The American Humanist Association needs focus on its identity.

On January 22, 1877, the word “Humanist” arrived in America. Applying it to Felix Adler, the New York Daily Graphic said: “Dr. Adler preaches what is known in Germany as Humanism.”

But Felix Adler didn't welcome the word Humanist. He preferred instead to establish his own movement with the name Ethical Culture. Ethical Culture today is a Humanist religion – see <www.NYSEC.org>.

What, then, is Humanism? The Humanists who met at the University of Chicago in the 1920s went public with A Humanist Manifesto (1933). Its successor today is Humanist Manifesto 3 (2003), the latest official statement of what Humanism means. We publish it from time to time in Freethought Forum. Why doesn't it appear in every issue of The Humanist? Why isn't the A.H.A. actively promoting its own official statement of what it stands for?

Now The Humanist (May 2007) has proclaimed Alice Hubbard a Humanist post mortem. She would probably be surprised to learn that she's now considered a Humanist.

Then there's Congressman Pete Stark. A longtime Unitarian, he says he is an atheist. Is he also a Humanist? Has he ever said so? Did he attach his name to any of the Humanist Manifestoes? Has he entered the Manifesto into the Congressional Record? If not, why not? Unless Pete Stark is a Humanist, why has the A.H.A. used its limited resources to publicly identify itself with him?

Next time you see Humanist Manifesto 3, read it carefully. You will see that it contains no mention of words such as Unitarian or God or theist or atheist or non-theist or agnostic or humanitarian or Democrat or Republican. What, then, is a Humanist? It's pretty clearly set out by the Manifesto, an official statement. The term “Humanist” should not now be diluted into meaninglessness.

Francis Mortyn