Notes on the Religion of Humanism—
An Inhumanist Critique of The Humanist
Wikipedia defines “humanism” as “a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence over acceptance of dogma or superstition.” The Humanist, “a magazine of critical inquiry and social concern,” adds to that definition “hip and high-brow humanism for the modern freethinker,” which inevitably results in a highly-subjective, thus self-protective, definition. And so, what might happen when a freethinker dares to actually criticize the magazine and its editor? Perhaps that would automatically render him or her insufficiently hip, insufficiently high-brow, and insufficiently modern. And, of course, quite unsurprisingly, the editor in full disdain for democracy, will NOT respond.
After leafing through three issues of The Humanist, which I’d picked up in a library free magazine box, I inevitably concluded that humanism had been coopted and oddly become a sort of PC-religion for those who purportedly rejected religion. Humanism, at least that espoused by the magazine, which was an organ of the American Humanist Association, had clearly become an echo of Democrat-Party ideology—black good/white bad identity politics, white-privilege BS, prisoners good/cops bad, global warming fact/not theory, hate Trump ranting, cultural appropriation, transgender bathroom issues, and of course racism, racism, racism ad nauseam.
The Humanist would have at least been honest if it had instead called itself The DNC, “a magazine of critical ideology and socialist leaning.” Alas, how can ideologues possibly be honest? And so, we have members and followers—not real individuals—, conferences, and of course Humanists of the Year, Humanist Arts Award and Feminist Humanist Award recipients. Ijeoma Oluo was the black-privilege recipient of the latest FHA, who, according to the white Editor-in-Chief of the magazine and Deputy Director of the American Humanist Association, Jennifer Bardi, “challenges white humanists to do the hard work of addressing privilege in order to change the system that so benefits us…” Original statement… or rather just more PC, where privileged people of one color yack about privileged people of another color? How exciting!
“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Turns Seventy” is the one article that really grabbed my attention. It appeared in the December issue and was written by Duane Paul Murphy (Fall 2018 editorial intern at the American Humanist Association). Its egregious omission of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) mind-boggling decision in October against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and Article 19 of the UDHR is shameful, to say the least! How could Murphy possibly have ignored that horrendous decision, especially since he quoted Article 19?
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression: this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Why did The Humanist remain silent regarding that egregious omission? Well, perhaps ISLAM is the reason. “The Court found [in conclusion that in the instant case] the domestic courts carefully balanced the applicant's right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected […],” noted the ECtHR, which determined that “religious feelings” of Muslims trumped freedom of speech. Sabaditsch-Wolff rightly argued with that regard:
In other words, my right to speak freely is less important than protecting the religious feelings of others. This should ring warning bells for my fellow citizens across the continent. We should all be extremely concerned that the rights of Muslims in Europe NOT to be offended are greater than my own rights, as a native European Christian woman, to speak freely. I am proud to be the woman who has raised this alarm.
Sadly, the ECtHR decision did not ring warning bells at all to DNC, uh, humanist ideologues. Murphy, hypocritically, concluded his article: “Humanists must show solidarity in acting to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and continually define and protect human rights and civil liberties for all people.” Yeah, sure, but what about Sabaditsch-Wolff’s rights and liberties? And why precisely did my poem, “A Post-Mortem Poem for Maren Ueland and Louisa Vesterager Jespersen,” not suit the “editorial needs” of The Humanist? Both Ueland and Jespersen were tortured, raped, and beheaded by Islamist haters of Article 19 in Morocco. What about their rights and liberties? Silence! BTW, that poem was rejected less than one hour after I’d sent a satirical cartoon to Bardi, depicting her swearing allegiance to the DNC. Thin skin? Perhaps The Humanist ought to add that to its definition of humanism, as in Gen-X thin skin.
Perhaps also it is time that religion be defined as ANY ideology, including humanism, where fact and reason are rejected whenever they might challenge the doctrine in question, as well as the doctrine’s partisans. In conclusion, so much unoriginal PC-echoing vibrates intrinsically throughout The Humanist. Will the editor-in-chief respond to this critique, that is, with something more substantial than “doesn't suit our editorial needs” and “We wish you the best in placing it elsewhere and thank you again for thinking of us”? Ideologues hate debate. Ideologues hate freedom of speech. As a life-time atheist, who rejects ideology, including that of the DNC, what might I be? Well, I can’t be a humanist because humanists embrace that ideology. Perhaps I am therefore an inhumanist?
No comments:
Post a Comment