personal
point of view, that when I skimmed through the index (quite
a good way in my estimation of assessing a book) I was
delighted to see that Tom Paine featured largely. He's
always been one of my favourite people.
We are most unlikely to persuade Mr Anderton, who is, I
understand, a practising Catholic. Nevertheless, he may see
us from a different perspective.
Chris Carter, the Labour MP for Te Atatu, was also
supportive. He has a long track record of work in progressive
causes, including equal rights for gays and voluntary
euthanasia. Chris Carter wrote:
The historical achievements of the rationalist movement
are very great indeed and I admire the effort that went into
preparing and summarising them into printed form. The
Association of Rationalists and Humanists provides a voice
of reason to counter the rising trends of bigotry, religious
and moral intolerance and forced uniformity of personal
belief. I support your work and encourage you to continue
striving for a more humane and open society. Please do not
hesitate to contact me if I can assist you in any way. Once
again, thank you for your kind gift, I am looking forward
to reading the book.
Other MPs who responded in more than a formal way were
Sue Bradford and Keith Locke (Greens), Richard Worth
(National), Peter Dunne (United). Mark Peck, MP for
Invercargill, was clearly worried he may catch some terrible
disease from touching our book, so he returned it, but with
a cheerful letter attached.
The only politician not currently an MP we sent Heathen
in Godzone to was Graham Capill, leader of the Christian
Heritage Party: Graham Capill Party Leader party (no, I
am not joking, that is the formal name of the party). His
reply was so priceless we have accorded it the honour of
being the Last Word, on the back page of this journal.
Another Hurrah for Heathen in Godzone
Another review of Heathen in Godzone has recently
come to light. It was in a magazine called Stimulus (Vol
7, No 1, Feb 1999, p 48), a periodical for Christian
liberals. The reviewer, Bryan Gilling, understood the
book and its context well. Gilling appreciates that
Heathen is a 'warts-and-all detailing' of the history of
our Association. He also acknowledges that it exposes
(again) a persistent untruth:
One of the myths being promulgated amongst
certain Christian groups is that this nation was
founded on Christian principles, that the leaders
of this country have been Christians and their
policies "Christian" until a dramatic decline' in
recent times. This is clearly not so, and this book
restates what is already known, that many of our
early leaders were not only not evangelical
Christians, but were active rationalists, or
freethinkers as they were usually known then.
But most significant was Gilling's recognition of the
candour in which the book was written. He finished the
review like this:
Much of New Zealand's religious history writing
is turgid, unthoughtful, non-analytical chronicling
of parish or organisational histories. This book
could have descended into that, but instead gives
substantially more insight into a small but persistent
and vocal group of dissenters - and group dynamics
amongst a cluster of "true believers".
We'll ignore Gilling's sideswipe about true believers.
That accusation was plausible while we dallied with
non-rational faiths like Marxism, but is no longer valid.
It also ignores the central component in rationalism and
humanism, which is not so much what we believe, but
the manner in which we believe it; ie, rationally, in
proportion to the evidence, and with an open mind to
possible refutation of cherished ideas. Heathen in
Godzone is not without its faults, but it is gratifying to
have its candour - particularly when compared with
church histories in this country - recognised by a
Christian scholar.
Return to Contents
Pakistani Humanist on Trial for Blasphemy
Dr Younus Shaikh is founder-President of 'Enlightenment', a
Pakistan based organisation which is a member of the
International Humanist and Ethical Union (www.iheu.org).
Dr Shaikh is a doctor and a teacher at a medical college in Islamabad.
Along with his work in humanism, Dr Shaikh is active in
medicine, human rights issues and the South Asian Peace
Movement.
On 4 October 2000, Dr Shaikh was arrested by the Islamabad
police and booked under the dreaded Section 295-C (Blasphemy)
of the Pakistan Penal Code. He is alleged to have defiled
Mohammad, the Prophet of Islam, by pointing out that the
Prophet did not become a Muslim till the age of 40 (ie. until he
received the first message of God), and that the Prophet's
parents were non-Muslims because they died before Islam was
proposed by the Prophet. We should not forget that he did not
abuse, he did not threaten, he did not scorn or sneer.
Forty-five year-old Dr Shaikh lives alone, has no family, and
has been sacked from his job following his arrest. To build
popular pressure, an Islamabad-based Urdu language newspaper,
Khabrain, is carrying a campaign, demanding the death penalty
for him.
On 19 October 2000, Dr Shaikh was presented before the court,
but he had no lawyer. Frequently lawyers are intimidated by the
mob, so they do not take up blasphemy cases. Even judges are
afraid of trying them. A group of 20 clerics - menacing and
aggressive - came to the court, to pursue their case against Dr
Shaikh. They represent the Majlis-I-Khatam-I-Nabuwat
(Organisation on the Finality of the Prophet) one of the groups
responsible for Pakistan's descent into lawlessness. Dr Shaikh's
reading glasses were broken when he came to court, he was
unable to read well, and was not allowed to speak to anyone.
Fortunately he has not been tortured by the police during two
weeks of custody.
Blasphemy in Pakistan
Blasphemy in Pakistan is a cognisable offence, punishable
mandatorily by death, but Section 295-C does not even precisely
define the crime it is meant to punish. This law has a history of
abuse: it is a convenient means to settle personal scores. In this
case, it is a disgruntled student Mr Muhammad Asghar Khan
who complained to the fundamentalists. Even those not present
at the time of the alleged 'offence' can file a complaint - this is
the case as regards Dr Shaikh. A cleric, Maulana Abdur Rafoof,
registered the case in Islamabad's Margalla police station. Despite
the severity of punishment, Section 295-C empowers a police
officer to arrest, without obtaining a warrant from a judicial
magistrate. Dr Shaikh is in custody since 4 October 2000.
In the case of Blasphemy, very often the accused is murdered
either in police custody or even in the court room itself by
bloodthirsty zealots. So few cases are even brought to fruition.
General Pervez Musharraf's recent attempts to improve the law
has been met with vehement opposition from the clerics, and he
immediately climbed down, in deference to the Islamic
fundamentalists. The law remains as barbaric as it was. And so
is the mob.
What you can do:
- Write to Phil Goff, our Foreign Minister, and demand he
notify relevant Pakistani envoys of New Zealand's concerns
about the state of Freedom of religion or Belief in Pakistan.
Ask Mr Goff to arrange for an observer at Dr Shaikh's trial,
if he is not released immediately.
- Fax your MP and ask him to take up the case of Dr Shaikh.
Ask your MP to bring pressure on the Pakistani government
to release Dr Younis Shaikh, and to ensure his physical safety.
- Write to Amnesty International, asking them to adopt Dr
Shaikh as a prisoner of conscience.
- Write to the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion
or Belief. The Special Rapporteur has the mandate to take
the matter up with the government on a diplomatic level.
The address is:
Dr Abdul Fatteh Amor
The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief
8-14 Avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Telephone Number (41-22) 917-9000
Fax Number (41-22) 917-9016
- Write to General Musharraf, with the respect due to a Head
of Government. Remind him that he had declared that
Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan's founder (formal title:
Quaid - I- Azam) was his political hero. The Quaid had
declared in his speech to the Constituent Assembly of
Pakistan on 11 August 1947: "You are free; you are free to
go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to
any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You
may belong to any religion or caste or creed - that has nothing
to do with the business of the state".
Ask General Musharraf to take steps to make Pakistan true
to the Quaid's ideals. He can do so by ensuring that Pakistan
will no longer remain a theocracy. Ask for protection to all
religious minorities and non-believers living in Pakistan.
Mention specific details: Jail: Adyala Jail, Rawalpindi; Date
of FIR and arrest: 4 October 2000; Police Station: Margalla.
Demand that the Sections 295-B and 295-C of the Criminal
Code be repealed as soon as possible, and that he should
take steps to prevent their malicious and frivolous abuse
meanwhile.
- Invite Pakistan to ratify the International Covenant on Civil
and political Rights and the International Covenant on Social,
Economic and Cultural Rights.
Please write to:
General Pervez Musharraf
Chief Executive
Government of Pakistan
Constitution Ave, Islamabad
Pakistan
E Mail: CE@pak.gov.pk
- Send donations for Dr Shaikh's legal defence to: IHEU, 47
Theobalds Road, London WC 1 X 8SP, UK. Cheques payable
to IHEU; Credit Card donations preferable, to avoid
international bank charges. Fax us card details (address, card
number, Visa/Mastercard, date of issue, date of expiry; name
of card holder) to +44 207 404 8641 or +44 207 4301271.
Please send a copy of all your messages to:
campaign@iheu.org.
This message was received from the International Humanist &
Ethical Union (IHEU)
Return to Contents
Humanist Manifesto 2000
The Need for New Planetary Institutions
The urgent question in the twenty-first century is
whether humankind can develop global institutions to
address the world's problems. Many of the best
remedies are those adopted on the local, national, and
regional level by voluntary, private, and public efforts.
One strategy is to seek solutions through free-market
initiatives: another is to use international voluntary
foundations and organisations for educational and
social development. We believe, however, that there
remains a need to develop new global institutions that
will deal with the problems directly and will focus on
the needs of humanity as a whole.
In the aftermath of the Second World War a number of
international institutions, such as the United Nations
and the World Health Organisation, were founded to
deal with these tasks. Unfortunately, a wide gap has
appeared between the way in which these institutions
operate and the needs of the new planetary community.
Existing institutions must therefore change
dramatically, or new institutions must be forged.
The de facto political boundaries of the world are
arbitrary. We need to go beyond them. We need to
continue to defend the growth of democracy in the
diverse nations in the world community, but we also
need to enhance the transnational rights of all members
of the planetary community. We need now more than
ever a world body that represents the people of the
world rather than nation-states.
The United Nations, unlike its precursor, the League
of Nations, has played a vital role in the world, but
there is so much more that still needs to be
accomplished. To solve problems on the transnational
level and to contribute to planetwide development, we
need gradually but drastically to transform the United
Nations. Some of these changes will involve amending
the UN Charter; others will entail radically altering the
structure of the UN; these changes will require the
consent of the member nations. But whatever alterations
ensue, we should preserve those elements in the UN
that have so dramatically improved the lives of millions
on the planet.
The most fundamental change would be to enhance
the effectiveness of the UN by converting it from an
assembly of sovereign states to an assembly of peoples
as well. Such a transformation does have precedents,
including the self-conversion of America's early
confederation of sovereign states into the current federal
system. If we are to solve our global problems, nation-
states must transfer some of their sovereignty to a
system of transnational authority. Failure to do so will
risk having the world locked in conflict among
sovereign states whose primary interest is sovereignty.
We can scarcely afford such a waste of resources; the
world's people deserve better. Such a transnational
system would no doubt engender opposition from
political leaders everywhere - especially nationalist-
chauvinists. But it could still evolve - and succeed - if
we work for a planetary ethical consensus.
Any new transnational system should be democratic
and would have limited powers. There would be a
maximisation of autonomy, decentralisation, and
freedom for the independent states and regions of the
world. There would also have to be a system of checks
and balances as a safeguard against arbitrary power.
The transnational system would deal primarily with
questions that can only be solved on the global level,
such as security, the defence of human rights, economic
and social development, and the protection of the
planetary environment. If these goals are to be achieved,
then we offer the following reforms, working from the
framework of the United Nations:
• First, the world needs at some point in the future to
establish an effective World Parliament - and elections
to it based on population - which will represent the
people, not their governments. The idea of a World
Parliament is similar to the evolution of the European
Parliament, still in its infancy. The current UN General
Assembly is an assembly of nations. This new World
Parliament would enact legislative policies in a
democratic manner. Perhaps a bi-cameral legislature
is the most feasible with both a Parliament of peoples
and a General Assembly of nations. The detailed formal
structure can only be worked out by a charter review
convention that we recommend should be convened to
examine thoroughly options for strengthening the UN
and/or supplementing it with a parliamentary system.
• Second, the world needs a workable security system
to resolve military conflicts that threaten the peace.
We need to amend the United Nations Charter to
achieve this aim. Thus the veto in the Security Council
by the Big Five needs to be repealed. It exists because
of historical circumstances at the end of World War II
that are no longer relevant. The basic principle of world
security is that no single state or alliance of states has
the right to undermine the political and territorial
integrity of other states by aggression: nor should any
nation or group of nations be allowed to police the
world or unilaterally bomb others without the
concurrence of the Security Council. The world needs
an effective police force to protect regions of the world
from conflict and to negotiate peaceful settlements. We
recommend that the UN Security Council, elected by
the General Assembly and World Parliament, should
require a three-quarter vote to take any security
measures. This would mean that if the current 15-
member Council were retained, then if four or more
members disagreed, no action could be taken.
• Third, we must develop an effective World Court and
an International Judiciary with sufficient power to
enforce its rulings. The World Court in The Hague is
already moving in this direction. This Court will have
the power to try violations of human rights, genocide,
and transnational crimes and to adjudicate conflicting
international disputes. It is essential that those states
that do not as yet recognise its authority be persuaded
to do so.
• Fourth, the world needs a planetary environmental
monitoring agency on the transnational level. We
recommend the strengthening of existing UN
agencies and programmes most directly concerned
with the environment. The United Nations
Environment Programme, for example, should be
given the power to enforce measures against serious
ecological pollution. The United Nations Population
Fund must be allocated sufficient funding to satisfy
the unmet global need for contraception and therefore
help stabilise population growth. Should these
agencies prove unable to cope with the massive
problems, a stronger planetary agency will need to
be created.
• Fifth, we recommend an international system of
taxation in order to assist the underdeveloped sectors
of the human family and to fulfill social needs not
fulfilled by market forces. We would begin with a tax
levied on the Gross National Product (GNP) of all
nations, the proceeds to be used for economic and social
assistance and development. This would not be a
voluntary contribution but an actual tax. The existing
vital agencies of the United Nations would be financed
by the funds raised. This includes UNESCO, UNICEF,
the World Health Organisation, the World Bank, the
International Monetary Fund, and other organisations.
Wide international agreement on tax reform is needed
to ensure that multinational corporations pay their fair
share of the global tax burden. Tax credits should be
given for charitable donations for human and social
development. A levy on international fund transfers
should be seriously considered to tax otherwise untaxed
funds and to help finance social development in the
poorest countries. Many member states refuse to pay
their dues to the UN. For these states censure and
stronger measures such as sanctions should be imposed.
The selective cancellations of burdensome debts by poor
countries unable to pay should be financed by this fund.
• Sixth, the development of global institutions should
include some procedure for the regulation of
multinational corporations and state monopolies. This
goes beyond existing UN mandates. We should
encourage free-market economies, yet we cannot ignore
the planetary needs of humanity as a whole. If left
unchecked, mega-corporations and monopolies are
likely to impair human rights, the environment, and
the prosperity of certain regions of the world. Extreme
disparities between the affluent and the underdeveloped
sectors of the planet can be overcome by encouraging
self-help, but also by harnessing the wealth of the world
to provide capital, technical aid, and educational
assistance for economic and social development.
• Seventh, we must keep alive a free market of ideas,
respect diversity of opinion, and cherish the right to
dissent. There is thus a special compelling need to resist
control of the media of communication, whether by
national governments, by powerful economic interests,
or by global institutions. Dictatorships have used the
media for propagandistic purposes, denying alternative
viewpoints. The mass media in capitalist societies are
often under oligopolic control. These media often
pander to the lowest common denominator in order to
maximise ratings. Facts are disregarded in the uncritical
acceptance of any New Age quackery, while reports of
miracles gain more air time than the latest scientific
breakthrough. Many media - TV, radio, films,
publishing - apparently feel little obligation to provide
factual or educational content.
We eschew any form of censorship, whether practised
by governments, advertisers, or media proprietors.
Competition in the media, by the creation of public and
not-for-profit media organisations, should be encouraged
and all movement toward monopoly and oligarchical
control should be resisted. Popular voluntary movements
to monitor the media and to publicise their more blatant
excesses should be encouraged. There is a special need
to keep open access to the media of communication. This
means that neither powerful global media oligopolies
nor nation-states should dominate the media. We need
to mount a democratic movement worldwide to allow
for cultural diversity and enrichment and a free give-
and-take of ideas.
Return to Contents
The Perils of Belief
Peter Hansen
When I was a young child growing up in a small
west Auckland township, the radio was continually
reporting on the progress of the Second World War, and
even on our once quiet and uneventful doorstep there
were daily physical reminders of that dreadful conflict.
I can still remember the American convoys travelling
north, and a never ending procession of lorries engaged
in carrying material for Whenuapai airbase's runways.
My father was in charge of the local Dad's army platoon,
and I recall the horror on his face when the military
mistakenly provided a box of hand grenades instead of
the long awaited rifles he was promised. The thought
of a bunch of mainly short-sighted, trembling old men
facing the always expected enemy with nothing but hand
bombs and broomstick handles, did little to boost Dad's
confidence in a positive outcome should our worst fears
become reality.
He was at the least agnostic in his philosophy of life,
and the most honest man I ever knew. My mother on
the other hand, had an obsession with things spiritual
that was to thwart any chance of happiness she might
secretly wish for throughout the entire time that I knew
her. She would insist that I sit and listen to a radio
programme for children, which was a product of Uncle
Tom Garland's Friendly Road ministry. I can remember
that it always ended with a little song entitled, "God
will take care of you." The words assured the listener
that this was so, throughout the day, and in every way,
and like most people of my age in those times I probably
believed that such was the case. After all, in a world
gone mad, I was safe and warm at night, and something
had to be responsible for that. Mother insisted it was
God, and Dad went outside for a smoke.
I think that I first questioned God's competence when a
young man, who had been apprenticed to my father's
workshop prior to going overseas, was reported dead.
Killed in action. I couldn't grasp the fact of his death
for ages. And when I asked Mother why it had to happen,
considering God and all that, she muttered something
about "mysterious ways", said a couple of Hail Marys,
and went on boiling up the copper.
At the end of the war I witnessed the return of several
men to our town whom God had apparently overlooked
when they most needed Him. The few years left to a
number of those brave people were a legacy of pain
that they suffered both physically and mentally. The
seeds of doubt planted way back then took many years
to actually bloom into anything substantial for me. A
great deal had to happen in my own life before I finally
saw the light of reason, and handed in my final
resignation to the Almighty.
Since then, I have continued to be appalled at how much
religiously inspired dogma can be found as the cause
behind all manner of crimes and injustices and careless
attitudes throughout New Zealand society, and the world
in general, and how the concept of God is still used to
excuse the inexcusable.
Recently we have seen and heard reports of children
being allowed to suffer and die by their parents because
of some aversion to accepting a possible cure by the
use of conventional medicine. The most recent of these
involved a thirteen year old Island boy, whose deeply
religious parents failed to prevail upon him the necessity
to go into hospital, and have his condition treated. It
was said that he was terrified of hospitals. He would
not have had that on his own of course. What he did
have though, was a deeply ingrained belief that God
was working through him, and at whim would either
cure him miraculously, or allow him to die. It is not
surprising that the latter scenario was the outcome.
I do not wish to appear to single out Pacific Island
families for criticism, but it is high time that something
was done to address the blind faith that many of them
have in the powers of God, a condition which dominates
their lives often to the point of extreme detriment. My
marital choices have twice brought me into contact with
Pacific Island life and culture, the first more extensively
than the second. There is much that is still good in that
culture, but there is, and always has been, a great deal
that is oppressive, stultifying, and duplicitous. It is
because of this that so many young Island people have
chosen to rebel against their family values. The problem
is that many end up throwing the baby out with the bath
water.
There is no deliberate pun intended when I say that the
matter of a person's religious belief remains a "sacred
cow" to most commentators, who otherwise are only
too happy these days to criticise everything about
everybody else in a very public and unfettered way. And
I don't deny that someone's philosophical preference
is a touchy and personal subject. The Association of
Rationalists and Humanists, to which I have belonged
for many years, holds the firm recognition of a person's
right to religion, as well as from religion. So anything
that I may advocate definitely excludes an interference
in the individual's right to believe in God, or Pogo the
Pink Dragon, or any other unlikely entity. If it aids the
digestion, or makes life bearable, then it obviously is a
choice for some.
However, religious belief can be a very emotive and
consuming thing, and its negative powers are often
underestimated, even though most people are vaguely
aware that for thousands of years more people have died
in the name of one god or another, than for most other
reasons all rolled together. What has to finally come
under intense scrutiny is the fine line where you don't
deny the rights of an individual to hold a basically
unsubstantiated belief, but you do question their right
to pass the notion onto others as if it were factually
proven beyond the vestige of a doubt.
The first thing that I thought when I read of the boy
with the giant cancerous growth sucking his life away,
was that his fears and his aversions to normal treatment
were learnt things. As indeed was his belief that he was
governed purely by God's will. It would have been as
big a fear for him to "transgress" against that will, as it
would for him to front up to the rigours of hospital
treatment. Whoever planted the irrational fears in that
boy were as responsible for the inevitability of his demise
as those who failed to offer him the personal strength
and comfort he needed, and the quiet but firm insistence
that he go to where he might have a chance of survival.
I regret the possibility that at the end of the day, even
though the law has decided some culpability lay upon
the boy's parents, the hospital authorities, or someone
else will be made to look responsible as well, when in
truth, battling the idiocy spawned by political
correctness is now often a bigger struggle for medical
practitioners than fighting illness.
It should be that people of all races start to examine
carefully what they pass onto others as a faith to live
by, and the relevance of their philosophical dependence.
They should avoid having a situation whereby much of
what they believe in, is in fact as dangerous to them as
the very things that they seek to protect themselves and
their families from. It should also be that the law looks
with delicacy but purpose, at the effects upon human
behaviour, and the social outcomes of allowing the
teaching of extreme and unproven dogma to go
unquestioned simply because to deal with such matters
appears too thorny a subject for anyone to tackle. They
can never be fully addressed, but the inconsistencies
that exist between the carefully maintained veneer of
virtue surrounding the churches, and what is actually
taught, condoned and promoted by some
institutionalised religions, are long overdue attention.
Peter E. Hansen is Vice President of the NZARH.
Return to Contents
Adam's Rib
The Impossible Dream?
Anne Ferguson
"Sweet sixteen, goes to Church, just to see the boys"
- the words of a song, popular when I myself was
about sweet sixteen - some of you may remember it! I
wasn't, in fact, going to Church, I was going to Quaker
Meeting but, it has to be said, just to see the boys. And
I was starting to 'get atheism'.
At about age twelve I'd expressed a wish to go to our
local C of E church. Motivation was the tennis club;
I'd watched attractive young people hitting balls about
there, knew they had dances, and wanted to be part of
it. Misinterpreting, my mum thought I was beginning
to take an interest in religion. She started going to
Quaker Meeting and dragged me along too. While
reluctant at first, I soon discovered some quite
personable boys attended and there was a social life
attached.
When, therefore, it was suggested I be sent to a Quaker
boarding school in York where there was also a boys'
school I reacted favourably. If only I'd known. We saw
the boys twice a week from across the width of the
Meeting Room and separated by the good Quaker
townsfolk. A dance was held a couple of times a year
- and now, I bet, we get into territory familiar to plenty
of you. The boys all clustered at one end of the hall,
the girls at the other and never the twain did meet until
the Ladies' Choice. Then all the girls swooped. The
more self-confident homed in on the sprinkling of
Adonises while the rest of us grabbed the nearest
spotty, clammy-handed youth, glad to get a dancing
partner.
My father, although a Freethinker, went to church when
a young man - just to see the girls. This has to be
deduced from letters he wrote saying he had met Miss
This and Miss That at the church he was attending. In
those days there were probably few other places a
young man could go to meet respectable young
women. These days people are leaving the church in
droves. Social contacts are made through the plethora
of special interest groups, not to mention modem cafe
society. But is this enough? Is there a gap here which
needs to be filled.
Perhaps the time is now ripe for the Humanist
Movement to start to promote itself as a cohesive social
entity to which all may belong, irrespective of age,
status, gender or individual interests. Operating much
in the traditional way of churches, it would have as its
core function the promotion of a simple, rational moral
code by which we all may live. At Sunday School, for
example, through play and stories, the littlies would
be inculcated with simple moral philosophy. The Youth
Groups, as well as having plenty of opportunity for
fun, would also be encouraged to examine and debate
the eternal varieties. Young parents would receive
support and advice about good parenting. Networking
would ensure the congregation would know if anyone
was sick or in difficulties and support be forthcoming.
A newcomer to the neighbourhood could make a
variety of new friends without the obligation to play
soccer or whatever.
Could we meet the churches half way? They have the
premises, we have the philosophy. Many churches,
ancient and modem, are fine architectural structures.
Stripped of their religious trappings, Sunday morning
could see them filled with people singing, not songs
in praise of a mythical nonsense but of being human,
of being alive in this wonderful world. The
congregation would listen to readings and talks aimed
at giving encouragement and guidance on how to cope
with the trials and pressures of everyday life -
refreshment for the psyche.
Credentials looked for when appointing 'parsons'
would be their Degrees in Philosophy, Psychology,
Sociology, with a Diploma in Humanist Studies being
a minimum requirement.
Any move in this direction would probably need to
start in the big population centres of the World. My
dream is, though, that, a hundred or so years from
now, even in small town New Zealand, Sunday
morning would see 'sweet sixteen' don her fashionable
finery and trot along with her family to Humanist
Celebration - just to see the boys!
Return to Contents
Current Comments
Skeptics say Bravo to Rationalists & Humanists
At this year's conference of the Skeptics Society, a
Bravo Award was given to the NZARH for its exposure
of the new-ager Ellen Greve. Notice of the award was
taken by the NZ Herald. (August 26-27 2000)
'One such award has gone to the New Zealand
Association of Rationalists & Humanists for issuing
a challenge to visiting Australian Ellen Greve, who
calls herself Jasmuheen. Greve claimed not to have
eaten for the last five years, feeding instead from an
inner light within her deeply spiritual self. She
declined the challenge to not partake of any kind of
calorific intake for a week under supervision, despite
the offer of $100,000. She did, however, allow
Australia's 60 Minutes to put her to the test - no food
for a week - but the test was called off after four days
when a doctor noted that all the symptoms of starvation
had set in.
The NZARH was criticised a short while later by
Herald columnist Gordon McLauchlan for taking
Greve seriously, but as this journal noted at the time,
many people do take Greve and others like her
seriously, and someone has to step up and challenge
her dangerous nonsense. Maintaining an aloof
superiority from the safety of a fine Chardonnay is
not enough. People like Greve need to be challenged.
The NZ Association of Rationalists & Humanists did
that, and its action has been recognised by the Skeptics,
whose record in this area is second to none. Good
story. Happy ending.
Tyrants made holy
One of the surest ways to gauge the values and
priorities of any movement is to look at who they hold
up as heroes. Two recent cases of this can act as
examples. In Russia, the Orthodox Church has
declared Nicholas II, the last czar before the Bolshevik
revolution, a martyr and saint. And in the Roman
Catholic Church, similar honours have been accorded
to Pope Pius IX. The pope's pontificate was between
1846 and 1878 and the czar reigned from 1895 to 1917,
but both these men were, essentially, medieval
autocrats.
Neither understood modernity, democracy or science,
and from the limited knowledge they did have of these
things, they despised and feared them. Both men ruled
countries which were undeveloped, even by the
standards of the day. Neither of them understood or
sympathized with notions of modernising their corrupt
states, and both of them paid the price. Czarist Russia
died with Nicholas and the Papal States collapsed
finally in 1870, never to be revived again.
Nicholas II and Pius IX accorded religion a central
role in the life of the state and were prepared to act
repressively against forces which opposed their
theocratic prejudices. Both rulers were seen as
outdated relics of a past age during their lifetimes but
now, a century later, these men have been declared
holy. The very least one can say is these decisions,
and the priorities they reflect, are bemusing and
peculiar.
Science versus Superstition on the Coromandel
What a classic illustration of the gulf which separates
the scientific world view and the superstitious world
view! On September 4 two Maori men took a hike up
Mt Moehau on the Coromandel Peninsula to commune
with the reputed grave site of the leader of their tribes'
original waka. Epi Ronaki (26) and Howard Barton
(43) ran into trouble on their trek and the younger
man made his way back to alert the authorities to the
plight of his friend. This incident made national
television, in particular the assurances from a tribal
elder that Mr Barton would be protected by the sacred
spirits of the mountain.
The scientific understanding of this episode is that a
relatively unfit and overweight middle aged man who
gets lost in rugged New Zealand bush with no extra
clothing, food or water supplies is in a great deal of
danger and needs to be rescued by other human beings.
The superstitious understanding of this episode is that
a man was making pilgrimage to a place of spiritual
importance to him and that the spiritual dimension
would recognise the man's piety and tribal links with
the land and protect him.
Barton's body was finally recovered on September 13.
Return to Contents
Book Reviews
Who's Who in Hell: A Handbook and International
Directory for Humanists, Freethinkers, Naturalists,
Rationalists, and non-Theists
compiled by Warren Allen Smith (Barricade Books, New York, 2000)
ISBN 1-56980-158-4
Make no mistake, this has been a massive
undertaking. There are 1238 pages of entries of all
varieties of non-religious people from Confucius and
Anaxagoras to Bertrand Russell and Paul Kurtz. Even
more remarkable are the huge number of references
on people who have not been prominent in the
humanist movement. This work has clearly been a
mission for Warren Allen Smith for a considerable
period of time. Interspersed between the biographical
entries are comments, quotations and miscellaneous
observations on all manner of topics: death,
circumcision, William Shakespeare, Marxism,
ideology, and so on. Print size alters with the different
style of entry.
Who's Who in Hell is such a massive undertaking
that it seems churlish and ungrateful to criticise. And
yet, I am bound to observe that this is a flawed work.
First of all, there seems to be some uncertainty as to
what sort of reference work this is. The main
reference work for the freethought world is the
Encyclopedia of Unbelief (Prometheus, 1985) which
carries entries on prominent freethought individuals
as well as articles on aspects of freethought. Who's
Who in Hell seems unable to decide whether it is a
replacement to the Encyclopedia of Unbelief or a
directory of people who are freethinkers of one stripe
or another. Unfortunately, the work hasn't succeeded
in doing either to the level required to make it
invaluable. Many of the topical entries are eclectic
collections of bits taken from here and there and put
together. This is not to say the entries are
uninteresting, but it does mean that they shouldn't
be seen as anything more than a complement to the
Encyclopedia of Unbelief.
As the title suggests, it's as a who's who that this
work should properly be judged. But the problems
continue. To begin with, there are a fair number of
people who one is surprised to find in the book at all.
For example, the English philosopher Bryan Magee
rates a mention. It is correct to note that Magee is
generally atheistic, but he is specifically hostile to
what he has described as the shallows of rationalist
humanism. Even more jarring is the inclusion of
Charles Loring Brace (1826-1890), described as a
Unitarian and philanthropist. But Brace also wrote
Gesta Christi: A History of Humane Progress under
Christianity (1882) in which he attributed all progress
to benevolent Christians and all setbacks to
malevolent unbelievers. He has no place in this book.
One also has to question the inclusion policy of some
entries. Why, for instance, does Robin Mowat, known
even to fellow New Zealanders only as an itinerant
ex-serviceman, rate an entry of the same length as
that of V Gordon Childe, a prominent and prolific
Australian archaeologist and prehistorian? And are
we any further ahead with the entry 'Greene, John
Gardner (20th century). Greene has been a member
of the American Humanist Association' (page 459)
There are many entries with no more information than
this.
Then there are the errors that can only be described
as sloppy. There is an entry for 'J Bowden (20th
century)' which includes a couple of items. But then,
two entries later, there is an entry on 'John Bowden,
1888-1981', featuring some of the same information.
This is, of course the same person. Then there is Lord
Ritchie-Calder, who has one entry under 'R' and
another entry under 'C'. The amount and quality of
information on this single individual differs quite
widely in the two entries. The same happens for
Richard Blithell (wrong) and Richard Bithell (right).
Neither entry gives the correct date of birth or any
date of death (1902), even though that is freely
available in English histories that Smith must have
had access to. There are, unfortunately, many
examples of this sort of error or poor proofing.
Despite all this negativity, there is no question at all
that Warren Allen Smith has done the Humanist
movement a great service. To be able to leaf through
such an impressive variety of people makes one
almost look forward to the day we meet them all in
hell. Clearly, it's going to be a lot more fun than
heaven. It's especially interesting to see the actors,
playwrights, novelists we'll meet there. This should
help to dispel the prejudice of humanism as a way of
life only for pointy-heads. But to be truly useful, it is
important that a slimmed-down, more rigorously
selected and edited work appears sometime in the
future.
Bill Cooke
Return to Contents
Letters to the Editor
Dear Bill
Many thanks for the copy of your excellent issue dated
Spring 2000. But I have looked in vain for a caption
to the cover illustration. May I supply one? I suggest
"Trying it for size".
Barbara Smoker
Kent, England
Editor's response: good one, or perhaps "God, I'm
bored."
Dear Bill
Mr Helliwell's letter was well written and argued but
suffered the small but not inconspicuous flaw of
completely missing the point. I know Hitler and Stalin
didn't get along and I know a lot about the Second
World War (Incidentally, Stalin's forces were not 'half
way across Germany' when the Allies opened the
second front, they were still in pre-war Russian
territory. That said, before I reiterate my original point
I'll sort out some points from Mr Helliwell's letter.
Mr Helliwell first contrasted some qualities of both
Nazism and Soviet Communism. These were nice, but,
sadly, they were irrelevant. My point was that Nazism
and Socialism both regard the individual in the same
way, as a tool of the state. As a point of fact I will
clear up the nonsense that Russia had 'friendly
togetherness', tell that to the Crimean Tartars, the
Cossacks, the Germans, the Chechens, the Ingush, the
Karachi, the Balkars, the Kalmyks etc etc, who were
deported. Why did the Waffen SS manage to staff nine
divisions from peoples from under the Soviet yoke?
Why did Ukrainian units act as guards in extermination
camps?
The points that Hitler received support from 'big
business', that he vilified the Soviet Union in Mein
Kampf, the Russia 'had a tough time rehabilitating'
and 'gave a lot of help to various organisations
throughout the world', were all wonderful to read, but
once again that whole question of relevance comes
into play. All of these are utterly irrelevant to my
argument. (They killed 20 million people but at least
the Moscow underground runs on time).
My argument was that Socialism and Nazism were
identical in the way that they treated the individual.
Despite various cosmetic differences the official view
of the role of the individual was fundamentally the
same, basically as something to be sacrificed for the
good of society. Read this quote by Mr Hitler himself
about the individual.
'We must develop organisations in which an
individual's entire life can take place. Then every
activity and every need of every individual will be
regulated by the collectivity represented by the party.
There is no longer any arbitrary will, there are no
longer any free realms in which the individual belongs
to himself...The time of personal happiness is over.
Now compare it to this excerpt from a recent North
Korean press release:
'The Korean people's faith and will to firmly believe
in the respected leader Kim Jong II and remain single-
heartedly loyal to him in the revolution are growing
stronger as days go by', says Rodong Sinmun today
in a signed article. Loyalty to the leader is based on
absolute worship of him, the article adds, and goes
on: 'One's absolute worship of the leader means firmly
believing in and following one's leader only under
any circumstances and conditions. Only those who
absolutely worship their leader can possess true loyalty
to him.'
I suppose this is the wonderful message (amended for
Castro) than those Cuban missionaries who seem so
intent to get across to Florida want to tell us.
Kind regards
Hayden Wood
North Shore
Dear Bill,
My but your correspondent Norm Helliwell is a joker.
His comment about the Soviet Union's 'multi-racial
vision of friendly togetherness' was the most
hilarious send up of the UN's PC 'world vision' I have
seen to date. Unfortunately, he neglected to mention
that people who the Ultra-Capitalist, Right-Wing
Fascist, Semitic-Controlled, Liberal media biasedly
reported as waiting in line for bread were actually
joining hands together while singing a suitably non-
Western prayer. That they waited together for days is
a symbol of the triumph of the CCCP's 'friendly
togetherness.' That the people appeared near death is
a testament to the great determination of old people
to join in the friendly festivities. That television
viewers could not see their lips move is evidence of
the great collective consciousness produced by such
a tremendously 'friendly togetherness.'
Mr Helliwell, who 'individual rights' activists might
fool | |