This 100th issue of the EHA Bulletin is, like the previous 99, simply an attempt to express the various views of humanists whether from Ealing or elsewhere. Unlike previous issues, this one includes a contribution from each of our committee members and our past editor. Also, as light relief, there are quotations by Epicurus and George Bernard Shaw.

Our monthly Thursday evening meetings are generally planned to deal with pre-selected topics while the coffee morning on the second Saturday of the month is far less formal. There is no limit to what humanists discuss and there is no heavily prescribed way for them to think on any matters. Humanist discussion ranges widely across the typical spectrum of topics one might encounter in any group interested in exploring ‘ideas’ and usually takes the civilized format of the old fashioned common-room debate and, surprisingly, rarely comes close to the more colourful bar-room brawl.

We occasionally pause to discuss the nature of humanism but, on the whole, the strict subject of humanism is frequently set to one side. We don’t waste much time trying to define ourselves. Humanism is mostly treated as a way of thought which affects our attitudes to everything and its fundamental definition is kept somewhat in the background and rather taken for granted.

On those occasions when humanism is discussed as a topic in its own right, we do not always agree on how to define ourselves.

However, it usually emerges that humanists are largely characterised as people who take the view that, even in a secular country, organised religion is far too powerful in human affairs. Humanists are generally people who have rejected a belief in any form of personalised god as well as in the divine nature of the numerous ‘holy’ books claimed to have been inspired or written by a supernatural being.

Over and above this popular but rather negative image, modern humanists have a sincere and very positive interest in supporting those ideas and institutions which derive principles directly from human needs and aspirations – i.e. those secular institutions which concern themselves with human affairs without noticeable interference from the pressures of organised religious bodies.

The human race has not had much experience of building up a way of life wholly based on the pure notion of human values. Most societies grow up with traditional festivals, rules, celebrations, moral codes etc which claim to have originated from ‘the gods’ or to be symbolic of a belief in them.

When a very senior British judge recently claimed that his office of judging was a God-given office it only emphasised the long tradition of treating the human race as subjects of a superior being. Humanists know this is not the way things should be but their secular aspirations never completely displace irrational traditional belief systems. Nor should they, one might say.

In a society strongly influenced by privileged religious bodies, humanism serves a useful role - through intelligent comment and criticism. But, as an institution, it remains in opposition - to use a party political phrase. It is not a ‘church’ waiting on the sidelines for an opportunity to take over. By its very nature, humanism remains simply a way of thought.

Human nature, if given the freedom to do so, will always be characterised by diversity. The numerous attempts to put it into a single straight-jacket of a prescribed belief system, whether of a religious or secular nature, have ultimately failed. But there will be further attempts to impose ‘God-given’ or totalitarian constraints on society and it is hoped that humanism will always remain in active opposition.

It is also hoped that, for the next 100 issues, the EHA Bulletin will continue to reflect this opposition while also reporting the more positive angles and rational thinking that is the basis of modern humanism.

Anthony Constable