Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cadre!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: "Secular Humanism" banned in the US Schools.
Message-ID: <1698@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 00:36:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1698
Posted: Mon Aug 26 00:36:44 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Aug-85 08:06:31 EDT
References: <4141@alice.UUCP> <938@bunker.UUCP>, <161@gargoyle.UUCP> <5766@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 90
Xref: linus net.politics:9989 net.religion:7066

> 
> >> Didn't the Supreme Court
> >> recognize Secular Humanism as a religion not too long ago?
> >>Gary Samuelson
> >
> *Torcaso vs Watkins* (1961).  The Supreme Court ruled that it is
> unconstitutional for the state of Maryland to require belief in God
> as a condition for becoming a notary public.  The judges specifically
> identified secular humanism as a religion:  "Among religions in this
> country which do not teach what would be generally be considered a
> belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture,
> Secular Humanism and others".
> 
> It seems to me that the secularists want it both ways.  When it becomes
  ------------------------------------------------------
> beneficial to have one's beliefs viewed as religious, the wear the
> religious mantle.  When it comes to keeping certain ideas out of the
> public schools, however, that's different.  Then you're only religious
> if you believe in God.  The Humanist Manifestos proclaim the religious
> nature of humanism, though many humanists avoid the term.  
> 
> Paul Dubuc 	cbscc!pmd

I am an atheist and I want to have it both ways.  Moreover, I sinsirely
believe that I am rigth.  What those two ways are?
1.  I want the principle of tolerating religion to be extended 
    to tolerating lack of religion.
2.  I want to keep certain ideas in school.

Explanation of point 1.  
   Whatever the judges explenations in the quoted cases are, the core of 
the issue is:  should it be legal to make atheists second class citizens?  
Frankly, I am not interested in the letter of constitution or "the intention 
of the founding fathers" but in my legal rights.  I know relativism and I 
know that one can read the constitution in diffferent ways, all of them 
honest.  Still, I prefer such an interpretation which preserves my rights.
   The precedent quoted by Paul is very serious one.  If a notary public
must believe in God, that probably means that the oath of a person who
does not believe in God is not valid.  That would pave way to other laws:
the testimony of an atheist could be regarded as less valid, also an
atheist could be legally barred from taking jobs requiring an oath.
E.g. I needed to signed an oath to accept my university contract.
   I read an intervue with sen. Jesse Helms.  He claims that while the
constitution bars establishment of a religion, it allows, and even implies
the principle of believing in God ("one nation under the God").  Thus when
I am afraid that someone wants to make me a second class citizen, I afraid 
of polititians which at this very moment may enact laws in many states.
   The quoted legal opinion really worries me.  It seems that judges 
agreed that someone may be required to have a religion to hold a public
position,  they merely disallowed that one may be required to believe in 
God.  Happily, I do not see any polititian proposing such a funny law.

Explanation of point 2.  
   I want to keep certain ideas in school in spite of the fact that they
are deemed to by holy by a sect of "secular humanists".  The reason is
that I regard those as useful and practical part of education.
   Any piece of school program may become a tenet of faith for some
group.  Shall we stop teaching geography if somebody makes an idol
of a globe?  Similarly, if somebody believes religiously in evolution
it does not mean that teaching geology should be forbidden.
   What foes of "secular humanism" are against?  I heard and read some
of them.  They are against the idea that the norms of good and bad are
created by humans.  Their classical example of "brainwashing in the
spirit of secular humanism" is the following.  The teacher asks the
students to write on the blackboard different moral principles, then
invents a situations of conflict between those principles and asks
students to decide what they would do.  The conclusion is that the
school trains students in moral relativism.  
   In short, the idea which is to be purged from school by Orrin Hatch's
ammendment is: honest people may have different moral choices.  
According to fundamentalists, this is false: if you cannot figure from
the Scripture what you should do, your preacher can.  If you listen
to Phillys Schaffly, Jesse Helms, Jerry Farwell etc. then it is clear
what is the worst part of the abominable secular humanism.  
Not evolution, but the tolerance.  If there would be any activity in
the school that teaches respect to other views or other lifestyles,
you should at best remove this activity, and at least be able to
forbid your children to participate.
   The New Right is well organized, has plenty of funds and promotes
a clear, logical vision.   What is not good, is bad.  No hesitation.
Children are our future, purity of their souls is the largest asset.
Thus we should never confront our children with an idea that an atheist
or homosexual may be a worthy human being.  Remove school activities
that may suggest that!  Remove books from libraries that may suggest
that!  Remove teachers that may suggest that!  (A law on the book in
Arkansas, I guess, forbids teachers to accept homosexualism in privite
conversations with students.)
   
  Piotr Berman