Secular Humanism is not a religion. To say this is clearly incorrect. If the supreme court says that Secular Humanism needs some of the same protections as religions do, that is a different argument. That does not magically make Secular Humanism a religion. To call it a religion is intellectual dishonesty. Secularism Humanism is specifically *not* a religion. By definition. To say otherwise is denial of reality. But whether it is or not is immaterial in this debate anyway.
School (public school) is for children to learn what we know to be proven to be factual and to learn to think and to be sceptical. Religion is something to be taught by parents, not by schools. The only people in disagreement with this are members of the majority faiths.
(a) the Supreme Court *never* ruled that the Secular Humanisms is a religion. That is a worn out myth. What you are refering to is a jotted comment made by Hugo Black in the footnotes of the ruling on the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins decision. These notes are called dicta and are simply idle notes and have zero legal bearing on anything. To elevate those comments to anything more than note jotting is simply erronous.
(b) the american humanists' Manifestos are specific to religious humanists not secular humanists. There are also specifically "christian" humanists, "muslim" humanists, etc. Those manifestos should really be titled "The Religious Humanist Manifesto I and II". Near the tail end of "I" is this phrase: "So stand the theses of religious humanism." Not "secular", but "religious". Therefore, not the same. There has been talk of developing a "secular humanist manifesto" but... I don't konw that it has gone anywhere. I don't personally need a "manifesto".
(c) "secular" specifically means all that is not religious. In fact, many, if not most Secular Humanists are merely indifferent to religion. They simply don't give religion a passing thought. It's something that other folks engage in. In the same manner, I am also indifferent to Santa Claus and the Loch Ness monster generally. And I gave up my invisible friends a very long time ago. They don't exist. Really. They don't! :) By its nature secularism *can't* be a religion. You can point at a piece of paper all day and call it a pencil, but that doesn't make it so.
(d) schools: public schools should teach what is factually known to be true. I doubt you want your kids being preached to about the Lord Brahma. Now being taught *about* various faiths is completely legal and always has been. But, as soon as it drifts into evangelism, therein is the line. I don't want my kids praying to Mecca 5 times a day. Sorry. They are there to learn, not pray. They can pray with me if I so choose outside of school. Or in a legal religious study group at the school if that is set up appropriately (also completely legal). Coersion, endorsement or singling out is what is illegal. Also teaching kids secular humanist things such as "it's good to share" is not a violation since it is universal to all peoples. Of course, if the teacher said: "it's good to share, and you don't need Jesus to tell you that"... well, now... that would be illegal wouldn't it be. ;)
Have a nice day, I hope this cleared up these common misconceptions.
4 comments:
Secular Humanism is not a religion. To say this is clearly incorrect. If the supreme court says that Secular Humanism needs some of the same protections as religions do, that is a different argument. That does not magically make Secular Humanism a religion. To call it a religion is intellectual dishonesty. Secularism Humanism is specifically *not* a religion. By definition. To say otherwise is denial of reality. But whether it is or not is immaterial in this debate anyway.
School (public school) is for children to learn what we know to be proven to be factual and to learn to think and to be sceptical. Religion is something to be taught by parents, not by schools. The only people in disagreement with this are members of the majority faiths.
IF sec.humn. is not a religion then why do they themselves speak of religious humanists?
Is the supreme court intellectually dishonest?
so... the public school is for promoting a non religious religion????
(a) the Supreme Court *never* ruled that the Secular Humanisms is a religion. That is a worn out myth. What you are refering to is a jotted comment made by Hugo Black in the footnotes of the ruling on the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins decision. These notes are called dicta and are simply idle notes and have zero legal bearing on anything. To elevate those comments to anything more than note jotting is simply erronous.
(b) the american humanists' Manifestos are specific to religious humanists not secular humanists. There are also specifically "christian" humanists, "muslim" humanists, etc. Those manifestos should really be titled "The Religious Humanist Manifesto I and II". Near the tail end of "I" is this phrase: "So stand the theses of religious humanism." Not "secular", but "religious". Therefore, not the same. There has been talk of developing a "secular humanist manifesto" but... I don't konw that it has gone anywhere. I don't personally need a "manifesto".
(c) "secular" specifically means all that is not religious. In fact, many, if not most Secular Humanists are merely indifferent to religion. They simply don't give religion a passing thought. It's something that other folks engage in. In the same manner, I am also indifferent to Santa Claus and the Loch Ness monster generally. And I gave up my invisible friends a very long time ago. They don't exist. Really. They don't! :) By its nature secularism *can't* be a religion. You can point at a piece of paper all day and call it a pencil, but that doesn't make it so.
(d) schools: public schools should teach what is factually known to be true. I doubt you want your kids being preached to about the Lord Brahma. Now being taught *about* various faiths is completely legal and always has been. But, as soon as it drifts into evangelism, therein is the line. I don't want my kids praying to Mecca 5 times a day. Sorry. They are there to learn, not pray. They can pray with me if I so choose outside of school. Or in a legal religious study group at the school if that is set up appropriately (also completely legal). Coersion, endorsement or singling out is what is illegal. Also teaching kids secular humanist things such as "it's good to share" is not a violation since it is universal to all peoples. Of course, if the teacher said: "it's good to share, and you don't need Jesus to tell you that"... well, now... that would be illegal wouldn't it be. ;)
Have a nice day, I hope this cleared up these common misconceptions.
Matt Slick is not qualified to answer any of your questions at this time.
Please feel free to email:
carmstuff@gmail.com
with any questions relating to real Christianity and God being good.
Have a nice day.
Post a Comment