Why not a Religious Humanist?

In the NYTimes, a piece about how atheists are flexing their muscles a bit, as they discover they are not so few in numbers as they might have feared.
The article mentions a woman who though not believing in God, works as a church musician, because she, unlike many of her co-non-religionists, doesn't think religion is a bad thing.

While I am grateful for her vote of, well, if not confidence, at least a vote of non-miscreance, I find her position less supportable than that of atheists who despise and mock us and our belief in the Holy Other.

She thinks religion is a lie, but good?

If she thinks religion is false yet potentially good for people, isn't that a little patronizing of the humanity she purports to put her "faith" in?

For that matter, what is a Humanist? Why all the self-proclaimed Secular Humanists, why not a Religious Humanist? Why should those with faith allow those without it to "own" the word?

We Catholics are, in the so-buzzy-a-buzzword that it almost become a meaningless phrase, a people of Both/And.

Fides ET Ratio.

I can certainly be "a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity, a person devoted to or versed in the humanities, a student of human nature or affairs", while being a devout Christian. In fact, I MUST be.

It is my Faith that makes me such a person, it is the fact, (of which my faith and knowledge makes me aware,) that God became Man that elevates Man to the degree that his welfare, his dignity, his values, (his genuine, universal values, as informed by natural law,) acquire such staggering importance.

No, I see no contradiction at all.

I do wonder, though, how a "Humanist," either secular or religious, could possibly consider any unique human individual so unworthy of being accorded dignity that he could morally be either vacuumed to death, or fried.

There's an irrationality.