The following is reprinted from the March/April 1991 issue of the newsletter of the Humanist Association of Massachusetts, edited by Tom Ferrick.

Bruce Nappi of the Humanist Friendship Group gives this title ("Making Humanism Useful") to a forceful critique of modern-day humanism. His essay first appeared in Grassroots News. He states his main point very succinctly:

We must establish a community that people want to join. It must provide benefits of undisputable value for dealing with real life problems. It must satisfy people's need for social interaction and structure. It must replace the social needs satisfied by religion.

Early on he gives some credit to humanist philosophy:

The scientific method and reason have given society the tools to escape menial labor, to obtain world wide communication, to extend life spans, etc. Wherever people are suffering due to the erroneous taboos of traditional religions, the application of humanist principles will provide direct benefits.

But this liberating effect tantalizes few people. American believers, by a statistically large margin, already place their consciences above their religious authorities. And their churches interpret dogmas to conform to the prevailing values of their congregations. An implied conclusion follows: religious folk are not so uncomfortable within the constraints of traditional beliefs as to throw them off and embrace humanism. There may be some inconsistencies in this behavior, maybe some hypocrisy, but, as Nappi points out:

People ultimately do what they want in life and then invent excuses to fit their actions ... Life is very complicated. Everywhere we turn, it is filled with misleading information and endless debates. Even the so-called experts can't agree. So how do we expect average people to know the right answers? ... They cope! They ignore the inconsistency as long as they get by. God is just one more of the thousand things they don't have to know with certainty to get by.

Nappi wants to alert humanists to two major problems facing our movement. First, our principles and way of life cannot be distinguished from those of secular society in general:

This was brought home to me when I gave a copy of Humanist Manifesto II to a colleague of mine. After reading it, he responded, "Then you are a bunch of liberal, ecological, neo-socialists!"

Whether his analysis was correct or not is not the issue. The important point to note is that our society currently tolerates such a wide variety of "isms" that simply collecting a group of them together under a catchy banner, such as humanism, does not produce an obvious attraction.

As a philosophy, secular humanism has merely been a collection of prevailing secular ideas that idealize harmony among people, and between people and nature. In practice, humanist initiatives are not visibly, or functionally, unique from those of a wide variety of common religious or secular organizations. Identification as a humanist provides no benefits for personal growth or social intervention that are not available through secular organizations generally... This answer is again typified by my colleague's response to Humanist Manifesto II, "Okay, I've read it. I pretty much agree with it. So what? Why should I join your group? I already do this stuff on my own."

The second problem Nappi underscores is that humanism does not provide community. Nappi and his wife have suffered for having proclaimed their non-belief. They have lost friends because of it.

No one in our town is a humanist. No one on TV is a proclaimed humanist. Yet all these people do the kinds of things that make everyday life go on and they have fun in the process. The question of God almost never comes up and, when it does, it is easily deflected.

It seems that religious adherents are loyal as long as community and traditions are maintained; their values are reinforced in their churches, and deviation from the rules is tolerated as long as church authority is not directly challenged.

When the Nappis turn to humanists for friendship and community:

They [humanists] don't come to birthday parties, graduations, or family weddings. They aren't there to help with sickness or support us with life transitions, etc.; for us, humanism is sterile.

If the cost in becoming a humanist is so painful -- loss of community, no tradition, awash in a sea of values -- why not stay where you are? All it takes is the flexibility mentioned earlier, occasionally closing one's eyes, blocking one's ears -- that is, coping.

If humanism is to win the minds and hearts of ordinary people, it must provide community, with traditions as well as a philosophy.

Humanism, as it can be in the future, does not have to be what humanism has been.