'Imagine No Religion' signs to go up around Phoenix

[D1B]

Joltin Joe said... Cap, D1B...???

If a humanist philosophy isn't "taught", how is it passed on? And if it is taught, doesn't that philosophy then become it's own religion?

T-Man, I don't think humanism is a "religion." It is a philosophy, a political philosphy of governance, which is at odds with natural law. Its theological expression is found in atheism.

Natural law is a product of the enlightenment which challenged the concept of the divine right of rulers. Natural law holds that each individual is endowed by a creator with certain inalienable rights which no ruler has any right/privilege to invade. It is at the root of our concept of individual liberty.

Our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence are pure expressions of natural law. Under our constitution, the government does not derive its authority from any sense of "divine right"; instead, it governs only with the consent of the governed, who are understood to be created with certain inalienable rights. To bombastically suggest that our constiution rejects any sense of theology, or "freedom from religion" is ridiculous. What it rejects is "divine right." Our constitution sees the Creator as the source of individual rights, and the inviduals as the source of governmental authority, through a contract with government -- a government by consent of the governed. Accordingly, the government's authority is secondary to invidual rights.

Humanists, however, reject the idea of a creator, and thus reject the concept of having been endowed by a creator with inalienable rights. Many humanists still understand, however, that there is "natural order" to existence which is the font of individual rights. This sounds fine in concept but has proven elusive in practice. This concept was at the root of the Soviet constitution, a pure expression of humanist political and social ideology which, in theory, expressed an idealized vision of man as the "most precious capital." In practice, however, without the assurance that the concept of individual liberty transcended the authority of the central government, or that government acted only with the consent of the governed, the government devolved into a totalitarian state -- despite its beautiful constitution.

So beware when amiable intellectuals in our universities attack natural law, and advance humanism as an alternative. Historically, that has proven to be a slippery slope.

Wrong again Joe. You are confusing atheism with secular humanism. To hold soviet style communism/tyranny as a perfect application of secular humanist ideals shows your ignorance, again. You also deny the economic, religious and historical factors that contributed to the soviet state.

Man as the ideal is practiced by millions of good people worldwide. Secular humanist ideals have played a central role in advocating human rights, often denied to people by theological doctrine and improving lives.

You and I are not much different here. I believe in the positive potential of man and advocate promotion of man as an ideal. You do the same thing, except you project those same ideals (love, togetherness, cooperation, concern for others) to a deity (a ghost), and unfortunately at the same time denigrate man - the cornerstone of christianity.

[JoltinJoe]

T-Man, I don't think humanism is a "religion." It is a philosophy, a political philosphy of governance, which is at odds with natural law. Its theological expression is found in atheism.

Natural law is a product of the enlightenment which challenged the concept of the divine right of rulers. Natural law holds that each individual is endowed by a creator with certain inalienable rights which no ruler has any right/privilege to invade. It is at the root of our concept of individual liberty.

Our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence are pure expressions of natural law. Under our constitution, the government does not derive its authority from any sense of "divine right"; instead, it governs only with the consent of the governed, who are understood to be created with certain inalienable rights. To bombastically suggest that our constiution rejects any sense of theology, or "freedom from religion" is ridiculous. What it rejects is "divine right." Our constitution sees the Creator as the source of individual rights, and the inviduals as the source of governmental authority, through a contract with government -- a government by consent of the governed. Accordingly, the government's authority is secondary to invidual rights.

Humanists, however, reject the idea of a creator, and thus reject the concept of having been endowed by a creator with inalienable rights. Many humanists still understand, however, that there is "natural order" to existence which is the font of individual rights. This sounds fine in concept but has proven elusive in practice. This concept was at the root of the Soviet constitution, a pure expression of humanist political and social ideology which, in theory, expressed an idealized vision of man as the "most precious capital." In practice, however, without the assurance that the concept of individual liberty transcended the authority of the central government, or that government acted only with the consent of the governed, the government devolved into a totalitarian state -- despite its beautiful constitution.

So beware when amiable intellectuals in our universities attack natural law, and advance humanism as an alternative. Historically, that has proven to be a slippery slope.

Wrong again Joe. You are confusing atheism with secular humanism. To hold soviet style communism/tyranny as a perfect application of secular humanist ideals shows your ignorance, again. You also deny the economic, religious and historical factors that contributed to the soviet state.

Man as the ideal is practiced by millions of good people worldwide. Secular humanist ideals have played a central role in advocating human rights, often denied to people by theological doctrine and improving lives.

You and I are not much different here. I believe in the positive potential of man and advocate promotion of man as an ideal. You do the same thing, except you project those same ideals (love, togetherness, cooperation, concern for others) to a deity (a ghost), and unfortunately at the same time denigrate man - the cornerstone of christianity.

I'm not wrong, and I don't confuse secular humanism with atheism. I said secular humanism is a philosophy; and that it finds its theological expression in atheism.

How is that wrong? Do secular humanists believe in God? No, so that makes them, theologically, atheists.

And you're right, we're not that different. I think we have the same concepts of what is right and wrong, just different reasons for thinking so. What troubles me about your position, however, is that your morality is not based on objective truth. And where there is no objective truth, there is relativism; and where there is relativism, there is utility; and where there is utility, individual rights can easily become secondary to the "common good."

[D1B]

Wrong again Joe. You are confusing atheism with secular humanism. To hold soviet style communism/tyranny as a perfect application of secular humanist ideals shows your ignorance, again. You also deny the economic, religious and historical factors that contributed to the soviet state.

Man as the ideal is practiced by millions of good people worldwide. Secular humanist ideals have played a central role in advocating human rights, often denied to people by theological doctrine and improving lives.

You and I are not much different here. I believe in the positive potential of man and advocate promotion of man as an ideal. You do the same thing, except you project those same ideals (love, togetherness, cooperation, concern for others) to a deity (a ghost), and unfortunately at the same time denigrate man - the cornerstone of christianity.

I'm not wrong, and I don't confuse secular humanism with atheism. I said secular humanism is a philosophy; and that it finds its theological expression in atheism.

How is that wrong? Do secular humanists believe in God? No, so that makes them, theologically, atheists.

And you're right, we're not that different. I think we have the same concepts of what is right and wrong, just different reasons for thinking so. What troubles me about your position, however, is that your morality is not based on objective truth. And where there is no objective truth, there is relativism; and where there is relativism, there is utility; and where there is utility, individual rights can easily become secondary to the "common good."

Fair enough Joe. IMO, you are wrong on objective truth - relativism - tyranny. Further explain please.

[Cap'n Cat]

Joltin Joe said... Cap, D1B...???

If a humanist philosophy isn't "taught", how is it passed on? And if it is taught, doesn't that philosophy then become it's own religion?

T-Man, I don't think humanism is a "religion." It is a philosophy, a political philosphy of governance, which is at odds with natural law. Its theological expression is found in atheism.

Natural law is a product of the enlightenment which challenged the concept of the divine right of rulers. Natural law holds that each individual is endowed by a creator with certain inalienable rights which no ruler has any right/privilege to invade. It is at the root of our concept of individual liberty.

Our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence are pure expressions of natural law. Under our constitution, the government does not derive its authority from any sense of "divine right"; instead, it governs only with the consent of the governed, who are understood to be created with certain inalienable rights. To bombastically suggest that our constiution rejects any sense of theology, or "freedom from religion" is ridiculous. What it rejects is "divine right." Our constitution sees the Creator as the source of individual rights, and the inviduals as the source of governmental authority, through a contract with government -- a government by consent of the governed. Accordingly, the government's authority is secondary to invidual rights.

Humanists, however, reject the idea of a creator, and thus reject the concept of having been endowed by a creator with inalienable rights. Many humanists still understand, however, that there is "natural order" to existence which is the font of individual rights. This sounds fine in concept but has proven elusive in practice. This concept was at the root of the Soviet constitution, a pure expression of humanist political and social ideology which, in theory, expressed an idealized vision of man as the "most precious capital." In practice, however, without the assurance that the concept of individual liberty transcended the authority of the central government, or that government acted only with the consent of the governed, the government devolved into a totalitarian state -- despite its beautiful constitution.

So beware when amiable intellectuals in our universities attack natural law, and advance humanism as an alternative. Historically, that has proven to be a slippery slope.

Completely whacked, self-absorbing overinflated sense of self-importance doo-doo, Monsignor Joe.

You are officially the John St. Wronge of CS. Hope you're proud.

SMFH........

[JoltinJoe]

T-Man, I don't think humanism is a "religion." It is a philosophy, a political philosphy of governance, which is at odds with natural law. Its theological expression is found in atheism.

Natural law is a product of the enlightenment which challenged the concept of the divine right of rulers. Natural law holds that each individual is endowed by a creator with certain inalienable rights which no ruler has any right/privilege to invade. It is at the root of our concept of individual liberty.

Our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence are pure expressions of natural law. Under our constitution, the government does not derive its authority from any sense of "divine right"; instead, it governs only with the consent of the governed, who are understood to be created with certain inalienable rights. To bombastically suggest that our constiution rejects any sense of theology, or "freedom from religion" is ridiculous. What it rejects is "divine right." Our constitution sees the Creator as the source of individual rights, and the inviduals as the source of governmental authority, through a contract with government -- a government by consent of the governed. Accordingly, the government's authority is secondary to invidual rights.

Humanists, however, reject the idea of a creator, and thus reject the concept of having been endowed by a creator with inalienable rights. Many humanists still understand, however, that there is "natural order" to existence which is the font of individual rights. This sounds fine in concept but has proven elusive in practice. This concept was at the root of the Soviet constitution, a pure expression of humanist political and social ideology which, in theory, expressed an idealized vision of man as the "most precious capital." In practice, however, without the assurance that the concept of individual liberty transcended the authority of the central government, or that government acted only with the consent of the governed, the government devolved into a totalitarian state -- despite its beautiful constitution.

So beware when amiable intellectuals in our universities attack natural law, and advance humanism as an alternative. Historically, that has proven to be a slippery slope.

Completely whacked, self-absorbing overinflated sense of self-importance doo-doo, Monsignor Joe.

You are officially the John St. Wronge of CS. Hope you're proud.

SMFH........

Translation: "over my payscale" (although the irony of you calling anyone else "whacked," or "self-absorbed," with an "overinflated sense of self-importance" is ripe).

Even worse, you are the Cap'n Cat of CS.

[JoltinJoe]

quote]

Fair enough Joe. IMO, you are wrong on objective truth - relativism - tyranny. Further explain please.

I think that was already discussed in this thread and, frankly, I'm tired of this.

[D1B]

quote]

Fair enough Joe. IMO, you are wrong on objective truth - relativism - tyranny. Further explain please.

I think that was already discussed in this thread and, frankly, I'm tired of this.

Translation: I know absolutely nothing about secular humanism. I'm purposly reckless in applying to the soviet union. It's important for others viewing this thread to erroneously confuse it with communism, atheism, marxism, soviet-style communism, nihilism, moral relativism and other isms so I can claim some kind of victory and quit. I'll avoid explaining objective truth, especially as it relates to christian dogma, because I know in my heart, there is no objective truth in christianity as it relates to this discussion, just faith.

[JoltinJoe]

I think that was already discussed in this thread and, frankly, I'm tired of this.

Translation: I know absolutely nothing about secular humanism. I'm purposly reckless in applying to the soviet union. It's important for others viewing this thread to erroneously confuse it with communism, atheism, marxism, soviet-style communism, nihilism, moral relativism and other isms so I can claim some kind of victory and quit. I'll avoid explaining objective truth, especially as it relates to christian dogma, because I know in my heart, there is no objective truth in christianity as it relates to this discussion, just faith.

I've forgotten more about secular humanism than you will ever know. But you're not going to bait into this debate any more, just so when I answer you question, you and your brother can engage in vitriol.

(i know, I know. I'll make this easy for you guys. Here's the link to the Merriam Webster: vitriol

You guys are just two blowhards. You guys never lose, because you get creamed intellectually, you throw tantrums and hissy fits until the other guys give up. And then you claim victory.

Keeping blindly reading Paul Kurtz (now in his fourth year as the world's reigning atheist). Make sure, though, you throw out all you Anthony Flew books. I know he used to be the most important atheist.

[D1B]

Translation: I know absolutely nothing about secular humanism. I'm purposly reckless in applying to the soviet union. It's important for others viewing this thread to erroneously confuse it with communism, atheism, marxism, soviet-style communism, nihilism, moral relativism and other isms so I can claim some kind of victory and quit. I'll avoid explaining objective truth, especially as it relates to christian dogma, because I know in my heart, there is no objective truth in christianity as it relates to this discussion, just faith.

I've forgotten more about secular humanism than you will ever know. But you're not going to bait into this debate any more, just so when I answer you question, you and your brother can engage in vitriol.

(i know, I know. I'll make this easy for you guys. Here's the link to the Merriam Webster: vitriol

You guys are just two blowhards. You guys never lose, because you get creamed intellectually, you throw tantrums and hissy fits until the other guys give up. And then you claim victory.

Keeping blindly reading Paul Kurtz (now in his fourth year as the world's reigning atheist). Make sure, though, you throw out all you Anthony Flew books.

Joe, it's painfully obvious you know nothing about secular humanism. You are also a blowhard to beat all blowhards. Quit embarrassing yourself. Step up or get the F out like you promised 25 posts ago. But you won't because secular humanism is a serious threat to you and your backward way of life.

4th year for Kurtz! Now I know you are full of shit. Better hit Wikipedia again and study up.

BTW, I believe Flew compiled the dictionary of Philosophy. Great book.

[JoltinJoe]

I've forgotten more about secular humanism than you will ever know. But you're not going to bait into this debate any more, just so when I answer you question, you and your brother can engage in vitriol.

(i know, I know. I'll make this easy for you guys. Here's the link to the Merriam Webster: vitriol

You guys are just two blowhards. You guys never lose, because you get creamed intellectually, you throw tantrums and hissy fits until the other guys give up. And then you claim victory.

Keeping blindly reading Paul Kurtz (now in his fourth year as the world's reigning atheist). Make sure, though, you throw out all you Anthony Flew books.

Joe, it's painfully obvious you know nothing about secular humanism. You are also a blowhard to beat all blowhards. Quit embarrassing yourself. Step up or get the F out like you promised 25 posts ago. But you won't because secular humanism is a serious threat to you and your backward way of life.

4th year for Kurtz! Now I know you are full of shit. Better hit Wikipedia again and study up.

BTW, I believe Flew compiled the dictionary of Philosophy. Great book.

You need to head back to school.

You know, Dostoyevsky also wrote a book about you.

[D1B]

Joe, it's painfully obvious you know nothing about secular humanism. You are also a blowhard to beat all blowhards. Quit embarrassing yourself. Step up or get the F out like you promised 25 posts ago. But you won't because secular humanism is a serious threat to you and your backward way of life.

4th year for Kurtz! Now I know you are full of shit. Better hit Wikipedia again and study up.

BTW, I believe Flew compiled the dictionary of Philosophy. Great book.

You need to head back to school.

You know, Dostoyevsky also wrote a book about you.

Really? I'm honored. Al Franken wrote this about you:

[JoltinJoe]

I have an idea that might help you understand relationship between humanism and the Soviet Union.

Read Animal Farm. It's short ... and the horsies talk.

[D1B]

I have an idea that might help you understand relationship between humanism and the Soviet Union.

Read Animal Farm. It's short ... and the horsies talk.

Here you go again, confusing communism with humanism. Nice try.

Looks like you got some homework tonight. Start with Forbidden Fruit by Paul Kurtz, but make sure you finish your chores and pray to baby jesus before lights out. If you finish chapter one, I'll give you an extra graham cracker after nap time.

[JoltinJoe]

Yes, yes, ... I'm sure Kurz shares some post-Soviet rationalization that nothing connects Communism and Humanism. Communism is bad; humanism is good. So, duh, communism has nothing to do with humanism. Where would anyone even get such an idea!

But before Kurz, there was Lenin, and Lenin, as we know, was a Marxist, and Marx said:

"Communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution."

What a wonderful guy I am. I spent years learning this stuff, and I share it with you for nothing. I accept your thanks in advance.

[D1B]

Yes, yes, ... I'm sure Kurz shares some post-Soviet rationalization that nothing connects Communism and Humanism. Communism is bad; humanism is good. So, duh, communism has nothing to do with humanism. Where would anyone even get such an idea!

But before Kurz, there was Lenin, and Lenin, as we know, was a Marxist, and Marx said:

"Communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution."

What a wonderful guy I am. I spent years learning this stuff, and I share it with you for nothing. I accept your thanks in advance.

Hansn't read a word of Kurtz and pulls out a Marx quote. You are on "tilt".

Tell you what Joe, when I get home from work tonight I prepare a humanist refresher for you. OK? Then if you're good, I'll read you a story about baby jesus and Noah's Ark before I tuck you in. OK?

[JoltinJoe]

Yes, yes, ... I'm sure Kurz shares some post-Soviet rationalization that nothing connects Communism and Humanism. Communism is bad; humanism is good. So, duh, communism has nothing to do with humanism. Where would anyone even get such an idea!

But before Kurz, there was Lenin, and Lenin, as we know, was a Marxist, and Marx said:

"Communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution."

What a wonderful guy I am. I spent years learning this stuff, and I share it with you for nothing. I accept your thanks in advance.

Hansn't read a word of Kurtz and pulls out a Marx quote. You are on "tilt".

Tell you what Joe, when I get home from work tonight I prepare a humanist refresher for you. OK? Then if you're good, I'll read you a story about baby jesus and Noah's Ark before I tuck you in. OK?

Oh, you've convinced me. You're right. What do Marx and Lenin have to do with Soviet Communism? What was I thinking?

[D1B]

Hansn't read a word of Kurtz and pulls out a Marx quote. You are on "tilt".

Tell you what Joe, when I get home from work tonight I prepare a humanist refresher for you. OK? Then if you're good, I'll read you a story about baby jesus and Noah's Ark before I tuck you in. OK?

Oh, you've convinced me. You're right. What do Marx and Lenin have to do with Soviet Communism? What was I thinking?

You're losing it Joe. Step back, take a deep breath, it's going to be OoooooKaaaa.

Below posted by Joltin Joe 9/4/8!
But before Kurz, there was Lenin, and Lenin, as we know, was a Marxist, and Marx said:

[JoltinJoe]

Actually, let's just take this from the top. Lenism/Marxist was humanistic in its governance, holding that man was "precious capital" with fundamental rights, but not rights endowed by a creator. Those rights were recorded in the Soviet Constitution, and were in many respects similar to the rights enumerated in the US Constitution, although they also included economic rights. The government had a duty to protect these rights, but not because they were "inalienable" or as a result of man's status of being a creation of his Creator.

What today's humanists say -- and they are not wrong about this -- was despite the humanism of the Soviet Constitution, the Soviet government did not govern according to humanistic principles. Therefore, they argue (and they are not wrong about this either), that the Soviet revolution went off the tracks at some point, no doubt by the point that Stalin took power. So, they say, Soviet Communism was not humanstic. As you said earlier, the problem was bad leadership. I don't disagree with that either.

Here's the point: anytime you create a centralized, powerful government, and then reject the concept that this government is subordinate to a higher authority, you will attract bad leadership like bugs find a light. Stalin prevailed in Russia because he was drawn to the power of the powerful government, asnwerable to no other authority. He ousted the humanist Trotsky (oh, how things would have been different if Trotsky had prevailed over Stalin, humanists lament) precisely because he was not the humanist.

So I understand the point that secular humanists make today: that Soviet Communism was not humanistic in its application. I understand your point. My point is that such a government, at some point, will inevitably degrade from humanist principles -- just as predicted by Dostoyevsky.

Humanism is a great theory, but it will fail in application.

That's the point. Can you address it?

Yes, so I get your point. Now address mine.

[D1B]

Actually, let's just take this from the top. Lenism/Marxist was humanistic in its governance, holding that man was "precious capital" with fundamental rights, but not rights endowed by a creator. Those rights were recorded in the Soviet Constitution, and were in many respects similar to the rights enumerated in the US Constitution, although they also included economic rights. The government had a duty to protect these rights, but not because they were "inalienable" or as a result of man's status of being a creation of his Creator.

What today's humanists say -- and they are not wrong about this -- was despite the humanism of the Soviet Constitution, the Soviet government did not govern according to humanistic principles. Therefore, they argue (and they are not wrong about this either), that the Soviet revolution went off the tracks at some point, no doubt by the point that Stalin took power. So, they say, Soviet Communism was not humanstic. As you said earlier, the problem was bad leadership. I don't disagree with that either.

Here's the point: anytime you create a centralized, powerful government, and then reject the concept that this government is subordinate to a higher authority, you will attract bad leadership like bugs find a light. Stalin prevailed in Russia because he was drawn to the power of the powerful government, asnwerable to no other authority. He ousted the humanist Trotsky (oh, how things would have been different if Trotsky had prevailed over Stalin, humanists lament) precisely because he was not the humanist.

So I understand the point that secular humanists make today: that Soviet Communism was not humanistic in its application. I understand your point. My point is that such a government, at some point, will inevitably degrade from humanist principles -- just as predicted by Dostoyevsky.

Humanism is a great theory, but it will fail in application.

That's the point. Can you address it?

Yes, so I get your point. Now address mine.

If you are still interested, perhaps before we move on, you could expound on your understanding of what secular humanism is. What do you believe are its principles? What is its objective?

To your point:

History is littered with the ashes of religious governments that have imploded. Russia, for centuries, was ruled by deeply religious czars who were scared shitless of god.

I obviously disagree. Humanist pricipals such as tolerance, reproductive freedom, equal protection under the law, equal rights, critical ethical inquiry, etc. have had tremendous influence on goverments and the quality of life for citizens, including ours, for centuries. Their effect on religion, perhaps even greater. Sure a government that is not answerable to a higher authority may and often does degrade, at great expense of its citizens. To use our governement for example, it's answerable to us. We are the higher power. And as we will see in November, once said government (Bush Administration) ceases act in accordance with humanist principals, it will be gone.

Government is only as strong as it citizens.

If I may, from Forbidden Fruit:

"I don't mean to condemn everything about religious sytems of morality. At best, theistic morality has inspired devotion to others, an appreciation for the brotherhood of man, and a committment to charity; though theists have often been censorious and divisive in proclaiming their gospels and have counterposed differing theologies of virtue against one another. There is no guarantee that belief in the fatherhood of God leads to an ethical reality of the brotherhood of man. On the contrary, strict conformity to religious systems can engender fratricidal warfare. There is a difference of course between fundamentalist religions, which insist upon the inflexibility of the law, and reflective religious moralities, which have been influenced by humanist values and principles such as tolerance, which interpret their religious needs as metaphorical guides, and which draw upon philosophical inquiry in the framing of moral choices. Needles to say, it is the former forms of religion, not the latter, that I am objecting to most strenuously in this book."

[D1B]

Humanism is a great theory, but it will fail in application.

.

Humanism is not a political system.

Millions upon millions of people lead and have led ethical lives based on humanist principals.

As I have said before, your own religion has been dramatically transformed due the the application and adoption of humanist principals.

[JoltinJoe]

You need to head back to school.

You know, Dostoyevsky also wrote a book about you.

Really? I'm honored. Al Franken wrote this about you:

You really haven't addressed my point.

[D1B]

Really? I'm honored. Al Franken wrote this about you:

You really haven't addressed my point.

I don't care.

[JoltinJoe]

Humanism is a great theory, but it will fail in application.

.

Humanism is not a political system.

Do you mean it is not a political philosophy, because that is what I called it. I called it a theory of governance ... I never called it a political "system."

But then again, you're right. All the political philosophers who wrote about humanism, both favorably nd critically, didn't understand this point.

[D1B]

Humanism is not a political system.

Do you mean it is not a political philosophy, because that is what I called it. I called it a theory of governance ... I never called it a political "system."

But then again, you're right. All the political philosophers who wrote about humanism, both favorably nd critically, didn't understand this point.

But you do?

[travelinman67]

I have an idea that might help you understand relationship between humanism and the Soviet Union.

Read Animal Farm. It's short ... and the horsies talk.

I don't care who you are...that's funny.