As humanists we reject the supernatural and the religions which support that belief. We marshall many facts and arguments to support our position. I have been looking for a way first to understand why so many intelligent people continue to support such practices as public prayer, and secondly, how to address those kind of problems.

Recently, the answer came when a humanist friend gave me an editorial from The World, the publication of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) of January/February, 1992. It was titled "When the Theological Tire Hits the Political Road" written by William F. Schulz, President, UUA. In this editorial, the author states: "...theological assumptions---often unspoken---about the nature of the universe and the character of humanity still underlie many of our attitudes toward public policy. Three examples come to mind."

I will include all three examples, since they concern issues which are still before the public.

"Initiative 119 which sought to permit 'aid in dying' in Washington State was defeated at the polls in November."

I will omit most of the explanation to present his argument:

"...in order to oppose all forms of euthanasia, passive or active, one must believe that suffering has some meaning which transcends its endurance for otherwise, if it be no moral good whatsoever, to impose it upon others is nothing but cruelty. If, on the other hand, we believe suffering possesses no transcendent meaning, we will be far more sympathetic to euthanasia. Our theology of suffering cannot help but bear upon our position on public policy."

"Or consider the debate about supplying condoms to teenagers. Those who argue against the practice say that it implicitly endorses teenage sex and that, because abstinence is the only safe way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases, nothing less ought be expected. Underlying this posture is a theological doctrine of human nature. It's called 'perfectionism'."

"Or consider the refusal by the Boy Scouts to admit openly gay youth to their ranks. To do so, say the Scouts, is to endorse moral turpitude. Underlying this policy---that the mere presence of certain people is enough to 'contaminate the pool'---is an ancient theological doctrine. It's called 'demonization'."

The author concludes with this admonition:

"They lie in wait for us---these theological culprits---but they lose much of their power when they're exposed to the air. One of Unitarian Universalism's highest callings is to be the agent of such exposition and, in the process, to offer the alternative of a theology as wise as it is humane."

This then, is one way to address controversy: First, define the theological assumptions and expose them, and Secondly, offer an alternative.

Along this line, I recently came across a quotation from Robert Ruark's book, Something Of Value, which states: "If you change a man's way of life, you had better have something of value with which to replace it." I have been aware of that need since I first became involved with humanism, and it forms the foundation of what I do as Program Director and as Editor.

Our present series of Lecture/Discussions is designed to help humanists understand the philosophical and theological assumptions which form the basis for our civilization and to present a humanist idea-system to replace the theological.

--Bob Green