The president of the Swedish Humanist Association is one Christer Sturmark, a 40-something man whom the media like to point out wears a pony-tail and a gold ring in his ear, and who is often referred to (by the same media) as an old IT guru. Be that as it may, he has brought the SHA to the forefront of public debate, leading to an amazing increase in membership and resources with which to battle religious fundamentalism, pseudoscientific woo and other things humanism opposes, as well as improving our own various ceremonial services and other activities. That the SHA has Sturmark to thank for most of this, I doubt anyone would contradict.
He is not entirely uncontroversial, however, and lately there have been a few elements within the SHA spreading what can only be seen as disinformation intended to hurt his reputation, regarding his personal life. I will not dwell on the exact nature of this discussion because it’s actually rather stupid. What is interesting though is what these people, when they have met with resistance from within the association, have done. A specific question has been raised: Are we allowed to criticise The Leader? Is the SHA in actuality a sect-like organisation?
This is obviously beyond ridiculous, and here’s why:
Christer Sturmark is not Our Leader. Nor is Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Cristopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, or any other prominent atheist or humanist you can think of. There are prominent thinkers within this loosely-held-together movement. There are prominent debaters, there are presidents of organisations, there are board members and there are people who are famous for other reasons who ally themselves with us (Björn Ulvaeus of ABBA fame being the obvious example in Sweden).
Many of us feel grateful to these people, for standing up for our worldview and beliefs, for taking the slings and arrows of the religious counter-attacks, and for developing and refining our worldview and the arguments for it.
But, and this is the important bit, they don’t tell us what to think or do. They don’t tell us what we believe. None of us went to a tent revival where Pastor Dawkins made us see the light and repent. There is no God and Sturmark is most definitely not his Prophet. Most atheists who were ever anything but atheists are self-converts - they thought about their worldview and realised it was wrong. Books and speeches by prominent atheists and humanists may have helped, but in the end, this is a thoroughly individualistic movement, which requires all members to make up their own minds. (In fact, the SHA has an age limit of 12, as we think it’s unethical to ally your children with a worldview organisation before they have had the chance to make up their own mind.)
Sturmark is an individual who happens to be the president of the SHA. I’m an individual who happens to be a member of the SHA. I do not think that just because he’s the president, his beliefs are more humanistic than mine, and that I ought to defer to him in everything related to our worldview. I do recognise authority where it is due, but this is not one of those cases. So yes, it is perfectly okay to criticise people like Sturmark, or for that matter the “Four Horsemen”. The fact that such criticism is often ignored, or sometimes vehemently disagreed with, does not reflect any sect-like tendencies, but rather suggests two things:
The first is that most atheists/humanists either agree with what these public faces of atheism/humanism think, or feel such a debt of gratitude that they feel obliged to defend them.
The second is that because of the very fact that these people aren’t Leaders, in the way that the Pope is the Leader of the Catholic church, there is no obligation on us (the members) to defend or denounce them.
The point here is that while for instance Ted Haggard’s behaviour was extremely important to the members of his church, because he purported to speak for a Higher Authority, such is not the case when it comes to Sturmark or other official leaders of the humanist/atheist movement. It may damage our reputation with other people outside the movement when our elected leaders make mistakes, but among us, we know that all humans are just that - human. Everyone makes mistakes, and if we made a mistake in electing a particular leader, so be it. Because we never claimed that these people are perfect representations of all it means to be a humanist, there is no need to act as though it’s the end of the world when they do something we don’t agree with - at least so long as they don’t claim to do it in the name of the movement.
My conclusion is that those within the movement who accuse us of cult-like tendencies are actually displaying the very same tendencies themselves, as they seem to suffer under the delusion that a person has to be without fault to be eligible to lead the movement!
humanism, atheism, sturmark, cults
