Humanism and Its Possibilities in Africa

By Khalidou Mohamed

After reading “Humanism and Its Possibilities in Africa”, I want to highlight the three important points I learned and share my thoughts and reactions.

Important points;

Humanist values can help reduce religious extremism and bloodshed. The essay argues that in many African countries, religious conflict and fanaticism have caused violence, especially in regions where religious identity is politicized. Humanist principles such as reason, human dignity, and secular ethics could provide alternatives to fanaticism and create more inclusive societies.

Humanism must adapt to African contexts. The author suggests humanism cannot just be copied from Western models; it must engage with African cultures, histories, and social realities. It should speak to local problems, poverty, corruption, ethnic division while preserving core humanist ideas.

Humanist values can promote peace, education, and human development. The essay notes that where secular, rational governance is stronger, there is better capacity for public goods, education, health, justice. Humanism, by emphasizing human responsibility and empathy, can push for good governments that care for people rather than enforce dogma.

My feelings and thoughts;

As a humanist in Africa, I find these ideas hopeful. I agree strongly that humanism has the potential to challenge religious violence by offering an ethical framework grounded in human dignity, not divine command. One reason is that religion is often used to justify cruelty or exclusion; humanism can counter that with universal values.

I especially like the point about adapting humanism to our context. In Africa, religion is deeply embedded in people’s lives. If humanism is perceived as foreign or anti-culture, it will be rejected. So we must translate humanist ideas into our languages, stories, and struggles, connecting them to local needs. That makes humanism not an import but a homegrown philosophy.

However, I also see challenges. Religious institutions have decades or even centuries of social influence. Many people look to religion for emotional support, community, rites, and identity. Humanism must not just oppose religion, it must also build community, meaning, and empathy. If humanists only criticize religion without offering equally strong social alternatives, we risk being seen as cold or disconnected. So humanism must combine reason with emotion, and ideas with real community.

Another worry is political misuse. Secularism sometimes becomes an excuse for suppressing religious minorities. Humanists must guard against that, ensuring freedom of belief and protecting minority rights. The goal is not to ban religion, but to create a space where belief is personal and not coercive.

In conclusion, Humanism and Its Possibilities in Africa gives a vision that I deeply share. I believe humanism can help heal divides and push Africa toward justice grounded in compassion and reason. But for it to succeed, it must be rooted in African lives, respectful of identity, and active in building communities of trust.

—

The Rise of the Nones in the US

by Khalidou Mohamed

Having read “The Push Away From Religion and the Pull Toward Secularity,” I want to share the three important ideas and my reactions as a humanist.

Important points;

“Push” factors drive people away from religion. The authors discuss how many leave religion because of negative experiences: moral disagreements, hypocrisy in religious institutions, conflict with personal identity, or doctrinal rigidity. These push factors make people question whether religious institutions deserve loyalty.

“Pull” factors draw people toward secular life and nonreligion. Some are attracted by autonomy, freedom from dogma, emphasis on reason, and alignment with modern scientific worldview. Secularity promises a space where people don’t need to defend beliefs by authority, but reason is open.

The rise of “nones” is complex, not monolithic. The authors caution against treating the “nones” as a uniform group. Many are spiritual, agnostic, or hold mixed beliefs. Their detachment from religion is not always an embrace of atheism, but often a reconfiguration of belief.

My feelings, thoughts, and reactions;

I find this piece honest and insightful. It matches many stories I’ve heard: leaving religion doesn’t always come from abandoning faith, but from disillusionment with hypocrisy or rigid rules. As a humanist, I recognize that faith systems often fail integrity tests, pushing sensitive people away.

The “pull” side resonates strongly. Freedom, reason, and autonomy are powerful draws. When someone realizes they don’t need an authority to justify their morality, that transition can be liberating. I’ve experienced that myself: rejecting dogmas allowed me to claim ownership of my values.

But I also agree with the authors that “nones” are not a single category. Many former believers still carry spiritual longing or cultural habits. Some prefer flexibility over strict atheism. That complexity must be respected. Humanists should not demand that every “none” becomes an atheist, instead, we should support freedom to think, whether one ends at atheism or agnosticism.

A caution: secularism sometimes becomes cold if it ignores emotional life. The authors imply that people often leave religion not because they reject God, but because religious institutions fail them socially or morally. So secular communities must build emotional support, meaning, and belonging, not just intellectual critique. Otherwise the vacuum is still there, and people may turn back to religion or fall into radical ideologies.

In summary, the rise of the nones reflects deeper changes in belief, authority, and identity. As a humanist, I hope this trend encourages more open dialogue, respect for conscience, and communities built on reason, empathy, and integrity.

——

A Welcome Initiative in East Africa: EAC FGM Policy Brief

by Khalidou Mohamed

After reading the EAC Elimination of FGM Bill Policy Brief (East Africa) published by Equality Now, these are the three most important points I learned and my reflections as a humanist.

Important points;

A harmonized regional law to eliminate FGM across countries. The brief argues that individual national laws are not enough; the EAC (East Africa Community) Bill sets a unified definition, penalties, and cross border coordination. It criminalizes aiding or performing FGM across borders to close legal gaps.

Close enforcement gaps and ban medicalization. The Bill calls for mandatory reporting, accountability for medical facilities, bans on medicalizing FGM, and care for survivors. It also seeks to close loopholes and weak enforcement that allow FGM to continue under cover.

Support for education, survivors, and multi sectoral approaches. The brief emphasizes combining legal measures with education, health systems, psychological support, community engagement, and integrating interventions in schools and clinics. It proposes survivor-centered approaches, not just punitive ones.

My feelings, thoughts, and reactions;

As a humanist, I believe in protecting bodies and dignity without recourse to religious justification. FGM is a human rights violation, not a cultural practice to be preserved. This policy brief gives a hopeful path by combining rights, law, and compassion.

I agree wholeheartedly that a regional unified law is smarter than fragmented national ones. Borders should not shield harmful practices. The stronger the legal framework, the harder it is for FGM to hide. The ban on medicalization is crucial: making FGM appear “safe” is a trap. Survivors deserve care and justice, not sanitized violence.

I also appreciate the multi sectoral approach. Laws must be paired with education, outreach, and survivor support. If a law stands alone, it may drive the practice underground. Healing communities means offering alternatives, inclusion, and trust. As a rational humanist, I want evidence based interventions and community respect.

One worry: implementation. Laws and intentions don’t always translate into real change when local systems are weak or corrupt. The success will depend on political will, funding, and persistent monitoring. Also, engaging religious and cultural leaders is delicate, they often have influence and can either support or resist. The approach must be respectful but firm.

In summary, this policy brief is a strong example of humanist values in action: defending bodily autonomy, dignity, and justice. If East African states adopt and enforce it well, it could save many lives. For me, it shows that belief is not needed for courage, laws, compassion, and reason can protect us all.