Secular Humanism as a Religion
The Church of The Painful Truth
The first Humanist Manifesto spoke openly of Humanism as a religion. Many
other Humanists could be cited who have acknowledged that Humanism is a
religion. In fact, claiming that Humanism was "the new religion" was trendy
for at least 100 years, perhaps beginning in 1875 with the publication of
The Religion of Humanity by Octavius Brooks Frothingham (1822-1895), son of
the distinguished Unitarian clergyman, Nathaniel Langdon Frothingham
(1793-1870), pastor of the First Unitarian Church of Boston, 1815-1850. In
the 1950's, Humanists sought and obtained tax-exempt status as religious
organizations. Even the Supreme Court of the United States spoke in 1961 of
Secular Humanism as a religion. It was a struggle to get atheism accepted as
a religion, but it happened. From 1962-1980 this was not a controversial
issue.
Thore Schmechtig
> Secular Humanism as a religion. It was a struggle to get atheism accepted as
> a religion, but it happened.
1. Secular humanism != atheism
2. Both of them are no religions as there's nothing "supernatural" to
believe in.
3. The church of prideful ignorance still babbles its nonsense and
still tries to use evasions and insults as "proof" of its points.
4. Conclusion: The church of prideful ignorance is still the same
idiotic asshole. ;)
--
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A (CHRISTIAN) FUNDAMENTALIST
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of
gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when
someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists
say that people evolved from other life forms, but you
have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were
created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem
believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the
"atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even
flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all
the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" --
including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and
Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have
no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated
Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed,
came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little
loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth
(4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with
believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting
in their tents and guessing that Earth is a couple of
generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet
with the exception of those who share your beliefs --
though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend
Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet
consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and
physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot
rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be
all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it
comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be
evidence that prayer works. And you think that the
remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and
agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church
history - but still call yourself a Christian.
stew dean
> http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/definitions/humanism_religion.htm
>
> The first Humanist Manifesto spoke openly of Humanism as a religion.
Are we talking about thiest humanism as that was indeed a religion in
it's definition.
> Many
> other Humanists could be cited who have acknowledged that Humanism is a
> religion.
True - where is this going?
> In fact, claiming that Humanism was "the new religion" was trendy
> for at least 100 years, perhaps beginning in 1875 with the publication of
> The Religion of Humanity by Octavius Brooks Frothingham (1822-1895), son of
> the distinguished Unitarian clergyman, Nathaniel Langdon Frothingham
> (1793-1870), pastor of the First Unitarian Church of Boston, 1815-1850. In
> the 1950's, Humanists sought and obtained tax-exempt status as religious
> organizations. Even the Supreme Court of the United States spoke in 1961 of
> Secular Humanism as a religion.
Okay - I can kind of buy that.
> It was a struggle to get atheism accepted as
> a religion, but it happened. From 1962-1980 this was not a controversial
> issue.
But Athiesm and Secular Humanism are two seperate things. Atheism is
not a religion - it is, by definition, the belief in no god.
You can be a secular humanist and be a theist.
As it stands it is the closest beleif system I am likely to be linked
with. I would hold that if it is truely secular then it is not a
religion at all, but that's open to debate.
What is not open to debate is wether athiesm is a religion. It is not
by definition. Atheism is not the same as believing in evolution,
secular humanism, paganism or any other thing lazy folks may try and
lump it in with. It is like saying evolution theory includes the big
bang (you see that a lot from creationist sites) or that if you prove
Darwin was a immoral scum bag it would make his theories complete
rubbish (Newton and Galeo where both arseholes yet their finding
still stand).
This is the problem with quoting other peoples work - there are a lot
of idiots out there and lazily cutting and pasting will get you cut
and pasted.
Stew Dean
Stew Dean
Christopher A. Lee
ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote:
>"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nos...@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message news:<nospam-Pdt4c.778$6n5....@news.uswest.net>...
>> http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/definitions/humanism_religion.htm
>>
>> The first Humanist Manifesto spoke openly of Humanism as a religion.
>
>Are we talking about thiest humanism as that was indeed a religion in
>it's definition.
>
>> Many
>> other Humanists could be cited who have acknowledged that Humanism is a
>> religion.
>
>True - where is this going?
>
>> In fact, claiming that Humanism was "the new religion" was trendy
>> for at least 100 years, perhaps beginning in 1875 with the publication of
>> The Religion of Humanity by Octavius Brooks Frothingham (1822-1895), son of
>> the distinguished Unitarian clergyman, Nathaniel Langdon Frothingham
>> (1793-1870), pastor of the First Unitarian Church of Boston, 1815-1850. In
>> the 1950's, Humanists sought and obtained tax-exempt status as religious
>> organizations. Even the Supreme Court of the United States spoke in 1961 of
>> Secular Humanism as a religion.
>
>Okay - I can kind of buy that.
Actually,the Supreme court didn't. The force of US law is that Secular
Humanism is _not_ a religion.
This was ruled in the 1994 case Peloza vs Capistrano School District.
The poster was repeating a common fundy canard which eventually got
demolished by a Federal Appeals Court...
It starts with Torcaso v. Watkins, 1961 where Supreme Court Justice
Hugo Black, said in a dicta (a personal footnote explaining the
background to a decision) that
"Among religions in this country which do not teach what would
generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism,
Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others."
Dicta are there to provide background data and are not part of the
decision, nor do they have the force of law. In this case it was one
of the things he said led him to reach his decision.
Since then fundies have regularly misrepresented this and present it
as a Supreme Court ruling when it is nothing of the sort.
The next stage was 10 years ago, when a gym teacher in Capistrano CA
substituted in a biology class, tried to teach creationism and was
removed. He sued and It went to the (Federal) 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals.
The teacher claimed that by requiring him to teach evolution, they
were requiring him to teach the religion of secular humanism. Never
mind that he volunteered to sub for a biology teacher when he wasn't
qualified to do it, this was a blatant falsehood, or that the court
knew what a dicta was even though his own lawyers provided by (I
think) the ICR didn't.
The court rejected the claim, saying that the Supreme Court had never
held that evolution or Secular Humanism were religions for the
purposes of the establishment clause.
For more details, see the FAQ at the Council for Secular Humanism web
site at http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/cherry_18_1.01.html
Significantly, the Supreme Court refused to review the case.
In other words they refused to reverse a ruling that secular Humanism
is not a religion.That ruling now carries the force of law.
And the Liars For God still claim that the Supremes ruled that it is.
>> It was a struggle to get atheism accepted as
>> a religion, but it happened. From 1962-1980 this was not a controversial
>> issue.
>
>But Athiesm and Secular Humanism are two seperate things. Atheism is
>not a religion - it is, by definition, the belief in no god.
>
>You can be a secular humanist and be a theist.
Secular doesn't mean what the fundies imagine. They seem to think that
a secular organisation, government etc is anti-religion. It just means
that it makes no mention for or against, and has room for people with
all (or none) beliefs. Religion simply isn't part of its remit.
>As it stands it is the closest beleif system I am likely to be linked
>with. I would hold that if it is truely secular then it is not a
>religion at all, but that's open to debate.
>
>What is not open to debate is wether athiesm is a religion. It is not
>by definition. Atheism is not the same as believing in evolution,
>secular humanism, paganism or any other thing lazy folks may try and
>lump it in with. It is like saying evolution theory includes the big
>bang (you see that a lot from creationist sites) or that if you prove
>Darwin was a immoral scum bag it would make his theories complete
>rubbish (Newton and Galeo where both arseholes yet their finding
>still stand).
The problem is that there is major dispute between theists and
atheists as to what atheism is. Theists won't let it be what it
actually is (not being theist, or not believing in any deity) and
invent a position we don't have in the same way they imagine the
big-bang is part of evolution.
And worse, they think they get to tell atheists what atheism is,
"evolutionists" what evolution is, etc etc.
catshark
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
[...]
Minor caveat:
There are some cases (ESA v. Rylander is a recent one, see:
<http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_ESARylander.htm>)
that say that the flip side of the coin of the separation of church and
state is that the government can't decide that an *organization* that
claims a religious tax exemtion or the like, and has all the
characteristics of a religious *organization*, isn't one simply because it
espouses "ethical humanism" or some other non-divinely based beliefs.
In short, *secular* humanism is not a religion (per court precedent) but
humanism can become, in *specific* instances, *non-secular*.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
LAWYER, n.
One skilled in circumvention of the law.
- Ambrose Bierce -
The Church of The Painful Truth
"Thore Schmechtig" <WRITETO...@carcosa.de> wrote in message
news:c2u9hd$20qke6$1...@ID-87341.news.uni-berlin.de...
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of the only god claimed and supported
by the only true religion, but feel outraged when
someone denies the existence of atheism.
9 - You feel enlightened and "humanized" when scientists say that people
evolved from other life forms, but you have a huge problem with the Biblical
claim that we were created by GOD.
8 - You laugh at theists, but you have no problem believing in order out of
chaos.
7 - you don't flinch when hearing about how atheists slaughtered all the
babies of China and Russia in the
history books and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in
Cambodia and other countries including
women and children!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about
gods sleeping with women, and you laugh and villify
people believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth
to a man-god who was crucified for our sins,came back to life and then
ascended into heaven.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the
scientifically established age of Earth, and you find everything wrong with
believing dates recorded by Bronze Age scientists sitting in their homes
and stating the age of the earth.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet have no souls
including those in all rival sects of secular humanism- and will
spend Eternity in blackness and devoid of any purpose.
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed
to convince you otherwise, some idiot out to save his
paycheck and tenure rolling around on the floor speaking like a talking
monkey gloriying evilution may be
all the evidence you need to "prove" Atheism.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to atheist
evidence for no God.
You consider that to be evidence that atheism works. And you
think that the remaining 99.99% SUCCESS was simply chance.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many theists and agnostics do about
the Bible, Christianity, and church
history - but still call yourself an atheist.
Hope...@earthlink.net
Truth" <Nos...@Nomarketing.com> thrilled us all with:
>TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A ATHEIST
>
>10 - You vigorously deny the existence of the only god claimed and supported
>by the only true religion, but feel outraged when
>someone denies the existence of atheism.
I don't vigourously deny anything. I merely don't believe in your
"only true religion" or any other "only true religion."
And unless you consider laughing fits a sign of outrage, we don't care
if you make idiotic claims such as denying the existence of atheism.
>9 - You feel enlightened and "humanized" when scientists say that people
>evolved from other life forms, but you have a huge problem with the Biblical
> claim that we were created by GOD.
I don't feel anything about it. I simply believe one over the other.
>8 - You laugh at theists, but you have no problem believing in order out of
>chaos.
I don't generally laugh at theists, just the funny ones. You can
observe order out of chaos in everyday life. Why should it be
considered then impossible?
>7 - you don't flinch when hearing about how atheists slaughtered all the
>babies of China and Russia in the
>history books and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in
>Cambodia and other countries including
>women and children!
I don't like to hear about slaughter of anyone. But it's never been
done in the name of atheism as it has been done in the name of
religion.
>6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about
>gods sleeping with women, and you laugh and villify
>people believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth
>to a man-god who was crucified for our sins,came back to life and then
>ascended into heaven.
I don't laugh at any of them. I find them a fascinating reflection of
the society from which they come. I am surprised at people who find
one outlandish story ridiculous but then embrace another equally
outlandish story as truth because it matches the religion they wish to
believe is true.
>5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the
>scientifically established age of Earth, and you find everything wrong with
>believing dates recorded by Bronze Age scientists sitting in their homes
>and stating the age of the earth.
Huh? I spend my life on...well....my life. Some people get obsessed
with these things, but most people, of any ilk, do not.
>4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet have no souls
>including those in all rival sects of secular humanism- and will
>spend Eternity in blackness and devoid of any purpose.
Define soul? I could believe in calling that immeasurable thing
within us that makes us who we are "soul." I don't, however, believe
it rises from the body like a helium balloon and goes up to some fairy
land in the clouds.
>3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed
>to convince you otherwise, some idiot out to save his
>paycheck and tenure rolling around on the floor speaking like a talking
>monkey gloriying evilution may be
>all the evidence you need to "prove" Atheism.
Evolution and atheism are not the same thing. Proving atheism isn't
even a consideration. We know you cannot prove a negative, that is
the absence of a god. I personally think that everyone comes to these
conclusions in their own way and their own time.
>2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to atheist
>evidence for no God.
>You consider that to be evidence that atheism works. And you
>think that the remaining 99.99% SUCCESS was simply chance.
This is another, "huh?" This makes no sense, especially since most of
us have no desire to prove anything to anybody.
>1 - You actually know a lot less than many theists and agnostics do about
>the Bible, Christianity, and church
>history - but still call yourself an atheist.
You actually know a lot less about the Koran than most, but you call
yourself a Christian.
Besides, most atheists I know were raised on the Bible and know it
very well. Better than many theists.
You need to do something to resolve these anger issues. You live in a
diverse society and you'll either have to learn tolerance or drive
yourself insane.
Faith
AKA ClaySkye
AKA #4