Secular Humanism--Public Schools
buckeye
103 ALR Fed 538
This annotation collects and analyzes the federal and state cases in which
the courts have discussed or decided the constitutionality of public school
courses, textbooks, or policies that allegedly promoted
541
a "religion" of humanism, secularism, or secular humanism1 in violation of
the First Amendment's prohibition of the establishment of religion or its
guarantee of free exercise of religion,
----------------------------------------------------------------
1. "Humanism" has been denned as a philosophy that rejects supernaturalism
and emphasizes an individual's dignity, worth, and capacity for
self-reali-zation through reason; "secularism" has been defined as an
indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion (Webster's Ninth New
Collegiate Dic-tionary). One short list of the principal tenets of "secular
humanism" is: denial of the relevance of deity, the supremacy of human
reason, the inevitability of progress, science as the guiding force of
progress, the centrality and autonomy of humankind, and adherence to the
theory of evolution (see Note, Secular Humanism, the Establishment Clause,
and Public Education, 61 NYU L Rev 1149 (December 1986); for another
discussion of the characteristics of the philosophy in question, see
Mitchell, Secularism in Public Education: The Constitutional Issues, 67 Bos
U L Rev (July 1987)). As used in this annotation, all the above terms
reflect the usage of the parties or the courts in particular cases; in
general contexts, the term "secular humanism" is used to include the
controversial religious aspects of "humanism" and "secularism."
542
2. Summary
The religion clauses of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution provide that "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (USCS,
Constitution, Amendment 1).
Claims that these provisions were violated by the teaching or
other promotion of a religion of secular humanism in public schools may be
traced to two United States Supreme Court decisions. In Tor-caso v Watkins
(1961) 367 US 488, 6 L Ed 2d 982, 81 S Ct 1680, an action challenging a
state constitutional provision requiring public office holders to
declare a belief in God, the court, in a footnote, recognized secular
humanism as a nontheistic religion, citing two cases involving
the tax-exempt status of particular humanist organizations.2 Then, in
School Dist. of Abington Township v Schempp (1963) 374 US 203, 10 L
Ed 2d 844, 83 S Ct 1560, a case in which
---------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Fellowship of Humanity v County of Alameda (1957, 1st Dist) 153 Cal App
2d 673, 315 P2d 394; and Washington Ethical Soc. v District of Columbia
(1957) 101 App DC 371, 249 F2d 127.
543
the constitutionality of public school prayers was contested, the court
stated that the government may not establish a "religion of secularism" in
the sense of affirma-tively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus
preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. This
declara-tion was a response to Justice Stewart's suggestion in a dissenting
opinion that barring prayer in the schools may be seen not as the
realization of state neutrality, but as the establishment of a religion of
secularism; the majority rejected the idea that the maintenance of
governmental neutrality on religious questions results in violation of
either the establishment clause or the free exercise clause.
The rule against establishing a religion of secularism has been repeatedly
reaffirmed in cases raising constitutional issues regarding religion in the
public schools (� 3). However, in every case the rule has ultimately been
found not to have been violated, and claims that secular humanist tenets
have been adopted by the schools so as to violate the free exercise clause
have been likewise unsuccessful.3
Various governmental policies in the field of public education have been
attacked on the ground that they supported secular humanism (��4-9). In the
Schempp case noted above and in two cases involving public school teachers'
use of religious materials in their class-rooms,4 the courts have rejected
claims that refusing to permit religious observances or religiously
oriented materials in public school classrooms resulted in the
establishment of secular humanism; an argument that Bible classes were
conducted to "balance" the secular humanism in a public school curriculum
has also been discredited5 (�4).
In two cases, the denial of public funding for private schooling has been
alleged to promote secular
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Plaintiffs claiming unconstitutional promotion of secular humanism in
public school textbooks were initially successful in two Federal District
Courts, but suffered reversals on appeal. In Smith v Board of School Comrs.
(1987, SD Ala) 655 F Supp 939, revd (CA11 Ala) 827 F2d 684, 103 ALR Fed
517, later proceeding on other grounds (CA11 Ala) 837 F2d 1461, the
establishment clause was invoked; in Mozert v Hawkins County Public Schools
(1986, ED Tenn) 647 F Supp 1194, later proceeding (ED Tenn) LEXIS slip op
and revd (CA6 Tenn) 827 F2d 1058, reh den (CA6) 1987 US App LEXIS 13833 and
cert den 484 US 1066, 98 L Ed 2d 993, 108 S Ct 1029, the free exercise
clause was at issue. In another case, Panarella v Birenbaum (1969) 60 Misc
2d 95, 302 NYS2d 427, revd (2d Dept) 37 App Div 2d 987, 327 NYS2d 755, affd
32 NY2d 108, 343 NYS2d 333, 296 NE2d 238, plaintiffs asserting that secular
humanism was established by public schools' support of student newspapers
that ran articles attacking Christian beliefs and institutions obtained an
order requiring regulation of religiously oriented articles, which was
reversed by the appellate courts.
4. Roberts v Madigan (1989, DC Colo) 702 F Supp 1505, affd (CA10
Colo) 921 F2d 1047; Fink v Board of Education (1982) 65 Pa Cmwlth 320,
442 A2d 837, app dismd 460 US 1048, 75 L Ed 2d 927, 103 S Ct 1493.
5. Doe v Human (1989, WD Ark)
725 F Supp 1503.
544
humanism in violation of the establishment clause, but the courts were
unpersuaded, either rejecting out of hand the notion that the public
schools were hostile to religion or holding that if the schools were
promoting secular humanism, the remedy would be to cease doing so, not to
facilitate the teaching of another religion (�5).
A father who challenged the constitutionality of a state compulsory school
attendance statute, raising his right to the free exercise of his
Pentecostalist religion and asserting that the public schools promoted
secular humanism, has been held not to have demonstrated that the home
instruction he provided for his children, whom he expected to live and work
in the secular world when they grew up, would be sufficient to prepare them
for participation in America's modern democratic society, a function that
the court found to be a compelling state interest outweighing the father's
free exercise rights (� 6).
Student newspaper articles demonstrating virulent hostility to Christian
theology and the Catholic church gave rise to an action alleging that
public universities, by providing support for the newspapers, effectively
established secular humanism; the court held that the schools had
legitimate secular purposes for sponsoring the papers and that this action
could not be construed as an attempt to establish a secular religion (�7).
Another court has rejected the assertion that teaching evolution in public
schools lent support to a religion of secularism, describing the intrusion
on governmental religious neutrality occasioned by such instruction as
"nebulous";6 this conclusion has found support in other cases where the
religious aspects of the theory of evolution were argued (� 8).
Sex education programs in pub-lic schools have likewise been attacked as
establishing secular humanism, but the courts have held that the courses in
question were not antireligious and maintained a proper neutrality on
religious questions, leaving ample room for students to consult with their
parents or religious counselors on sensitive issues (�9); a similar at-tack
on public funding for sex education outside of the schools has been
denounced as frivolous by the court, which stated that sexual be-havior is
not an essentially religious matter even though it has religious
implications for some people.7
Several decisions have focused on particular public school text-books that
allegedly fostered secular humanism (��10-13). A parent's claim that a
novel assigned to her daughter's English class violated the establishment
clause by promoting secular humanism failed to convince the court, which
ob-served that comment on religion was a very minor portion of the
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Wright v Houston Independent School Dist. (1972, SD Tex) 366 F Supp
1208, affd (CA5 Tex) 486 F2d 137, reh den (CA5 Tex) 487 F2d 1401 and reh
den (CA5 Tex) 489 F2d 1312 and cert den 417 US 969, 41 L Ed 2d 1140, 94 S
Ct 3173,
7. Civic Awareness of America, Ltd. v Richardson (1972, ED Wis) 343 F Supp
1358.
545
book, and that its primary effect was secular (� 10).
In another case, the court reversed an injunction against use in the public
schools of 44 textbooks that the trial judge had deemed to advance secular
humanism and inhibit theistic religion. The banned texts dealt with history
and social studies (� 11) and with home economics (� 12); the court decided
that no endorsement of secular humanism could be found in the schools' use
of these books and that any benefit conferred on secular humanism was
merely incidental. The trial judge had mistakenly assumed that the
establishment clause requires equal time for religion, rather than
separation of church and state, said the court.8
A series of reading texts was challenged on free exercise grounds, partly
because of its al-leged promotion of secular humanism, in another case.
Holding that the compulsion requisite to sustain a free exercise claim was
absent since no student was required to affirm or deny a religious belief
or to perform or not perform a reli-gious act, the court remarked that the
plaintiffs would in some cir-cumstances accept only an accom-modation of
their religious views by the public schools that would itself violate the
establishment clause (�13).
A discussion illuminating some of the analytical difficulties of bringing
secular humanism within the ambit of establishment clause
jurisprudence was provided by Justice Canby in his concurring opin-ion in
Grove v Mead School Dist. (1985, CA9 Wash) 753 F2d 1528, cert den 474 US
826, 88 L Ed 2d 70, 106 S Ct 85. Justice Canby observed that opponents of
secular humanism tend to adopt a dualistic outlook dividing social values
into the religious and the antireligious with no middle ground, labeling
all that is antireligious as "secular." Since the test formulated by the
Supreme Court for determining whether the establishment clause has been
violated9 requires deciding whether the challenged state action has a
purpose and effect that are "secular" in the sense of "non-religious,"
Justice Canby pointed out that those who equate "secular" with
"anti-religious" are not dealing in the same linguistic currency as the
Supreme Court's establishment clause decisions. Furthermore, Justice Canby
agreed with the point made by Justice Adams in a concurring opinion in
another case10 --that when the Supreme Court recognized secular humanism as
a religion in Torcaso v Watkins (1961) 367 US 488, 6 L Ed 2d 982, 81 S Ct
1680, it had in mind particular organized groups of secular humanists,
rather than a set of general beliefs.
8. Smith v Board of School Comrs, (1987, CA11 Ala) 827 F2d 684, 103 ALR
Fed 517, later proceeding on other grounds (CA11 Ala) 837 F2d 1461.
9. Lemon v Kurtzman (1971) 403 US 602, 29 L Ed 2d 745, 91 S Ct 2105.
10. Malnak v Yogi (1979, CAS NJ) 592 F2d 197.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS � Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
James Veverka wrote:
One of the ways to counter the attack on American Constitutional principles
by the religious right is to address their revisionism, misinformation and
distortions.
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************