R. Joseph Hoffmann explains the problem with Humanism.
Contemporary humanism is a mess because it doesn’t know what it believes, so much so that it doesn’t know what “it” stands for. Humanism has become the garbled message of freedom, science, democratic values, and church-state separation spread out over a playing field with no ball and no rules. It has ignored or rejected its renaissance origins (too religious?) in favor of a free-base approach to whatever grabs its attention on a given day: a Vatican blunder; an ignorant school board’s pronouncement on creation; a victimized child asked to say the Pledge of Allegiance; a pro-life television ad; an evangelical minister’s excoriation of atheists, and in the broadest sense (think Yul Brynner as the King of Siam) et cetera. It is betimes conservative, libertarian, progressive, socialist, apolitical, pro-gay, latitudinarian, anti-war and anti-Muslim, thus sometimes pro-war, 98% atheistic and 100% philosophically messy.
The argument is essentially that if you stand for everything, you’re really not standing for anything.
10. The New Humanism is hopeful. The Old Humanism was critical. It is not our job to be critical. It is our job to be hopeful.
11. We are religious atheists. We believe that there is no God, and that Jews are his chosen people. Likewise, the Chinese, Inuit, Low-achievers, etc.
12. There is no contradiction in this. New Humanists have risen above contradiction to the All Embracing.
13. And Rainbow Love.
Hmm… no sarcasm there whatsoever.
Is Humanism too broad for you or do you think it addresses a proper, particular mindset?
Are there people who call themselves Humanists who don’t give two shits about the Humanist Manifesto (whichever version)?