Debate:Do secular humanists want to start a world government?

I have heard that secular humanists want to start a world government? Is that true?

If not, then how can you explain this statement in Humanist Manifesto II: "We are looking forward to a system of world law and world order based upon transnational federal government?"? How can you explain the fact that three leading members of the American Humanist Association have been directors-general of three United Nations organizations: Julian Huxey of UNESCO, Brock Chrisholm of WHO, and Lord Boyd Orr of WHO.

Also, these two articles are also about secular humanism and world government: this and this.

Bowei Huang (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not? I hope they get you first for exposing the conspiracy before they got started. 03:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, couldn't hear you over the black helicopters hovering over my house. Run along now. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see Obama has been advertising for job at the FEMA concentration camps. If I can't get a job after I graduate I might apply. 03:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not under any circumstances leave the house Bowei. They know you posted this, and they are absolutely watching you. Rig some tripwires around your house and maybe plant some mines too. You have to make sure everything is secure before you can wallpaper the house in tinfoil. Until then, you aren't safe. Be careful, brother.-- 03:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * B.H., you are conflating the One World Government political idea with the New World Order conspiracy theory. 03:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not putting forward or trying to put forward a conspiracy theory. I am just asking.

Is world government (or globalism) one of the goals, aims, or let me say tenets of secular humanism and secular humanist organizations? If not, then why did they state so in their manifesto? Apart from their manifestoes, have they admitted or denied wanting to establish world government? Have they admitted it or denied it?

If secular humanists believe in socialism, globalism, and world government, then how come here in numbers 6 and 7 it says that secular humanists have a wide variety of political views and are indeed patriotic? If number 6 say that humanists have a variety of political views, then how come I have often heard the term "Humanist Left" and that humanism is socialist? Should trying to establish world government be listed as another myth about humanism? If humanists have a wide variety of political views, then how come I have usually heard about humanism as usually supporting socialism, globalism, and world government rather than nationalism and patriotism? Which is correct? Humanism as being a socialist world government ideology or humanism as being covering many views on the political spectrum? I don't understand. I am very confused!

Bowei Huang (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your first problem is in assuming that these groups speak for everyone/anyone who might think of themselves as a secular humanist. Do your due dilligence on whoever it is that's putting out the manifestos you're talking about. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)
 * Humanists do have a variety of views; that is not true of the humanist associations, which take more specific views.
 * Quit JAQing off, if you please. 03:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Then what are the views of the humanist associations? What are their views generally? What are the views of the American Humanist Association, the Council for Secular Humanism, and the International Humanist and Ethical Union? What are their specific views? Do they want to start a world government? Do they believe in or support world government? Do they believe in or support globalism? Do they believe in or support socialism? Do they support world government and globalism or nationalism and patriotism? Do they support socialism or capitalism?

Bowei Huang (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OF COURSE we want international governing bodies. Presumptive international anarchy (the current system, where states are only held in check by threat of soft or hard power being used against them by other states) is a time bomb waiting to go off. Anyone who would rather see millions of people die than give up such a recently-concocted pseudoentity as the modern nation-state needs their head examined (this assumes of course that any world government established would provide an equivalent level of representation as is currently seen in liberal democracies, or better; no government can be legitimate without a clear electoral mandate from its constituency, within the limits of maintaining stability). WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 11:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

But what about socialism? Is secular humanism socialist? Do they believe in or support socialism? What does it believes in and support in economics? What do they believe in and support in economics?

One book which claims that secular humanists want to start a world government is the book Mind Siege: The Battle for Truth in the New Millenium by David Noebel and Timothy LaHaye. Timothy LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins are the authors of the Left Behind series of books. You should look again at the globalism section in the Creationwiki link.

Is the United Nations a world government or anything like, similar to, or close to one? Is unlikely to become or change into one or anything like, similar to, or close to one in the future? If the United Nations is not a world government, not anything like, similar to, or close to a world government, unlikely to become or change into one in the future, and unlikely to become or change into anything like, similar to, or close to one in the future, then why? I mean, why do many Christians claim that secular humanists want to start a world government through the United Nations? Why do humanists want to start it through it? Why are they very worried or concerned that they would want to start a world government through it? Why still? Why? How likely is that secular humanists will start a world government through the United Nations? Is it likely to happen anytime soon? If not, then why do they still want to do so?

Bowei Huang (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Repeat after me: no single organization can speak for all people who may be self described humanists. Neither can anyone answering these questions speak for every humanist (or even half of them) on the planet. If you're going to continue JAQing off so vigorously, might I suggest some lotion?-- 02:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean the main and major humanist associations who want to do so. I'm asking mainly about them.

Bowei Huang (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will answer your question. According to the Book of Revelation in the end time the Antichrist will rise, he will be a peace maker and the world won't be at war and Israel will sign a peace treaty with someone or other for 7 years. The Roman Empire comes into it somewhere. As the Roman Empire is dead and buried modern Evangelicals need a suitable replacement and so they propose that the UN will become all powerful and move to Rome or some variation along that lines. Human Secularist are a good scape goat as they are peaceful enough people without being religious, they tick the two boxes of the Antichrist. Factor in the stupid idea that secularism is somehow attacking Christianity by not letting them run the whole show in Washington and you have ticked all three boxes on how the Antichrist is suppose to be have. So basically the pre-millennialists need a chain of events for the rapture to start and the UN taking over the world and ruling it under secular humanism is the story they spun to take into account the rapture should have occurred about 1930 years ago. 04:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)