Dawkins loses humanist title

[Reforged]

Ranging far and wide in our efforts to figure out exactly what we think the aha did wrong, I think.  Perhaps you had arational or irrational ideas about what humanism is and entails, and what the aha's responsibilities were pursuant to their goal of advocating for humanism?

How, then, would you be able to make a functional moral declaration of what they did, if - as you've just insisted, rationality and an understanding of reality around you is a requirement - and you're not in possession of it?  You don't appear to understand how ideology works, you don't appear to understand the issue they have with dawkins comments, you don't even know how they dress themselves in the morning...and you're pretty upfront about that, right?

Tell me how you could determine, rationally, that they got this wrong, if you don't know that?  Even more needlingly, do you think that any conflict between rationality and humanism (real or imagined), to a humanist, will privilege rationality?

I think without the discussion any claims to either rationality or humanism are hollow.
It is a discussion of what is empirically true versus who we identify as that Dawkins called for and it is what he was punished for.
You are having a discussion about contentious topics right now, should you be denounced by humanists for it?
I would suggest not. I would suggest any honest and open discussion of the facts is an act of humans for humans to the benefit of humans.
If you see conflict there then I honestly cannot help you.