User Skew Audit – 4 July 2025

Reviewed on July 04, 2025

🕊️ Compassionate Humanist Audit: Expanded Ethical Alignment Review

This audit was triggered by the rescoping of the original source document, to exclude follow-up conversation that led to skew into the questioner’s beliefs.

This is not a rebrand. It is a practice — a pause to ask whether the public-facing articulation of Compassionate Humanism still reflects the soul of the movement.

Guiding questions:

  • Does this content still reflect our core values?
  • Have we slipped into tribal language or subtle gatekeeping?
  • Are we welcoming difference — or centering ourselves too narrowly?
  • Have we confused certainty with clarity?
  • Are we modeling the compassion we ask of others?


✅ 1. Fidelity to Core Values

Verdict: Deeply aligned.

  • Compassion over certainty is upheld across all pages.
  • Shared values above shared metaphysics is consistently affirmed.
  • Spiritual openness is embraced without coercion or hierarchy.
  • Ethical action and humility are elevated above abstraction.
  • Mystery is honored alongside reason.


✅ 2. Language & Tone: Inclusivity vs. Gatekeeping

Verdict: Warm and inclusive overall. One minor caution.

  • Most content avoids tribalism and welcomes difference.
  • However, the metaphor of a “sworn enemy” (in the Anatomy section) could be misread as combative. While internally clarifying, it may benefit from softening or footnoting for broader audiences.


✅ 3. Openness to Difference

Verdict: Well-executed.

  • Multiple sections affirm the coexistence of theism, atheism, and uncertainty.
  • The Manifesto and FAQ are especially strong here.
  • However, one concern emerged:

🚩 Narrow Lens in Belonging Page: The current “triggering story” frames the audience as ex-religious but still prayerful — subtly excluding those who remain inside faith traditions, or those who never had one to leave.

💡 Recommendation: Introduce multiple archetypal stories reflecting the broader movement — e.g., mystics, cultural healers, bridge-builders, and ethical atheists.


✅ 4. Clarity Without Certainty

Verdict: Modeled well.

  • Final answers are not claimed.
  • Clarity comes from direction and values, not metaphysical absolutes.
  • Ethical conviction is paired with epistemic humility.


✅ 5. Modeling Compassion

Verdict: Strong alignment.

  • Tone is empathetic and generous.
  • Critique is directed at systems and ideas, not people.
  • Architecture reflects openness: no membership tests, sliding-scale resources, etc.


🔍 Additional Refinements

1. “People Like You” Framing (Belonging): Currently centers a very specific spiritual wound. ➡️ Recommendation: Reframe invitation as open to those in, out of, or beyond religion.

2. Inspirational Thinkers: The list mostly reflects liberal religious and humanist voices. ➡️ Recommendation: Expand to include decolonial, indigenous, or post-theist thinkers like Rev. angel Kyodo williams, Valerie Kaur, John O’Donohue, Resmaa Menakem, and others.


✅ Final Summary

The site is ethically aligned, spiritually open, and directionally clear.

Most importantly, it invites correction — a hallmark of honest practice. This audit finds Compassionate Humanism to be living its values, not just naming them.

May this serve as a mirror and a compass — keeping the work honest, evolving, and alive.

← All Audits

← Back to Home