I would like to comment on Mr. Gamble’s response to a recent column on secular humanism. While I agree that the humanist manifestos profess a zealous base of faith, I do not agree that this base is religious. The crux of the issue lies in what constitutes a religion. I concede that humanism may resemble a religion in some aspects, but lacks the distinguishing factor of religion, namely a telic aspect that requires a quantum leap into an absolutely other-worldly, radically transhuman realm. The secular humanists’ faith is in humankind and this world, and they deny any possibility of this sort of transcendent, supernatural goal. According to your implied definition of religion, any secular enthusiasm, such as feminism, vegetarianism, or socialism, would be labeled a religion. While these “isms” may detract from the authoritarian influence of most religions, they are in reality simply doctrines or credos.

Secular humanism is not trying to undermine or replace Christianity. The manifesto states that they “encourage maximum freedom for different moral, political, religious and social values in society.” Also, I would like to know in which version of the manifesto you find Christianity called a “rotting corpse.” I certainly have never come across such a statement in either manifesto, or even a comment singling out Christianity in general. Humanists state that religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life, and adopt their quest for abiding values. However, they view today’s religion as outdated, ineffective, divisive, dogmatic, unrealistic and unable to cope with existing world problems. I do not agree with all aspects of secular humanism and would not sign the manifesto myself, but I do feel that it deserves fair treatment.

Donna Lundstrom

senior

visual comm. major