What was Epictetus’s favorite snack?
In other “pesky brown foreigners wanting to come here” news, it turns out you have to pass a test to be a humanist.
A Pakistani man who renounced his Muslim faith and became a humanist has had his application for asylum in the UK rejected after failing to correctly answer questions about ancient Greek philosophers.
The Home Office said Hamza bin Walayat’s failure to identify Plato and Aristotle as humanist philosophers indicated his knowledge of humanism was “rudimentary at best”.
Uh…what? Who says Plato and Aristotle even are humanist philosophers? Especially in any modern sense that an ex-Muslim would have in mind? Aristotle is a largely secular philosopher perhaps; Plato isn’t even that. They’re considered part of a broad humanist education, I’ll buy that, but that’s because of the long history of humanist education as meaning drawing on the Greek and Roman classics. Very few modern humanists would put them on a basic humanism reading list, I should think. Maybe the Euthyphro, but more likely a modern version with mention of the Euthyphro.
Walayat, who has lived in the UK since 2011, said he had received death threats from members of his family and community in Pakistan after integrating into secular British life, forming a relationship with a non-Muslim partner and refusing to conform to the expectations of conservative Islam.
Apostates are subject to discrimination, persecution and violence in Pakistan. In March last year, a student who had stated he was a humanist on his Facebook page was murdered at his university.
Yes yes yes but did he know who Anaxagoras was?
Walayat claimed asylum in July last year after being served with removal papers for overstaying his student visa.
After an interview with immigration officials, the Home Office said he had “been unable to provide a consistent or credible account with regards the main aspect of your claim, namely that you are a humanist”.
When tested on his knowledge of humanism, Walayat gave a “basic definition” but could not identify “any famous Greek philosophers who were humanistic”.
That is simply ridiculous. People who want to kill him for being an apostate won’t be fretting about his familiarity with the Greek philosophers, I can assure you.
The Home Office concluded: “Your knowledge of humanism is rudimentary at best and not of a level that would be expected of a genuine follower of humanism.”
Hey! The requirements are nowhere near that stringent. They are simply non-belief in Islam, non-worship of the prophet, non-compliance with Sharia, non-attendance at a mosque, non-observance of Ramadan, not-praying five times a day, and the like. They’re negative; they’re refusal; they’re saying No. The Home Office really ought to know that.
Walayat joined the Humanists UK organisation in August, but said he had believed in the basic principles of humanism from childhood.
According to Humanists UK, “humanism is not a ‘canonical’ belief system, where adherents must learn and follow a strict set of behaviour codes. As a descriptive term, humanists can be someone who has simply rejected religious belief but holds some positive conception of human values.”
In a letter in support of Walayat’s asylum application, Bob Churchill, of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, said: “For many, the broad descriptive ‘humanist’ is just a softer way of saying atheist, especially if you come from a place where identifying as atheist may be regarded as a deeply offensive statement.”
Andrew Copson, of Humanists UK, said the move “set a dangerous precedent for non-religious people fleeing persecution. The Home Office is simply incorrect to claim that non-religious people seeking asylum don’t get the same protection in law as religious people do.”
The questions put to Walayat “reveal a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of humanism”, he added.
Or, more cynically, just an underhanded excuse for denying someone asylum.
Ketchup? No? Ice cream?
I give up.
Somehow I have the feeling that the Home Office’s test for being a Christian does not require a deep knowledge of the writings of Aquinas.
They seem to be confusing “humanist” meaning the philosophical/ethical position with it meaning a someone who is a humanities major. Oh, and Epictetus was probably content with a few crusts a cup of dirty water. Because prohairesis or something.
Presumably the Home Office believes that mobs of religious zealots will hold off on attacking an atheist until they have administered an exam confirming their victim has read and understood various Dawkins texts.
I am a 65 year old white male Australian, brought up with a rudimentary understanding of the place ancient Greeks played in the early development of civilisation, civics, politics, myth making, and democracy.
I suspect I would have failed the test – in fact, trying to think of a single humanist author the best I could come up with is Peter Singer, and I am probably wrong about that.
I guess my problem is I don’t attach labels until I have read the work. For example, I am sure our host here is a humanist, but that is not all there is to Ophelia’s writing. I perceive her as more a feminist, a free thinker, and an iconoclast. All of which will contribute to make her a humanist.
I think of Richard Dawkins as an atheist when I read his writing on religions, but as a scientist when I read his science books. I am sure Dawkins also is a humanist, in his own special way.
The test reminds me of the language test Australia used to administer in the days of the White Australia Policy. Any potential immigrant could be given a dictation test in a language chosen by the immigration officer. An Arabic speaker could be given dictation in Swahili. An English speaker perhaps Mandarin. It was a test designed to cause failure among those determined as “Undesirable”.
Roj, Peter Singer is considered (by himself and others) as a humanist, so you’re okay there. Except he isn’t Greek. ;-)
The idea that one must pass a test to be a humanist is ridiculous. What, do we have to read all the works of Paul Kurtz, and speak the Humanist Manifesto on a daily basis? Preferably pointing ourselves in the direction of Greece?
I don’t call myself a humanist, but I would in general consider that as close to a descriptor (sans atheist) as any other. I do dislike the focus on the human species as something special, so I prefer to consider myself an eco-humanist. Does that mean I would need to list Aldo Leopold?
And Plato believed that religion was supremely important, and that some humans were superior to other humans. I’d hardly call him a humanist.
Roj @ 5 – wow, that “language test” sounds like the knowledge tests that used to be given to African-Americans who attempted to register to vote in e.g. Alabama, that asked questions like “name all district judges in the state.” No tests were given to white people, of course.
The dictation test was abolished in 1958, but the current government are resurrecting it under a new guise. Applicants for Citizenship will be required to pass a high level English test, above the level needed for day to day work, social interaction, etc. That will be in addition to a test on “Australian values”, some of which, as a native born Australian I don’t subscribe to.
Our swamp is not as deep as your swamp, but it stinks and is full of very scary critters.
http://theconversation.com/could-you-pass-the-proposed-english-test-for-australian-citizenship-79269
One wonders how many Christians know who Origen was, just for starters. But does anybody doubt they are Christians?
It’s very bizarre. If he says he’s a humanist, and can show threats he’s received from his community in Pakistan as a result of that, surely that’s the most pertinent thing in considering his asylum application. Why would his familiarity with the intellectual history of humanism even be relevant?
So are christians / muslims / hindus quizzed on the minutia of their beliefs, or simply taken at their word?
I wonder what would have happened if he’d said simply that he was an apostate.
One can become ‘officially’ Muslim by reciting the Shahada. Even if you don’t understand a single word of it. Behind this craziness is the brain-dead dodge that humanism/atheism is ‘just another religion.’ From that start, its easy to demand some demonstrated creed, or concoct an exam to pass.
I’m sure Greek humanists could pass tests about the deities they didn’t believe in. Would the Home Office have asked Hamza about his objections to Islam?
I am rather pleased that I know that Epicurus spoke about wanting a pot of cheese so he could have a feast, but I have no idea what Epictetus liked to eat. Also, wasn’t humanism a Renaissance movement, built upon the recently rediscovered ancient writings and in response to contemporary Christianity?
Sounds like the immigration authorities need a bit of a lesson in history of philosophy.
It’s slightly complicated. Renaissance humanism was a turn to things human as opposed to things divine built upon the recently rediscovered ancient writings but not necessarily hostile to or critical of Christianity. It wasn’t explicitly secular humanism, in short. This means it’s often unclear what people are talking about when they use the word. It looks to me as if the Home Office is kind of mashing the two together, but it’s not clear whether it’s doing that deliberately and with malice just as a pretext to keep pesky foreigners out.
Hey, I have a home office too. Can I please expel someone?
They really not try so hard at it. Quoth Ecc 12:12: My son, be warned; there is no end to the prolific making of books, and too much study wearies a body. (Rrr version, 2018 CE)