There is a difference in kind between a humanist opinion and an opinion of a humanist. A humanist opinion is one that is derived from a general view termed 'humanism'. This view is that human beings, inspired by hope, informed by enquiry and chastened by scepticism, can identify and solve their common problems without faith in, or fear of, something or someone 'out there' whom others postulate and have invited to act 'in here'.

To favour free expression as against censorship is properly humanist opinion; how can people actually identify and solve problems in this the real world unless they listen to one another and learn from one another and how can they do this if facts and ideas are arbitrarily denied them?

It is, for example, merely an opinion of a humanist (or of anyone else) that the Gulf war was, or was not, justifiable.

I happen to be one who thought that particular war to be ill-advised, at the time, and to think that, now, its various sequels bear out that view. That is the opinion of a humanist but I do not claim that it is humanist opinion (although I do claim that it is compatible with humanist opinion).

We really should restrict ourselves, as exponents of humanist opinion but not of course in our other capacities, to saying things that both need saying and cannot be expected to be said so emphatically by non-humanists.

The alternative to this discipline is to think of humanism as a wall-to-wall life stance or all-purpose belief system from which all thought should be derived. This is pretentious in principle and a licence to waffle and quarrel in practice. Our humanist job is not to chase the shadow of triumphant ideological universalism but to identify the substance of what contribution we are best fitted to make by reason of our being humanists.

If anyone claims more than that then he or she should watch out for custard pies.