Sparky - I understand what you are trying to say, but think you are looking at it from a traditional religious context. As society has evolved into an ever more complex and dynamic place, some ideologies have also evolved to reflect that.
Contrary to most religions, it accepts that its tenets are not set in stone. Its vagarities allow it to remain flexible, and to a certain extent encompass people from all walks of life - not just male, non-black, heterosexual monotheists.
I dont know that much about it yet, but it does have a concept of good. Instead of God, it sees society & self actualization (be interesting to know which one is above the other) at its core. Yes, there are times when they could be in conflict with each other, you could argue that with the Christian Golden rule. However at least this school of thought, gives you more room to make that choice.
P.S the Humanist golden rule started with the word "aim"
I think my arguments stand apart from the the religious context. The problems with the golden rule stand whatever context you are talking about.
The first, and most significant, problem is that there is no rational or logical basis for adhering to the golden rule. It is a principle plucked out of thin air. As a result, there is no argument than can be brought to bear that says that a person 'should' follow the golden rule without committing the naturalistic fallacy. As an ethical principle, it is on a rational par with any other possible ethical principle - 'people should treat others however they feel is right', 'people should treat others so that as many survive as possible', 'people should treat others so that the human species continues for as long as possible', etc, etc...
Because there is no evidential basis for 'believing in' the golden rule (or any other tennet of humanism), those who choose to call themselves humanists are guilty of the very blind faith that they say they reject in religions.
The second problem is as I have said above, absented from it's Christian context, its meaning becomes vastly different. The very ambiguity of goals (societal development and self-actualisation) that you have identified would result in different implications for the behaviour if you are following the golden rule. In fact, I'm not sure you can retain self-actualisation as a goal and also have the golden rule as an ethical principle to follow.
Throwing in fluffy terms like 'tolerance, compassion and consideration' just serve to confuse further. If I believe in societal development as a goal then I am not going to tolerate the behaviour of criminals who act against that. So why is 'tolerance' mentioned as a principle?
I also think it is highly ironic that people who complain so much about religion should identify themselves with something that is so obviously 'religious'. Apart from the blind faith discussed above, it seems to have many of the institutional trappings of religion as well.
You have the centralised structure:
Founded in Amsterdam in 1952, International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is the sole world umbrella organisation embracing Humanist, atheist, rationalist, secularist, skeptic, laique, ethical cultural, freethought and similar organisations world-wide.
Evangelism:
Our primary task is to make human beings aware in the simplest terms of what Humanism can mean to them and what it commits them to.
Hubris:
By utilising free inquiry, the power of science and creative imagination for the furtherance of peace and in the service of compassion, we have confidence that we have the means to solve the problems that confront us all.
You even have sectarianism:
This Board calls on all humanist individuals and organisations to be tolerant of each other's conceptions of humanism; and in particular, where ideas of other groups are within the basic statement on humanism, it calls on humanists to refrain from implying that these ideas are not truly humanism.
It is no surprise that the original Amsterdam declaration said:
Ethical humanism is thus a faith that answers the challenge of our times.
All from
http://www.iheu.org
Topic: Humanism, the way forward?