Opinion > December 6, 2007

By Marisa Menezes | Guest columnist

In the Nov. 29’s column, “Humanism espouses unrealistic view of mankind,” sophomore Matt Brumit not only unnecessarily mocks humanists but also completely misrepresents their views.

Brumit showed an insensitivity, disrespect and unawareness of basic tenets of the philosophy that differed from his own belief system – something we could use a lot less of in today’s world.

After reading Brumit’s article, I felt compelled to do my own research about Humanism, so I read all three of the Humanist Manifestos, the first originating in 1933 and the last written in 2003. Contrary to Brumit’s assumption, humanists do not hold that humanity is “perfect” or that “humanity as a unit … is GOD.” On the contrary, the overarching philosophy behind Humanism is that all humans have the ability to make right and wrong moral decisions based on rationality.

Humanists also believe that the responsibility of upholding a just world weighs solely on humanity itself, excluding the notion that we should rely upon any god or supernatural being to do so for us. While this may completely contradict Brumit’s personal beliefs, he undermines his argument against Humanism by basing it on false assumptions.

The actions of Hitler, Stalin and Mao, which Brumit argues contradict the idea of Humanism and therefore proves the invalidity of Humanism, are addressed in the Humanist Manifesto II, written in 1973. Based on Brumit’s understanding of the philosophy, Humanism holds that these dictators “killed their own people… (b)ecause they were gods, and gods can do whatever they want.” With the previous description of the accurate beliefs of Humanism, one can see that this is obviously an incorrect assumption.

The Humanist Manifesto II directly addresses the problems these regimes inflict upon the humanist philosophy and attempts to reassess Humanism precisely so misunderstandings, such as Brumit’s, do not occur. What is important to understand is that Humanism does not espouse that all humans will act out of goodness; on the contrary, it argues that all human beings have the capability to act out of goodness and, more importantly, should. The manifesto reads, “We believe that humankind has the potential, intelligence, goodwill and cooperative skill to implement this commitment (to a peaceful and prosperous world) in the decades ahead.”

It is offensive enough that Brumit used up an entire article to bash another belief system without doing basic research first.

However, what saddens me most about Brumit’s piece was that his approach alienated his readers, even those who share essentially the same views.

Brumit’s basic argument is that Humanism is too contradictory to adequately represent the world we live in.

While many may believe this to be true, when Brumit compares humanists to Satan and proceeds to spend over half of the piece expounding upon the truth of the God in which he believes, he implies that his beliefs are the exact opposite of Humanism – not contradictory at all.

While Brumit never explicitly argues that his beliefs completely lack any contradictions or hypocrisy, the extreme stance he takes on Humanism incites readers to feel an equally extreme reaction to Brumit’s condescending tone.

Many would argue that part of the beauty of the Christian God is His mystery – the apparent contradictions that exist within His Word and the appalling acts that occur despite the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful God; these contradictions are what necessitate faith.

In addition, many Christians share some of the same views as humanists. Many Christians believe that God gave humans free will, and that therefore, humans have a God-given responsibility to use the reasoning skills with which God blessed humans to make the right ethical decisions.

Why must Brumit demean another belief system as useless, when at the very least Humanism compels us to question our own responsibility to the world we live in?

Marisa Menezes is a senior English major from Annandale, Va.