Greater Manchester Humanist Group meeting report. June 11th 1997.

HUMANISM AND POLITICS. A GROUP DISCUSSION.

Humanism and politics are inseparable. Virtually every issue that matters to us as Humanists is political. Humanists generally support voluntary euthanasia, a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, and oppose reintroduction of capital punishment. Our education reform policies, especially concerning the teaching of RE, and the desire Humanists have for disestablishment and the removal of honorary peerages for church elders, are all political issues. Changes in the legislation affecting such concerns can only come through Parliament. With a Labour government now elected with such a commanding majority, our concerns are inevitably going to have to be put before the Blair administration.

Though there are a growing number of Labour and Lib Dem. MP’s who are among Humanism’s distinguished supporters (The Conservative Party to date has not forwarded any MP willing to declare him or her self a Humanist), it was felt that a politician who is also a freethinker is in something of a disadvantage. Many prospective MP’s secure support and respect from their constituencies by promoting their church charity work, and being seen among the people attending mass and prayer. Blair’s devotion to the Church of England, and his wife’s Roman Catholicism are taken up by some religionists to imply that Neil Kinnock’s agnosticism may well have contributed to the reasons why his Labour administration never secured political power.

One of our members, who gave strong support to her constituency’s defeated Liberal Democrat candidate, felt strongly that the high profile support of devout believers helped the winning candidate to power. For many, making a declaration of disbelief takes courage and fortitude. Some of our members compared declaring oneself to be a Humanist to the experience of homosexuals coming out of the closet. Many political meetings, and Parliamentary sessions are still preceded by prayers and piety sessions. We still think of the C of E as the Tory Party at prayer. Another example of the English preoccupation with religion among those in public office was the recent D-Day commemoration ceremony held in Normandy, where France and other countries sent secular representation, while Britain sent Bishops, priests and other religious representatives. Our member despaired that she felt that in many years of support for the political party of her choice and being in public office as a magistrate for six years, she has rarely seen the benefits of disbelief in practice, or seen anyone gain the respect they rightly deserve for open declaration that they are a Humanist, atheist or agnostic. In all her years as a magistrate, she has only ever seen two cases where witnesses have affirmed. (Another member with experience in law confirmed this to be his observation too. He added that he was tempted to challenge someone swearing on the Bible or some other scripture to say whether they really believed in it or not. If they said no, their oath would then be dismissed as unworthy testimony. Oh, things we’d love to see).

A Humanist entering the political arena should make it clear to the potential voter that prayers and politics don’t mix. Piety mater where policies are concerned. If TV coverage of Parliament focused on the prayer sessions few would watch the programme. It is how the party and candidate feels about Health, education, jobs, armed force, crime Europe, etc, that counts. The candidate should try to draw the public’s attention to these matters, and say that the potential MP who takes up time talking about his or her piety record is evading the issues that matter. It is after all, only when the prayers have ended that MP’s get down to the important issues and legislate, which is what we elect them for. So, if a Humanist is supporting a political cause, and feels that the opposition are gaining ground through slick promotion and exploitation of their piety, that fact should be used to advantage. The Humanist political angle might be that freethinkers are plain thinkers who get straight down to the hard political and economic issues involved in running a country.

The Socialist Party Of Great Britain were mentioned due to their unique ruling that anyone with religious beliefs is excluded from membership of their party. This is on the grounds that a rational society cannot possibly be grounded in irrational thinking of the kind religion requires.

Communism and socialism were seen to be great theoretical ideas and isms which have never actually been attempted in reality. The Russian system advocated by Lenin and later, by Stalin were just ‘State Capitalism’. Russia was still a developing country at the height of its industrial revolution as Communism took hold there. Marxism still serves as a vital critical opponent of the excesses of capitalism. Humanism should also be critical of political decisions that demean or devalue human worth and human culture. For many politicians, decisions are taken on black and white thinking. Recent developments in ‘fuzzy logic’ which teaches complexity, and the range of exceptions to the general rule, is a vital lesson to be learned by politicians, and by us all. Nothing should be seen as an easy solution or as simple as it initially appears.

I introduced the view that Many young people today mistrust politicians. Sleaze allegations of the kind that dominated the General election, ands possibly did most damage of all to the credibility of the Tory campaign, a sense that politicians never give straight answers to direct questions, the rude shouting, slanging matches that live political debates degenerate into, are a turn off. I had hoped to bring the topic round to how Humanists might promote encouragement to get interested in politics to the young, but our members surprised me by showing sympathy to the view that politicians are corrupt by nature of being politicians. Two of our members admitted to being non-voters in elections. One member does go the ballot station, but purposely spoils his ballot paper. He believes passionately in the slogan ‘Don’t vote. It only encourages them.’ This provoked the counter-arguement that anyone not casting a vote cannot be blamed for the Government policies passed by those MP’s who do get in. This view was parried with the opinion that the voter dissatisfied by any of the candidates he or she can choose from on a ballot paper, should be allowed to leave it blank from dissatisfaction with any of them. One Green Party supporter was saddened in the election that no candidate for the Greens stood in her constituency. Did this therefore mean she was obliged to vote for the other candidates who did stand?

There was talk of the Australian system which makes nonvoting illegal. We felt however that there was a big difference between not voting because of being too lazy to get to the polling station and not voting on principle as our dissenting non-voters clearly do. If compulsory voting is introduced in Britain, there should be a granted right to a vote of abstention too.

Humanists clearly have a passion for politics. European and ultimately, global Union, and a single world currency based economy were highly regarded by some of the members attending this meeting. It was clear that being Humanists has deeply affected how we look to our politicians, and their respective parties. Those politicians who have overexploited their religious piety have generally been viewed by us with suspicion. Those of our members who exercise their right not to vote are in some ways voting. They are saying to the candidates of all parties that we don’t think they are worthy to represent fellow members of the human race and that the vote is being held back until someone comes along who does deserve such respect. Such a protest is more potent than it seems. It says far more than the wasted ballot paper of someone who hasn’t gone to vote because it was raining outside.

Education should involve political history and theory, to encourage interest in politics among the young, who are our potential future MP’s. I also hope all Humanists will help their chosen political candidates in future elections, especially those MP’s who put decent, concrete policies before irrational evangelism of a religious or metaphysical nature.

Humanist News recommends that we should encourage, foster and participate in a public debate involving politicians and MP’s, especially those who are among the BHA’s distinguished supporters.

Our own activities have a strong internal political edge as well. Members are encouraged to approach the group committee with their views on how we run the group on your behalf, and to take their concerns to the national BHA Executive Committee as well, if they want things changing, or starting up. Remember that you let us in, just as you voted or didn’t vote for your MP. We value your support, even if The House Of Commons don’t always.

Arthur Chappell.