[Though we regularly devote this section to reviews of recent publications, we decided, given our manifesto theme, to reflect briefly on two famous non-Christian manifestoes.]
The Humanist Manifesto II
Paul Kurtz; Edwin Wilson
Reviewed by Douglas Jones
The original Humanist Manifesto (1933) and its successor (1973) share the same fundamental dogmas, though the original is far more honest. Its writers, describing themselves as "Religious humanists" recognized that all worldviews are religious and even confessed that "the distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained." (Oh, if only we could get Christians to make such a commitment!) Humanist Manifesto II regresses into naivete on this point, insisting that humanism is something very different from any religious outlook.
The basic theme of Manifesto II is rather simple and runs like this: Each human, guided only by scientific and democratic values, can reach his or her full potential, only if all religious and ideological obstacles are removed. Like a seeded garden, humans will progress toward their full flowering, but they must be nurtured properly and guarded from religious diseases and ideological pests. This metaphor is significant, as we'll see.
Though one could too easily criticize the Manifesto's claims about reason, science, and egalitarianism, consider instead the conflict between the flower metaphor above and the Manifesto's central value of preserving "maximum individual autonomy."
These humanists want to make room for the full flowering of human potential, but they recognize that human nature cannot be left to its own natural development. They are well aware of the human brutalities prominent in the twentieth century. So, though the flower's seed may be good and full of potential beauty, it must be directed wisely. Nature alone cannot be trusted. Without the ethical norms proposed in Manifesto II, human nature might run unconstrained into endless superstition and violence. Very obviously, then, the proponents of the Manifesto II have to be ardently opposed to the view that whatever is natural is morally good.
Yet, at the same time they are committed to defending the moral value of "maximum individual autonomy." After all, "the preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value." But what reason do they give to justify this value? They explicitly deny any theological or ideological sanctions for it. Instead, they propose that values like this and ethics in general stem "from human need and interest." In other words, they move from a claim about nature (human need) to a claim about ethics (moral autonomy). But, as is well known, one cannot move from an is claim to an ought claim without invoking a premise such as whatever is natural is morally good. But we previously saw that their whole program assumes that such a claim is false! Surely a minimal requirement for a manifesto ought to be that it not defeat its own claims. If so, then we needn't take the Humanist Manifesto II seriously.
Communist Manifesto
Karl Marx; Frederick Engels
Reviewed by Douglas Jones
The Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) is a classic statement of romanticism, the view that reality has no edges and joints, that man may forever mold reality to his heart's desire. Though false, this romantic assumption still motivates Marx's philosophical grandchildren, whether they are busy denying the objectivity of legal and literary meaning or fighting economic reality with centralized social programs. Everything is malleable.
Most importantly, human nature is malleable and ever progressing. The traditional Marxist materialist conception of history describes a determinate pattern of economic relations squeezing out of one another, from the slave societies of Greece and Rome, medieval feudalism, capitalist industrialism to the inevitable classless societies of socialism, and finally communism. But what causes the changes between each stage? Central to Marx's answer is the assumption that human nature has an inherent tendency to expand its capacities to produce. As human nature develops its ability to produce and fill the natural limits of a certain economic stage, it finally has to break beyond one type of economic relation for another (slavery to feudalism to capitalism to socialism).
Notice the positive power of political coercion in such a view of human nature. If human nature is so malleable by material constraints, then one can use political means to urge human nature to progress, to raise its consciousness. Political coercion is not contrary to nature on this view, it helps society develop. And the grandchildren of Marx have understood this Manifesto assumption very well. They impose more and more legislation to mold us and shape us toward their false utopias. They can even purposely use legislation to create frustration so that people will prefer the next more "progressive" stage of coercion. Think of the development of our national health care policy. Start easy, squawk, frustrate, then mold.
But Christians recognize that human nature isn't malleable like that. It may degenerate, embracing more and more depravity, more and more slavery. But it won't progress or evolve toward purer ideals. Can a leopard change its spots? Neither can human nature progress on its own (Jer. 13:23). Our nature can be changed by God's regenerative work alone, and so coercive politics ought to have no place in Christian political thinking. It is futile paganism. But we can have confidence that since Marx's grandchildren build their kingdoms at odds with reality, they will have to fail. History is on our side.
