Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Mar 19, 2026 3:59 am
Well, one of the most commonly repeated Humanist aphorisms, occuring both in their manifestos and frequently repeated to each other, is "Nothing human is alien to me." (Everybody from Publius Terence Afer, the Roman playwright, to Maya Angelou, the modern novelist have quoted it with approval.) But if we believe that, it means that everything humans have ever done is part of what it means to be human, and has to be something that Humanism approves, therefore.
Trivial error: Publius Terence Afer wrote that quote in a play. And we don't know if he was a humanist in the modern sense, most likely he was pagan and believed in gods. And since it is a line in his play, it's a category error to assume he believed it. On the other hand it fits with Greco-roman ideas at the time that said similar things and were clearly not stamps of approval on immoral behavior, but about the recognition that we all have urges and desires that could lead to harmful acts.
Main error: IC is conflating understanding with moral approval. The idea which fits with ideas in the Greco-Roman world at the time, is that humans share qualities, weaknesses, and moral struggles. It actually fits very well with Christian ideas that we are all sinners and/or potential sinners. And it has been quoted and respected by religious leaders. Again, IC interprets this to mean moral approval. He can't seem to see the humility in what is being said and the connections to Christian values. It is, in part, directly fighting the idea that those evil people over there are not human or are not in my category. When in fact the wiser person realizes they they also have hatred, instrumental reasoning and treatment, lack of empathy etc, lurking around in themselves. Humility, not moral approval of those who act out driven by things we all have.
We don't blame dogs for acting like dogs. We don't blame birds for flying or laying eggs. We don't blame fish for swimming, or even for eating each other. Dogs, birds and fish do what dogs, birds and fish do. Human beings, we are told, are just animals -- so why, among all the animals, do we blame human beings for certain very human actions they take, like those listed above?
This ignores that in general humanists see humans as exceptions in terms of self-awareness, cultural inheritance and the ability and need to generate ethical systems, which nearly all humanists actively do. So, avoiding the distinct capacities and responsibilities that most humanists value and in fact these idea can easily be found, so not only is this not charitable, it's facile and lazy.
So, we have self-interested, uncharitable misinterpretation. Over-generalization of the misinterpretation. Contextomy with the mere animals quote mining.
Imagine what the nasty non-Christian could do with quotes like
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged.”
— Matthew 7:1
The uncharitable misreader non-Christian could easily twist this into an approval of the same things IC thinks humanists must believe. (he's always telling people what they must believe)
“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” — John 8:7
We can't punish or incarcerate anyone unless we are without sin. Oh, look, Jesus approves of adultery.
“All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”
We are all the same. We can't judge anyone else or their behavior, since really we all fall into the category 'sinner'.
“All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful.”
The uncharitable non-Christian who loves contextomy can have a field day with that one:
It means, I can do anything morally, but some things might lead to practical problems
Now to be clear, I am not saying those quotes mean what the uncharitable non-Christian might use them for in a parallel fallacious argument. And of course most Christians would rightly so explain the context of these quotes and explain how they are being misused by the uncharitable non-theist. Rightly so.
Here are a couple of Christian ideas that I think our uncharitable calumniator might want to consider:
“You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.”
and instead of his current attitude:
“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”
The main point: "Nothing human is alien to me" is not a prescriptive statement, it's descriptive.
Or is your allegation that all such are simply arbitrarily ruled out of your account of what "human" means?