The Zennist: The dark side of humanism

Humanism has given us much in the way that is good. It is not a bad thing as the Religious Right believe who started using the term after the collapse of the Soviet Union and with it, the collapse of Communism. Indeed, humanism goes back to ancient Greece with it notion of ethical individualism and the adversarial legal system. Humanism is responsible for extending education to the masses. It inspired the study of the Bible on an individual basis. It gave us political and individual rights such as the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights. It freed us of slavery and the sweat shop. It gave us universal health care. It gave women the right to vote and laws to protect children and much more.

Humanism, in a nutshell, upholds the value and dignity of every individual, regardless of their external conditions—rich or poor.

Still, there are extreme forms of humanism such as secular humanism which is “a form of humanist theory and practice that rejects religious belief as a basis for moral judgment and action.” Secular humanism, it seems to me, goes beyond upholding the value and dignity of every individual when it comes to religion. It says, indirectly, there can be no humanism other than secular humanism.

This position takes no notice of the fact that Buddhism, for example, came from a culture with almost no such thing as a secular philosophy—certainly not like today. Nevertheless, Indian culture has always emphasized the right of individuals, by their own efforts, to plumb the mystery of existence in diverse ways, realizing this mystery for themselves. This, I believe, is connected with India’s idea of freedom or svaraj (lit., own-rule)—the greatest of all humanist values.

With secular humanism, however, there is a slight of hand trick that is easily missed if we are not paying attention. While it rejects religious belief—or better yet—everything religious, with secular humanism man becomes God, but a demiurgic god, as evil as evil can possibly be. The best recruits are those who were once theists but eventually rejected every form of theism. Their metamorphosis went from being credulous stooges to becoming iconoclasts.

Those who have undergone this metamorphosis have entered the sacred precincts of Buddhism branding their Buddhism as “Secular Buddhism” which I dare say is a travesty. They will do nothing but destroy Buddhism like a psychopath unconsciously bent on harming everything that is good. While they are making mischief they will find protection and shelter under humanism, in general. But they are no more humanists than were the members of Mao’s Red Guard.