Paul Kurtz is Editor in Chief of FREE INQUIRY, a professor emeritus of philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, and Chairman of the Center for Inquiry/Transnational.
Secular humanists represent a significant portion of the American public. They comprise tens of millions of people who, though nonreligious, are morally committed. The term nonreligious can be used broadly to refer to those who do not belong to or identify with a denomination or do not claim to believe in God—they may be agnostics, atheists, or skeptics. They look to modern science, literature, philosophy, ethics, and the arts for inspiration rather than the traditional religious “sacred texts.” They do not attempt to follow the dictates of the Bible, the Qur’an, or other ancient documents. Many nonreligious do not actively practice a faith, though, due to family and other social pressures, they may remain as nominal members of a church or temple. They are truly modern in their outlook and behavior.
For want of a better term, they are secularists, and they are committed to humanist values and the civic virtues of democracy. They believe in human freedom and dignity; they are interested in living a full life of creativity and happiness; and they have an altruistic concern for the good of others. They are generally tolerant of diverse lifestyles and believe in the right of privacy.
A recent survey conducted by the Financial Times/Harris Poll (in November and December of 2006) has not drawn the attention that it deserves, yet it is highly significant. When asked if they believed in any form of God or supreme being, 14 percent of Americans said that they are agnostics (i.e., skeptical about the existence of God, though not atheists). Only 4 percent said that they are atheists; added to this, however, are another 6 percent who said “they would prefer not to say” and 3 percent who are “unsure.” These add up to 27 percent of the general population.
How many Americans say they believe in God? Seventy-three percent, according to this poll, report belief in God, not the usual figure of 91 percent that’s often cited by the pro-religious propaganda lobby. If you add to the above statistics the numbers who are unchurched, who do not attend services except for funerals or weddings, or who are only nominal members of a religious organization, then secularly oriented people in the United States are a larger community than most religious pundits recognize. Further, many of those who claim to believe in God do so in “spiritual” rather than traditional supernatural terms. For them, God does not necessarily mean the god of theism.
Studies have shown that the more highly educated a person is, the more likely he or she is to be a secularist, agnostic, or atheist. Thus, professors at research universities are generally secular; 60 percent of all American scientists are either atheists or agnostics, a figure that rises to 93 percent for the members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences.
The level of popular disbelief in the United States, however, is lower than in any of five European countries also polled. There, agnostics again outnumber atheists, except in France, where their numbers are equal: 32 percent for each. In Great Britain, agnostics number 35 percent and atheists 17 percent; in Italy, agnostics number 20 percent and atheists 7 percent; in Spain, 30 percent are agnostics and 11 percent atheists; and, in Germany, 25 percent are agnostics and 20 percent atheists. Many in the poll responded that they “would prefer not to say” or were “not sure.”
Unbelievers outnumbered believers in every European country polled, except Italy. Europe has become secularized, and the United States now seems to be moving in the same direction.
Given the secular trends in the United States, it was a shock to see the leading Democratic candidates confess their religious commitments on June 4, 2007, when CNN’s program The Situation Room aired proceedings of the Sojourners Presidential Forum, a discussion about faith and politics sponsored by liberal evangelicals. The Protestants Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards joined Catholics Joseph Biden, Christopher Dodd, William Richardson, and Dennis Kucinich in proclaiming their religious devotion. No one dared to suggest that he or she was an agnostic, a skeptic, or “not sure,” let alone an atheist. None expressed any dissenting viewpoint or insisted on the right to privacy, as did presidential candidate Bill Bradley in 2000. Is the Democratic Party going to cave in to the Religious Right, waffle on its commitment to a secular outlook, and out-Republican the Republicans in order to garner the God vote? Despite the fact that almost all of the Democrats defend the separation of church and state, the right to abortion, and other liberal measures, they yet felt required to echo loud hosannas for that old-time religion, a disingenuous form of hypocrisy.
The Religious Right insists that, without God, there is no morality; secular humanists respond that there can be morality without God, and, indeed, that there is. Conservatives claim to defend individual freedom, but by this they mean economic liberty; all too often, they are willing to intrude into an individual’s most private moral decisions. Indeed, the Religious Right wished to crack down on moral choices that violate their religious faith, such as a woman’s right to choose, same-sex marriage, and the right to die with dignity.
The recent release of Dr. Jack Kevorkian from prison graphically illustrates the culture war that we have experienced in the past two decades. Kevorkian served eight years of a ten-to-twenty-five-year term as a martyr to the right to privacy. What is at issue is whether the right of an individual to die with dignity is a human right or whether the state or the church can prohibit this most private of decisions.
Many longtime readers of FREE INQUIRY know that this magazine was among the first to bring Dr. Kevorkian to public attention, following the publication of his book Medicide: The Goodness of Planned Death by Prometheus Books in 1991.
Modern scientific medicine is able to keep people alive long after their quality of life has deteriorated, often despite great pain and suffering. Thus it is widely conceded that passive euthanasia under certain conditions is justifiable, as when a person is dying and does not wish heroic efforts to keep him- or herself alive. Even religious people representing a wide range of denominations accept the morality of euthanasia.
Secular humanists have battled valiantly for the recognition of that right; the need for a living will is also widely accepted. A person of sound mind should express his or her intentions beforehand. Anyone who has witnessed a loved one die in excruciating pain and prolonged agony knows what is at stake. This is especially the case when the person does not wish to delay the process of dying and pleads for help. A compassionate regard for the suffering of others moves many individuals to aid suffering patients if they can. It is well known that many doctors and families will quietly agree to administer increased doses of morphine to hasten death.
In some cases, patients wish to commit suicide but are unable to do so by themselves, and so assisted suicide seems like a meaningful option. If a mature person, after reflection, asks for help, can a doctor prescribe medication for that person to die? The state of Oregon has such a law. This permits mentally competent, terminally ill adults to self-administer such drugs. The intention must be stated in writing and expressed orally at least twice. Similar bills have been introduced but defeated in states such as Vermont, California, Hawaii, Washington, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Maine. The right to die with dignity by means of assisted suicide is protected by law in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland.
I have disagreed with Jack Kevorkian in the past, since I insist that assistance in dying should be granted only when a patient has a terminal illness and is suffering debilitating pain.
Dr. Kevorkian dealt with certain patients who were unable to swallow or administer the medication themselves. There are often difficult moral dilemmas that arise; many who wish to advance the cause of assisted suicide are fearful of the slippery-slope argument and would confine assisted suicide to terminal patients, not anyone at anytime. In contrast, Dr. Kevorkian helped patients to die who were not terminally ill but nevertheless wished to end their lives. I find some of these cases morally problematic—such as the case of a woman who learned that she had the beginnings of Alzheimer’s disease, but, to that point, had suffered neither debilitation nor a decline in her quality of life.
I am hopeful that the right-to-die movement might renew its advocacy for legislation that provides adequate safeguards against abuse. We have experienced a dark period during the culture war when strident voices sought to prohibit all forms of euthanasia—passive or active—as the Terry Schiavo case so tragically dramatized. Senator Bill Frist sought government intervention to prohibit the removal of Ms. Schiavo’s feeding tube, though she had been in a coma for a decade. Frist was roundly criticized and indeed the Schiavo affair undermined his prospects as a presidential candidate. (After Ms. Schiavo died, an autopsy indicated that she had long been brain-dead.)
There is considerable public sentiment in support of euthanasia and of limited assisted suicide—and it is time to make the moral case again. Jack Kevorkian remains a symbol of this movement.
The worst fears expressed about the appointments of Chief Justice John J. Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito to the Supreme Court have come true. And the dismal prophesies of Edward Tabash, Chairman of the Council for Secular Humanism’s First Amendment Task Force, are regretfully being fulfilled. Tabash has pointed out repeatedly that a conservative Court is likely to overturn years of precedence guaranteeing the liberties protected by the First Amendment, especially the separation of church and state and the rights of unbelievers.
Of particular concern is the recent ruling against the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), which was supported in its lawsuit by an amicus brief filed by the Center for Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism. FFRF contested President Bush’s executive order allowing government support of faith-based charities, and, in particular, it objected to a conference in which officials of the Bush administration encouraged faith-based charities to apply for federal grants. The conference was funded with taxpayer dollars—-an outrageous promotion of religion in violation of the establishment clause. Nonetheless, the Court refused to grant standing to the atheist and agnostic taxpayers, saying that taxpayers can challenge only those expenditures that are expressly mandated by Congress. Since the funds in question were allocated by the Executive Branch, the Court reasoned that FFRF had no right to challenge the expenditures. This ruling makes no sense logically, since, ultimately, all funds are appropriated by Congress, even where the Executive Branch retains some discretion on allocation. Under our Constitution, the Executive Branch has no power to tax and spend absent congressional authorization. The real reason for the decision is to place another obstacle in the way of those who seek to challenge government support of religion.
A civil libertarian lawyer, John Tobin, has repeatedly warned that five Roman Catholic justices now comprise a majority of the Court. (See also Wendy Kaminer’s op-ed “Supreme Sectarians” on p. 18 of this issue.) Although Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is at times in the middle, there are clearly four justices (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas) hostile to separation of church and state. One would hope that religion is not relevant and that the justices would rule only in terms of the legal issues, not their theological commitments to the Vatican. Justices Roberts and Alito argued during their Judiciary Committee hearings that they were strict constructionists. Yet, in twenty-one cases, there has been a shift to¬ward a 5 to 4 majority, invariably in favor of religion and a narrow interpretation of civil liberties.
Edward Tabash has pointed out that the next national election is crucial and that, if Justice Stevens (now eighty-seven) leaves the Court and is replaced by another religious conservative, the rights of religious unbelievers could be endangered for decades to come.
CFI SUMMIT
OCTOBER 24-27 2013
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
Joint Conference of the Council for Secular Humanism, Center for Inquiry, and Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
The transnational secular humanist magazine
Renew your FREE INQUIRY subscription