An interesting thread, Autumn. At the risk of being accused of being so open minded that my brains are liable to fall out, I would say this:
To be considered a humanist, one must believe that there is no supreme being, and no 'super-nature'. (If it did exist, it would just be an expanded understanding of nature. Its very existence would remove its "super" quality and definition.) One must also believe that it is possible to be positive about the world (or universe(s), if you prefer). In other words, you would be unhappy about a nihilist solution. To talk of 'an ethical and moral world[view' as Fia does, IMO begs too many questions. I'd be happier to say that it is the positive aspect to humanism, which leads one to ask the question, what is moral and ethical, and how should my answer affect my actions? We do not take any book as 'gospel', though. "It is written" doesn't cut the mustard.
I also tend to think that we, as humans, are governed by our human nature. Thus we are likely to think it wrong to bite the head off one's boyfriend after love-making, and that looking after ones children is 'a good thing'. There are plenty of creatures who care not a jot for their offspring, but that is acceptable within the context of their species.
It is therefore pretty irrelevant to wonder whether a bully is or is not a humanist, in the same way as wondering how many angels can dance n the head of a pin. It's pretty much a non-question. The relevant questions are more these: What makes such behaviour unacceptable? What causes it? What can or should be done about it?
The idea that anyone has all the answers in pretty unsound too, which logically invalidates the idea of humanist 'sinners'. An understanding of human nature would lead one to expect a whole variety of human reactions. It is merely our advanced brains which allow us to ponder such things, which are unknown in virtually the entire animal kingdom. But the positive viewpoint of existence would tend to encourage us to examine life critically.
I think Lord M & Ted H have expressed similar thoughts. I like Autumn's view:
Humanism - if I may borrow Stangroom's characterisation of it - is 'rationally inclined, atheistic and human centred'. It holds that human beings have the potential and the duty to solve problems using reason and method and that morality is founded in human nature and experience. As a code of conduct to follow we look to the Golden Rule.
Except that I would say the Golden rule is the product of a humanist outlook, not part of the essence of humanism.
There! I think that's a fair amount of jelly nailed to the wall!