[xochgtlm]

I think I'm for the most part rational and logical, but I don't consider myself humanist. The least reason being I don't entirely rule out magic as a valid practice. But that's if you consider humanism to be strictly in rational terms like it seems to be since the Enlightenment.

I really object to the idea of democracy in humanism. Democracy sounds great, and would be if more people were thoughtful and intelligent. Unfortunately, people aren't. For evidence, the U.S. keeps electing leaders from the same two political parties so that they make the same stupid mistakes term after term. Humanism has this assumption that everybody has a valid say in things, when some people are idiots and shouldn't be allowed even to breed, much less help decide on who gets to run the country.

Of course, the U.S. is a republic, not a democracy, but the election is democratic in principle.

I guess you can't necessarily legally discriminate against people without it becoming too hard to control (just because in any given, modern political system there are too many opportunities for an idiot to come along and misuse the law). But Humanism furthers this ideal that everybody is "equal", which is not something I don't ever remember accepting.