Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion Subject: Re: "Secular Humanism" banned in the US Schools. Message-ID: <5766@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 20-Aug-85 21:38:08 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.5766 Posted: Tue Aug 20 21:38:08 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 03:41:16 EDT References: <4141@alice.UUCP> <938@bunker.UUCP>, <161@gargoyle.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 108 Xref: watmath net.politics:10550 net.religion:7441 >> Didn't the Supreme Court >> recognize Secular Humanism as a religion not too long ago? >>Gary Samuelson > >I imagine I'm not the only one who missed this. References, please. >Whatever "secular humanism" means (and it seems to cover a wide area >of ambiguity) I doubt that it refers to a religion. *Torcaso vs Watkins* (1961). The Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for the state of Maryland to require belief in God as a condition for becoming a notary public. The judges specifically identified secular humanism as a religion: "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would be generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others". Before that, federal courts broadened the term "religion" in cases like *United States vs Kauten* (1943), where non-believers wanted conscientious objector status exemption from the military draft. In 1965 the Supreme Court heard *United States vs Seeger* and opined that any belief can be classified as religious if it is "sincere and meaningful and occupies a place in the life of its possessor parellel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God". The primary theologian consulted was Paul Tillich who defines the essence of religion as "ultimate concern". This case also dealt with the conscientious objector issue regarding the draft. It seems to me that the secularists want it both ways. When it becomes beneficial to have one's beliefs viewed as religious, the wear the religious mantle. When it comes to keeping certain ideas out of the public schools, however, that's different. Then you're only religious if you believe in God. The Humanist Manifestos proclaim the religious nature of humanism, though many humanists avoid the term. Some don't bother to hide fact that they consider the public classroom to be the primary vehicle for the promulgation of their views. John Dunphy's statement in *The Humanist* (Jan/Feb 1983) is classic: I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. In the original article, JJ mentioned Issac Asimov as one who was upset over the "ban" of "secular humanism" from the public schools. Maybe Asimov has more to worry about than the teaching of evolutionary science. The American Humanist Assoc. voted him "humanist of the year" in 1983. The following year Steven J. Gould received the award. This information I received after subscribing to an often cited (by some net.origins evolutionists anyway) anti-creationist journal called "Creation/Evolution". Turns out the editor of that journal is (or was) executive director of the AHA and writes and anti-creationism column in *The Humanist*. Perhaps the connection between evolution and religious belief isn't as contrived as many imagine. :-) Personally, I think its about time they did something to prevent secularism from being the only religious ideology allowed a voice in the public schools. As Richard John Neuhaus (not exactly a fundamentalist) points out in his recent popular book "The Naked Public Square", the idea that religion can be excluded from the public square is a myth. Some religion will fill the void; the tacit religion of our "pluralistic" society is secularism. The only purpose for its non-religious cloak is to exclude other religions from its primary sphere of influence. Twenty years ago, while embracing the new age of "secularization", Harvey Cox warned that, ...wherever [secularization] appears appears it should be carefully distinguished from *secularism*. ... [secularism] is the name for an ideology, a new closed world-view which functions very much like a new religion. ... Like any other "ism", it menaces the openness and freedom secularization has produced; it must therefore be watched very carefully to prevent its becoming the ideology of a new establishment. It must especially be checked where it pretends not to be a world-view but nonetheless seeks to impose its ideology though the organs of the state. [*The Secular City*, pp. 20-21] Personally I think Cox's distinction between "secularism" and "secularization" is vague and tenuous. But, aside from that, it's a distinction that few people make anyway. The secularist influence is insidious because it is commonly perceived as being neutral toward the differing religious values many people hold. If a secular society means that the public square is open to the "falwellites", "liberals", "secular humanists" and all alike--regardless of their religious persuasion--I'm all for it. I fear that that is not what we have, however. Those with certain values get excluded from the public square by religious prejudice, opening the corridors of power for the monopolistic influence of the supposedly neutral secularists. >Perhaps there are several Secular Humanist temples in your neighborhood, >but there are none in mine. ... >Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes Have you bothered to look in the phone book? In the Columbus Yellow Pages the Humanist Fellowship has themselves listed under "Churches-Non-Denominational" (that's where my Christian church is listed). They advertise "Non-traditional weddings by Humanist Counselor Advocates". Anyway, since when is a temple a necessary item for a religion? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd