No ... We already have one.
In an article by regular staffer Samuel Freedman, the New York Times questions whether we secular humanists (An umbrella term "for those who call themselves atheists, agnostics, secularists and freethinkers, among other terms".) are somehow defaulting on our social responsibilities because we're not providing organized, institutional support for victims and their families like the "Bahai, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim and both mainline and evangelical Protestant congregations" and "Catholic, Congregational, Mormon and United Methodist houses of worship, among others." (Freedman is nothing if not comprehensive. Read the article here. )
The springboard for the article is the tragedy at Newtown. Organized religion was out in force - very visible, comforting everyone in sight. Where were the humanists? Actually, Freedman did find two humanist groups that collected and contributed money. But organized religion has millennia of experience in putting on an attention grabbing show. The Pope doesn't wear rich, red robes for nothing. It's not surprising that only Freedman seems to have noticed.
He quotes a number of institutionalized secular humanists to support the point of view that humanists need to develop better organizations - a professional psychologist, the humanist chaplain at Harvard. These are people who, like the priests and bishops of organized religion, make a good living from the structure that does exist in humanist society. They have an interest in expanding their business interests, again, just like the priests and bishops. I question their objectivity.
Many (Most? Nearly all?) of us celebrate our independence from the clammy grip of those who would channel our thoughts and actions. We look at the slavish obligation of our neighbors to put on uncomfortable clothes and sit on hard benches for hours every Sunday as a type of masochism. The predigested morality believers eat reminds us of the end product of organic digestion. It's something we don't want to eat.
But there is a genuine case to be made for organized effort. Most of the really good things we enjoy in society depend on it. The question is, "Where should the organization come from?" Religious people say, "Why, from God's church, of course." There are two other choices. The first is for humanists to form their own organizations, as suggested by the article. I don't see a lot of difference between The American Atheists putting a yoke on me and the Catholics doing it. A yoke is a yoke.
The second choice is government. My claim is that it's a far better choice. It's still a yoke, but civilization itself is a yoke. Our choice is, "Which yoke do we want to wear?" The only hominids free from the yoke of enforced group effort lived a solitary life in caves and became extinct.
"Church and State" have been at war with each other ever since "State" broke loose from "Church". For most of human history, they were essentially the same thing. In many countries, they still are. For example, I would claim that "Church and State" are the same thing in China. Whatever "communism" has become in China, it's certainly a belief system and they certainly have absolute control over their society. There's another parallel with organized religion: The gulf between their dogma and their day-to-day actions is wide and deep. Predatory capitalism reigns supreme in both Rome and Beijing ... but the theoretical foundations of both are completely opposite.
In a few countries in the West, "State" has a toehold on independence from "Church" ... but only a toehold. The Huckabee's and Romney's keep trying to stamp out that independence. The antagonism of most organized religion towards government - and the antagonism that they stir up among their members - becomes much more understandable when you view it as part of a "claw back" effort to regain the control over all society that "Church" once had.
One of the ways that "Church" fights their battle is to claim the exclusive right to provide organized comfort to the afflicted. In my view, we - secular humanists - should do everything we can to support "State" - our natural ally in this historic struggle.
What does this mean in practice? That we should support government assistance to the poor rather than church soup kitchens. That federal and state disaster assistance is better than Church mercy missions. I don't, of course, advocate outlawing the ability of "Church" to provide support and assistance ... but they should do it on their own without taxpayer support of any kind. And whenever we have a choice, we should work with government to accomplish things and support the efforts of government to right wrongs.
Viewed in this light, Freedman's suggestion that humanists build their own organizations is not only wrong, it's counter-productive. He misses the point entirely. Humanists already have an organization that they can and should support. It's called "the government".