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