Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: notesfiles
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hp-pcd!orstcs!richardt
From: richardt@orstcs.UUCP (richardt)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Question about Secular Humanism
Message-ID: <2900001@orstcs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 20:15:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: orstcs.2900001
Posted: Tue Aug 27 20:15:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 08:32:53 EDT
Organization: Oregon State University - Corvallis, OR
Lines: 18
Nf-ID: #N:orstcs:2900001:000:834
Nf-From: orstcs!richardt    Aug 27 16:15:00 1985

I don't know whether anyone from net.legal has seen the "Secular Humainst"
arguments flying back and forth over on net.religion/net.politics.  However,
an interesting legal question has risen:  

1.	Given that by a 1961 decision, "Secular Humanism" is defined as
	a religion (in that decision, for purposes of gaining conscientious
	objector status);
2.	A recent judge has handed down a decision which states
	"As Secular Humanism is a religion under the law, and the teaching
	of religious dogma is unconstitutuonal, the teaching of Secular
	Humanist dogma is thereby illegal."
3.	There is an organization which calls itself "Secular Humanism";

Are we off the hook because the decision can be construed to apply only that
which the organization purveys?
					orstcs!richardt
Richard Threadgill
"All rise for the wrong honorable..."