Freethought And Political Orthodoxy

It would seem strange to say that there is a nearly universal orthodoxy within the freethought movement.  Isn’t it the whole point of freethought to throw off the chains of dogmatic orthodoxy especially when it is of the religious kind?  The theory is that nothing is taboo to the freethinker as he considers all possibilities and reason guides his mind as he chooses among these possibilities.  On account of this, one would think that freethought would lead to a wide diversity of opinions on subject matters outside of the rejection of tradition and dogma based on authority.  What is the point of being a freethinker if every freethinker thinks alike?

Alas, that is not always the case.  Yes, I have encountered diverse points of views when I have met other freethinkers until you get to politics.  Then the conversation turns to Republican bashing, capitalism trashing, corporation hating, government loving and all sorts of liberal politics.  Actually, just about ever conversation that I have had with freethinkers inevitably leads in this direction.  You may be talking about music or philosophy one moment and then someone says something negative about George Bush and with a twinkle in his eye someone else is off and running bashing Bush. (For the record, I and many other libertarians are not fans of George Bush – father and son!)  That starts the whole avalanche of conversations that center around how swell it would be if the U.S.  were more like Europe.  Yes, I have met conservative and libertarian freethinkers but we are few and far between.

And it is not just the conversations that I have with other freethinkers.  I have been to Center for Inquiry (CFI) conferences and have attended First Coast Freethought Society (FCFS) meetings over the years and liberal politics often intruded in what I expected to be a discussion of freethought, humanism and alternatives to religion.  I have listened to a CFI conference speaker go into a diatribe against conservative politics even suggesting that conservatives are authoritarian in nature.  I have listen to another CFI conference speaker who actually suggested that we ditch the modern industrial society and return to a more “natural” state.  Of course, this ignores the fact that the modern industrial society has undeniably brought a higher standard of living to the human race.

I also remember a speaker at a FCFS meeting who spoke in support of Social Security.  When I challenged him on the sustainability of Social Security, everyone came out of the woodwork to speak on behalf of this actuarially unsound government program with someone even suggesting that perhaps people would defer retiring and this would save Social Security – something that we can hardly rely upon as Social Security’s red ink overflows its inkwell.  After the meeting ended, someone actually came over and told me that my criticism of Social Security is all that I would be allowed to say!  Not exactly a strong thumbs up for freedom of inquiry!

The reason that I no longer support CFI is that I am quite frankly frustrated with its Office of Public Policy (OPP). While the OPP does hold positions with which I agree, I cannot agree with its positions on global warming, questionable legislation like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 and its blatantly pro-Obama position on Senate vetted executive branch nominees. (One wonders whether the OPP would do the same for nominees of a Republican president!).

Then there is the newsletter of the First Coast Freethought Society. I was assistant editor of the newsletter for four years. I remember it when it first was published years before my tenure as assistant editor. At one point, I stopped reading it because I got sick of its liberal politics and attacks upon America. During my tenure, I tried to minimize politics in the newsletter even writing an article on my experiences with neighborhood canvassing for a libertarian Republican political candidate to provide balance to an article extolling the author’s efforts on behalf of Barack Obama.

I have also written rebuttals to blatantly liberal newsletter articles.  For example, I wrote in support of school choice in response to an article that claimed that public schools are necessary for humanism to strive.  Man, you would have thought that I argued for the divinity of Jesus!  People came out of the woodwork to condemn my position in the next newsletter issue.  In response to a recent article in which I rebutted a liberal position on poverty, I was told by critics in the next newsletter issue that I lack imagination and would be voted Most Likely To Be Guillotined when the next French Revolution takes place in America.  And no, that is not the first insulting comment made to me by other freethinkers when they were made aware of my  strong belief in the free market.

Finally, my biggest frustration is with the Humanist Manifestos. It would be hard to find more pro-socialism documents than these three documents. Take for example these excerpts from the Humanist Manifestos:

The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible – Humanist Manifesto I.

It is the moral obligation of the developed nations to provide – through an international authority that safeguards human rights – massive technical, agricultural, medical, and economic assistance, including birth control techniques, to the developing portions of the globe. World poverty must cease. Hence extreme disproportions in wealth, income, and economic growth should be reduced on a worldwide basis – Humanist Manifesto II.

We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life – Humanist Manifesto III.

These manifestos are what irks me the most.  I can live with the fact that freethinkers tend to be liberals.  I do not understand why this is the case since I consider libertarianism to be quite consistent with freethought in that both involve freedom from intrusive institutions within society, i.e. religion and government. But I can live with it.  However, when humanism is defined in a way that mandates that all humanists be political liberals, I feel like an outsider to the current humanist movement.  I tend to subscribe to the humanism of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment in which human affairs are considered to be more important than divine affairs.  But I find socialism to be antithetical to the freedom of individuals to pursue their own dreams with minimal interference from others who use governments to impose their visions of how things should be on the rest of us.

The bottom line is that like the separation of church and state, humanism and freethought need to be separated from liberal politics.  Humanism is a life stance in support of humans solving human problems and not waiting for some god to save them.  It is not a collection of political positions.