Violence

In an age when murderers are cheered as heroes by religious fanatics, how do we distinguish between the liberator and the lunatic? As a humanist, my measure of the ethics of any political leader or advocate for a cause is non-violence. The advocate for violence is not progressive. 

I consider self-defense in the face of aggression to protect those who are non-violent as an exceptional action which may lead to injury or even death to an aggressive attacker. The civilian fighters and army deserters in Syria who are trying to stem the slaughter of unarmed civilians are engaged in this form of self-defense. The shame of powerful democracies with great armies for not intervening surgically in this situation is obvious.

Here in Boston, a religious fanatic was sentenced to prison for planning terrorist acts in league with al-Qaeda. He gave a notorious speech in which he defended his actions as those of a defender of the oppressed. There is no greater oppressor than patriarchal religion and its violent self-justification. The sad fact that he is admired by anyone supports my point. 

Humanism, whether inspired by religion or secularism, entails a rejection of violence as a means to human progress. Its short-term gains are always leveled by violent reactions. The people of Libya and Egypt are struggling with this process. The fortunate citizens of Tunisia are beholding the blossoming of their Arab Spring, stirred by non-violence.

Contention and violence will never yield the same benefit as cooperation and conciliation. As a humanist who has worked with violent mental patients in communal settings I have seen ample evidence of the soundness of this reasoning. The most disturbed and impaired human mind responds to love and affection far more readily than to aggressive confrontation. I see humanist practice as a daily method to promote non-violent and mutually rewarding existence in a world confused by aggression and greed.