THE IMPLICATIONS OF HUMANIST MANIFESTO
For those who deny the existence of God, the Humanist Manifesto represents the best of human thought today. We have to note, too, that Manifesto has within it the origins of most contemporary movements, philosophies as well as theologies. The influence of humanism has been patently pervasive. The humanists have formed modern society. They cloak evil in the nebulous garb of scholarly discourse and good intentions. When they say that their Manifesto “transcends the narrow allegiances of church, state, party, class or race” they tend to parody the Pauline message to the Galatians: “For it is through faith that all of you are God’s sons in union with Christ, and so have taken upon yourselves the qualities of Christ himself. So there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles, between slaves and free men, between men and women: you are all one in union with Christ Jesus”( Galatians 3:26-29).
Today, the unification of mankind has become a real possibility. To the humanist, everything is permissible provided that it is between consenting adults and does not harm other human beings.
But in practice, some humanists have gone far beyond this concept. Erica Carle, a humanist to the core said to some schoolchildren: “It’s ok to lie…it’s ok to steal….It’s ok to cheat; it’s ok to kill… if these things are part of your own value system and you have clarified these values for yourself. The most important thing is not what values you choose but that you have chosen them yourself…freely and without coercion by parents, spouses, priests, friends, ministers or by social pressures of any kind.” In Weep For Your Children by Dr. Murray Norris, he quotes part of the creed of the British Humanist Association as follows: “I believe in no god and no hereafter. It is immoral to indoctrinate people with such beliefs. Schools have no right to do so, nor indeed have parents….Unborn babies are not people. I am as yet unsure whether the grossly handicapped are people in the real sense. I believe that there is no such thing as sin to be forgiven and no life beyond the grave but death everlasting.”
Dr. Sidney Simon is one of the top Humanist educators in America. He invented the Sidney Simon Method of Education, sometimes known as Values Clarification. Many schools adopted this method and variations of it have spread, like wild fire, throughout the world. Basically, Simon’s philosophy is that children must discover their own values for themselves rather than be taught values. Like all humanist ideas, the idea sounds plausible. Therein lies the danger of humanism, which is often, we repeat, couched in evil coated with sugar and presented in the vestments of scholarly discourse. The entire thrust of humanism is to make mankind more human, more gentle, more loving and kind. The very sad fact is that years of experimentation with the philosophy of humanism have made men and women less human, in spite of the fact that the belief tends towards the opposite.
Our present situation is a direct result of systems of education very similar to and in consonance with the Sidney Simon Method. According to Simon, “schools must not be allowed to continue fostering the immorality of morality. An entirely new set of values must be nourished”. Consequently, throughout the whole world, Nigeria in particular, a powerful effort was made to wrest schools from the hands of the “moralists.” Ukpaby Asika and Offia Nwali executed the Sidney Simon philosophy of education in the then Eastern Region of Nigeria, via the Government take-over of Missionary-owned schools. The sad consequence speaks for itself.
There is a powerful link between Women’s Liberation Movements, the Humanists and the Population Planners. Gloria Steinam, a well-known international leader of Women’s Lib and a humanist stated in the November/ December 1977 issue of The Humanist that “Feminism is the path to humanism and it is humanism which is the goal.”She is also reported as saying at a Houston Texas U.S.A. meeting that “for the sake of those who wish to live in equal partnership, we have to abolish and reform the institution of marriage.” The Saturday Review of Education in March 1973, quoted Gloria as saying: “By the year 2,000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential not god.”
THE BACKBONE OF HUMANISM
The success of humanism is, to a considerable extent, due to the huge financial support it received from big humanitarian and philanthropic organisations as well as from USAID and the United Nations. We have already mentioned some of the top philanthropists and their investments to achieve their goal.
The philosophy which inspires the United Nations, founded on October 24, 1945, is that of Materialistic Secular Humanism The guidelines were laid down by the first three Directors of the United Nations Organisation namely: Dr. Julian Huxley, who was the first Director-General of United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). He was an atheist, who wrote that “UNESCO…must work in the concept of what I call Scientific Humanism.”; Lord John Boyd Orr was the first Director-General of Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO). He was a humanist though not an atheist; Brock Chisolm was the first Director-General of World Health Organisation (WHO). He, too, was an atheist. Those three Directors-General were humanists. Brock Chisolm was described as a radical humanist. He wrote a book titled Evolution And The Future Role Of WHO. He wrote that “what people everywhere must do is to practice birth control and miscegenation in order to create one race, in one world, under one government.” Chisolm looked forward to the day when there would be ‘a U.N. brown man’ who would be of mixed blood, no religion, with subjective morality and no nationality. Those three men set out deliberately to change the behaviour, beliefs and customs of mankind. Their objective was to create a world citizen with a world atheist culture.
Another reason for the success of humanism is that many of the leading humanists were media people, writers, artists, communicators and philosophers. Their voices and work resounded world-wide because of the explosion in information technology, now made so much more palpable by the Internet, which, before its advent, even made credible Marshall McLuhan’s assertion that the earth was reduced to the dimensions of a small village, an observation which Hillary Clinton severally echoed.
The scientific humanism which each of those three Directors-General preached was based on Darwinism. Charles Robert Darwin ( 1809-82) was an English naturalist who originated the theory of evolution by natural selection. The Darwinian theory of evolution holds that all species of plants and animals developed from earlier forms by hereditary transmission of slight variations in successive generations, and that the forms which survive are those that are best adapted to the environment ( natural selection).
In the acceptance of this theory of Darwin lies the most basic error of the three Directors-General. This is the theory of the survival of the fittest. This is the theory in which capitalist ideology is rooted. According to the theory, the weakest in society are meant by nature or the creator to be exploited by the strongest, so that an ever superior strain of humans may evolve. The worker must be sacrificed on the altar of human progress. This is still the philosophy guiding the U.N. today.
But researches in Science have faulted Darwinism. New experiments in genetics, including the production of test-tube baby and chromosomal analysis, triggered a lot of alarm bells about the future of human genesis and called in question once more the whole theory of evolution. New evidence emerged to indicate that man is not the result of the progressive humanisation of lower species, but an original. For a number of years, geneticists have known that every human was made up of 46 chromosomes. But since 1970 it has become possible to identify the different chromosomes and even to frame them by their actual structure. One startling discovery resulting from this is that the human being did not come from a progressive humanisation of a pre-human. So the apes, certainly, could not have been our ancestors. In fact, scientists have discovered that the “wiring” of the human chromosomes is just the opposite of the “wiring” of the ape or chimpanzee chromosome.