In my last blog post, I established that humanism is a religion. Now, I am going to take this concept to one of its logical conclusions.
There have been many discussions, court cases, and legal fights about the religious part of the first amendment, where it applies, and seperation of church and state. Here it is, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Now people have used this clause to justify the taking out of all mention of Christianity from public places. This is completely wrong for several reasons.
First, the clause says, “Congress shall make no law…” Thus, there is no application beyond the federal level. Most of the legal fights are in state and township jurisdiction, but the Constitution has no authority over those disputes. In fact, at the time of the Constitution and afterwards, some of the states still had established churches. No one had a problem with this, and eventually they also passed legislation, which disestablished religion in their respective areas.
Second, the clause says, “…establishment of religion…” In other words, there can be no state endorsed religion on the federal level. The founding fathers put this in as contrary to England, where the Anglican Church was the established religion; you had to attend church there or you would be arrested. You also had to pay your “church tax.” This forceful attendance was the reason for the Pilgrims (Separatists) and the Puritans becoming persecuted. They got sick of it, and came to America. The founders knew this, and put this clause in to prevent anything like that happening here. Establishment does not mean that you make no mention or acknowledgement of any religion anywhere on public property; it only means that government cannot force people to attend or tithe to a certain religion. Thus, most of the cases today are absolute falsehood, and act like this country doesn’t have any Christian tradition.
However, one thing most people don’t notice or bring up is this little logical induction:
Humanism is a religion
Public schools receive federal funds and teach humanism
The Constitution forbids federal funding for the teaching of a religion
Public schools are unconstitutional.
Now, I know that trying to touch public education in this country is like poking your finger through a hornet’s nest that has just gone through political turmoil, and is itching for something to focus its destructive energies on. Nevertheless, it still stands that public schools are unconstitutional according to the 1st amendment.
Some women in California in the 60’s realized this, and petitioned the current Attorney General to change it. Now “the current Attorney General” is a very important phrase because that person is important in this story. His name is: Robert Kennedy. This guy waited and waited, until after a few more repeated letters, he had to respond and told the women’s group that they were right, that the public schools were teaching humanism, that humanism is a religion, and that it was unconstitutional for the public schools to do that. But, he also said that he wasn’t going to do anything about it. The women’s group looked into it and found out that it would take more than a million dollars to push the issue in court. Thus, the idea died. But it still remains one of the most glaring unconstitutional programs out there.
7 comments:
BTW ... what are you using for an editor that you are getting these tags:
"if !supportEmptyParas"
??
Well, not quite ...
Most often courts have ruled upon the INTENT of certain sections of the Constitution.
Quite clearly, if it were interpretted that the establishment clause only applied to the federal government, but each and every state (or each and every Red state anyway), decided to, oh, say, pass a law that says, "The formal State Religion of Ohio is Fundamentalist Baptist", then the entire PURPOSE of the 1st amendment would be defeated.
I certainly don't think Secular Humanism is a religion in a the usual sense, any more than "liberalism" or even "libertarianism" can be interpretted as a religion.
However, I would tend to agree with the Libertarian notion that there is something to be said for introducing a doctrine of the separation of EDUCATION and State.
Almost by definition compulsory school attendence is inviting abuse of the power of the State.
Thanks for the comment, but you skipped my section about the states already having state religions. That's why they only put the restriction only on the federal level. Yes, it would be wrong for the state of Ohio to declare Fundamental Baptists the state religion, but it would not be unconstitutional. Besides, neither Ohio nor any other state is doing that. They're just mentioning or commemorating Christianity on public property.(BTW, what happened to celebrating our diversity?)
I admit that humanism isn't a religion in one sense, but in another, it is. It depends on how define the word and interpret the evidence.
Seperation of Education and the State is a great idea.
I don't where that tag came from.
Secular Humanism simply ISN'T a religion.
As a matter of fact, the very PHRASE was invented by an offshoot of the American Humanist Association.
You see, there are CERTAINLY recognizable Humanistic RELIGIONS - the Unitarian Church comes to mind and certainly Beth Adam and the Humanistic Jewish organizations affiliated with Rabbi Wein are also in that group.
SECULAR Humanists would say that they have humanistic value INDEPENDENT of any religious structure.
Humanistic philosophy is a LIVING, GROWING, yes, EVOLVING way of looking at things. At any given time there may be books and "manifestos", but those change constantly.
A Humanist simply believes that the concerns of humanity, and Earth, and the universe as a whole are ultimately of much greater significance than any GUESSING one might do about "how to get into heaven".
Yes, but humanism still worships the human, and doesn't acknowledge any heaven or hell.
Humanism has its own religious structure, independent of any other faith. That was the main point of my main post. Yes, some other groups that might call themselves part of Christiantity, Judaism, etc. might integrate humanist ideas; but then they become not Judaistic or Christian, but Humanistic.
A religion doesn't have to have a sacred text, (e.g. Shintoism) but the very thing you said about their standards constantly changing is proof that there is no truth to be found in humanism, because truth does not change.
Dang this is good. I'm tacking notes!
Post a Comment