No religion without humanism<\/p>\n
By Franz Magnis-Suseno SJ<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Religious people like to be suspicious of
\nhumanism. For them, it smells of trying to center on humanity
\ninstead of God. Sometimes, a distinction is made between two
\nkinds of humanism: Religious humanism, which is the good
\nhumanism, and secular humanism, which is the bad one.<\/p>\n
Thus religious humanism is OK, while secular humanism is not.
\nThe case against secular humanism is reinforced by the undeniable
\nfact that in Europe, humanism often had an anti-Christian,
\nespecially anti-Catholic edge.<\/p>\n
But, in fact, humanism -- a concept which first surfaced in
\n14th century Italy when pre-Christian Roman and Greek literature
\nand art were rediscovered -- has, in the 20th century, taken on a
\nnew meaning in face of totalitarian, fascist and sectarian
\nthreads to human dignity.<\/p>\n
Humanism now is, first of all, a strong moral belief, a moral
\nconviction. It is the belief that every human being should be
\nrespected as a person, as a full human being, not because he or
\nshe is wise or stupid, a good or a bad guy, and irrespective of
\nwhat region, ethnic or religious community he or she belongs to,
\nor whether it is a man or a woman.<\/p>\n
It means respecting him or her for his or her identity, with
\nhis or her beliefs, ideals, anxieties and needs. It means a
\nperspective where fundamental respect does not depend on the
\nqualities or capabilities of the respective person, but only on
\nthe fact that this person is a human being.<\/p>\n
This implies (to quote Richard Rorty) that the worst thing we
\ncan do to others is cruelty. Cruelty can under no circumstances,
\nand on behalf of no reasons, be justified. Humanism means
\nrefusing cruelty in principle. There can be no reason justifying
\nbeing cruel to other persons.<\/p>\n
Not being cruel means: Never inflict pain on others except if
\nthey give you the right to do so (think of the dentist), neither
\nphysically by hurting other persons, nor psychologically by
\nhumiliating or despising them.<\/p>\n
The important thing for the humanist is: You don't need any
\ntheoretical reasons for not being cruel. To offer reasons why one
\nshould better not be cruel would be an obscene idea. Looking for
\njustifications for not being cruel would imply that you might be
\nprepared to be cruel if you had convincing reasons for being so.<\/p>\n
But it is precisely this what is incompatible with humanism.
\nIf you do not know this, you are a dangerous and evil person,
\nbecause if you could find the right reasons you would be cruel
\nwithout feeling bad. One of the most disgusting things is asking
\nfor reasons why one should not be cruel.<\/p>\n
Humanism, then, means solidarity on principle with the other
\nperson, what ever he or she is. It means an attitude of caring,
\nbeing sensitive to the vulnerability of other persons. It means
\ncompassion crossing the lines of primordial or other social
\npartitions.<\/p>\n
It implies the nonacceptance of injustice: Unjust treatment
\ncan never be right, and this holds true also toward strangers or
\npeople outside one's own community, even toward our enemies.
\nHumanism implies fairness and love of justice.<\/p>\n
It is obvious that this humanism extends above the narrow
\nboundaries of \"my own group,\" be it my religious community, my
\npeer group, my ethnical community, my tribal or regional group.
\nThis is the power of humanism, that it is no longer bound to
\nideologies and other theoretical justifications. It is a
\nprincipled stand affecting \"my position\" in all dimensions.<\/p>\n
Two more remarks. First, religious and secular humanism should
\nnot be put up against each other. Humanism is humanism, and it
\ndoes not depend on a certain religious or ideological background.<\/p>\n
Humanism as the firm conviction that other people always
\nshould be treated as human beings can powerfully unite people
\nfrom different religions and creeds, in building a society where
\nthe safeguarding of the dignity of all its members as human
\npersons is regarded as its most important objective.<\/p>\n
Second: Certainly, it is most appropriate that religious
\npeople and institutions stand in the forefront of humanism. They
\nshould, without exception and conditions, endeavor to make
\nsociety a place for every member of the society, regardless of
\nwhether he or she belongs to one's own religious community or
\nnot.<\/p>\n
Humanism is nothing less than the criteria of the genuineness
\nof religion. Religious teachings that justify cruel behavior
\ntoward other sentient beings, that inflict pain on, or humiliate,
\nother human beings because of religious reasons, for instance to
\npreserve \"the right faith\", disqualifies themselves, or, better,
\ntheir protagonists.<\/p>\n
Inhumane behavior, cruelty in the name of God, should be
\nsomething abhorrent. It should be regarded as blasphemous. It is
\na fact that during history, up until today, people were
\npersecuted, tortured, shot, burned or killed by the sword in the
\nname of religious laws or orthodoxy.<\/p>\n
This is a terrible misunderstanding of what religion really
\nis. It is a perversion of God's will. It goes on account of human
\nblindness, hardness of heart and arrogance. What has happened
\ncannot be undone again.<\/p>\n
But now, we should draw a line: No religion without humanism!<\/p>\n
Religious people of all creeds and denominations should stand
\nunited in their resolution to outlaw all inhumane, cruel
\nbehavior, especially in the name of religion.<\/p>\n
Father Franz Magnis-Suseno SJ, a Jesuit priest, is a
\nprofessor of social philosophy at Driyarkara School of Philosophy
\nin Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/no-religion-without-humanism-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}