Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Quote:

sec·u·lar ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sky-lr)
adj.

Worldly rather than spiritual.
Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
Relating to or advocating secularism.
Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy. Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
Lasting from century to century.

n.
A member of the secular clergy.
A layperson.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=secular

Those definitions in bold represent my usage of the word secular when I'm referring to the need for government to be secular. We can see that there are other definitions that do not fit. Notice the first definition under the second list. I don't know how something defined as not something can be both. I mean, if secular means not clergy, then how can we have secular clergy? So I looked up "secular clergy" and found this:

Quote:

secular clergy

Clergy \Cler"gy\, n. [OE. clergie, clergi, clerge, OF. clergie, F. clergie (fr. clerc clerc, fr. L. clericus priest) confused with OF. clergi['e], F. clerg['e], fr. LL. clericatus office of priest, monastic life, fr. L. clericus priest, LL. scholar, clerc. Both the Old French words meant clergy, in sense 1, the former having also sense 2. See Clerk.] 1. The body of men set apart, by due ordination, to the service of God, in the Christian church, in distinction from the laity; in England, usually restricted to the ministers of the Established Church. --Hooker.

2. Learning; also, a learned profession. [Obs.]

Sophictry . . . rhetoric, and other cleargy. --Guy of Warwick.

Put their second sons to learn some clergy. --State Papers (1515).

3. The privilege or benefit of clergy.

If convicted of a clergyable felony, he is entitled equally to his clergy after as before conviction. --Blackstone.

Benefit of clergy (Eng., Law), the exemption of the persons of clergymen from criminal process before a secular judge -- a privilege which was extended to all who could read, such persons being, in the eye of the law, clerici, or clerks. This privilege was abridged and modified by various statutes, and finally abolished in the reign of George IV. (1827).

Regular clergy, Secular clergy See Regular, n., and Secular, a.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=secular%20clergy

So I hope that clears that apparent contradiction up.

The New Right (that is those who want to send us back to pre-enlightenment times) political machine, have coined a phrase for the purpose of making an argument for religion (specifically their own religion, the religion of the majority in this country) in government. That term is secular humanism. They have claimed that secularism is no different from a religion and argue that the absence of religion in school curriculum or the absence of religious symbols in public places, or in the pledge or on our money is the secular humanist's success in establishing their religion.

You can see the contradictions. If not, I'll be more specific about what I mean.

If secular means "absence of religion" then it is not possible for government to be both secular and religious.

If it means a religion, which is ridiculous in my opinion, then it does nothing but confuse the debate. And is not helpful at all. It is as a matter of fact grossly manipulative, i.e. pavrovian.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

I not only wonder about religious parties in Iraq and Iran, but also about European political parties with "Christian" in their title.

I was actually born in Germany and I still wonder how German Christian Democrats maintain secularism in government. If we want "under god" removed from the American pledge, wouldn't Germans want any reference to religion removed from the name of their ruling party?

I think there's a difference. Those parties in Germany or Europe, as far as I know, and maybe someone who knows better will inform us, but I get the idea that those parties with Christian in their names are not evangelical in their intentions. So we're back to intent.

0 Replies

Lola:-

Go see your thread on Politics.There's some really crude techniques being employed there in order to search out wriggle-room.Talk about an idea of an idea of a thing.

0 Replies

I will, spendi, but it won't help some people.

0 Replies

Well, the Supreme Court did rule that secular humanism was a religion, so it is not all that unfounded to wonder why it is allowed in schools when other religions are not.

0 Replies

hyper426 wrote:

Well, the Supreme Court did rule that secular humanism was a religion, so it is not all that unfounded to wonder why it is allowed in schools when other religions are not.

I'm not familiar with this ruling. Do you have a source?

0 Replies

darn it, i did, but I gave it to my teacher (I started a file for all old info, so it could be reused), so I will look...............................

http://right-mind.us/archive/2005/03/11/2431.aspx

John Dewey described Humanism as our "common faith." Julian Huxley called it "Religion without Revelation." 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.

But then Christians began to challenge the "establishment of religion" which Secular Humanism in public schools represented. They used the same tactic Atheists had used to challenge prayer and Bible reading under the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment. Now the ACLU is involved. Now the question is controversial. Now Secular Humanists have completely reversed their strategy, and claim that Humanism is not at all religious, but is "scientific."

In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that Secular Humanism was a religion. Nevertheless, many Humanists deny the significance of the Court's assertion. In order to buttress the claim that the identification of Secular Humanism as a religion in a footnote in the Torcaso case is more than mere "dicta," here is a memorandum prepared "[a]t the request of the staff of the Committee on Education and Labor" by Congressman John B. Conlan.

The U.S. Supreme Court cited Secular Humanism as a religion in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins (367 U.S. 488). Roy Torcaso, the appellant, a practicing Humanist in Maryland, had refused to declare his belief in Almighty God, as then required by State law in order for him to be commissioned as a notary public. The Court held that the requirement for such an oath "invades appellant's freedom of belief and religion."
The Court declared in Torcaso that the "no establishment" clause of the First Amendment reached far more than churches of theistic faiths, that it is not the business of government or its agents to probe beliefs, and that therefore its inquiry is concluded by the fact of the profession of belief. Actually, the Court in Torcaso rested its decision on "free exercise" grounds, not the "Establishment Clause." Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 264-65 (1962) J. Brennan, concurring.

The Court stated:
We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person to "profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers,10 and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.11

Footnote 11 concerning "religions founded on different beliefs" contains the Court's citation of Secular Humanism as a religion. It states
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. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.

It is important to note that this citation of Secular Humanism as a religion is not merely dictum. The Supreme Court refers to the important 1957 case of Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia (101 U.S. App. D.C. 371) in its holding that Secular Humanism is a non-theistic religion within the meaning of the First Amendment.
The Ethical Culture movement is one denomination of Secular Humanism which reaches moral and cultural relativism, situation ethics, and attacks belief in a spiritual God and theistic values of the Old and New Testaments.
The Washington Ethical Society case involved denial of the Society's application for tax exemption as a religious organization. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court's ruling, defined the Society as a religious organization, and granted its tax exemption.
The Court Stated,
The sole issue raised is whether petitioner falls within the definition of a "church" or a "religious society" . . . . The taxing authority urges denial of the tax exemption asserting petitioner is not a religious society or church and that it does not use its buildings for religious worship since "religious" and "worship" require a belief in and teaching of a Supreme Being who controls the universe. The position of the tax Court, in denying tax exemption, was that belief in and teaching of the existence of a Divinity is essential to qualify under the statute. . . . To construe exemptions so strictly that unorthodox or minority forms of worship would be denied the exemption benefits granted to those conforming to the majority beliefs might well raise constitutional issues . . . . We hold on this record and under the controlling statutory language petitioner qualifies as "a religious corporation or society" . . . .

It is incumbent upon Congress to utilize this broad definition of religion in all its legislative actions bearing on the support or non-support of religion, within the context of the "no-establishment" clause of the First Amendment.

0 Replies

darn it, i did, but I gave it to my teacher (I started a file for all old info, so it could be reused), so I will look...............................this is a different one with same info.

http://right-mind.us/archive/2005/03/11/2431.aspx

John Dewey described Humanism as our "common faith." Julian Huxley called it "Religion without Revelation." 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.

But then Christians began to challenge the "establishment of religion" which Secular Humanism in public schools represented. They used the same tactic Atheists had used to challenge prayer and Bible reading under the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment. Now the ACLU is involved. Now the question is controversial. Now Secular Humanists have completely reversed their strategy, and claim that Humanism is not at all religious, but is "scientific."

In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that Secular Humanism was a religion. Nevertheless, many Humanists deny the significance of the Court's assertion. In order to buttress the claim that the identification of Secular Humanism as a religion in a footnote in the Torcaso case is more than mere "dicta," here is a memorandum prepared "[a]t the request of the staff of the Committee on Education and Labor" by Congressman John B. Conlan.

The U.S. Supreme Court cited Secular Humanism as a religion in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins (367 U.S. 488). Roy Torcaso, the appellant, a practicing Humanist in Maryland, had refused to declare his belief in Almighty God, as then required by State law in order for him to be commissioned as a notary public. The Court held that the requirement for such an oath "invades appellant's freedom of belief and religion."
The Court declared in Torcaso that the "no establishment" clause of the First Amendment reached far more than churches of theistic faiths, that it is not the business of government or its agents to probe beliefs, and that therefore its inquiry is concluded by the fact of the profession of belief. Actually, the Court in Torcaso rested its decision on "free exercise" grounds, not the "Establishment Clause." Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 264-65 (1962) J. Brennan, concurring.

The Court stated:
We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person to "profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers,10 and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.11

Footnote 11 concerning "religions founded on different beliefs" contains the Court's citation of Secular Humanism as a religion. It states
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. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.

It is important to note that this citation of Secular Humanism as a religion is not merely dictum. The Supreme Court refers to the important 1957 case of Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia (101 U.S. App. D.C. 371) in its holding that Secular Humanism is a non-theistic religion within the meaning of the First Amendment.
The Ethical Culture movement is one denomination of Secular Humanism which reaches moral and cultural relativism, situation ethics, and attacks belief in a spiritual God and theistic values of the Old and New Testaments.
The Washington Ethical Society case involved denial of the Society's application for tax exemption as a religious organization. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court's ruling, defined the Society as a religious organization, and granted its tax exemption.
The Court Stated,
The sole issue raised is whether petitioner falls within the definition of a "church" or a "religious society" . . . . The taxing authority urges denial of the tax exemption asserting petitioner is not a religious society or church and that it does not use its buildings for religious worship since "religious" and "worship" require a belief in and teaching of a Supreme Being who controls the universe. The position of the tax Court, in denying tax exemption, was that belief in and teaching of the existence of a Divinity is essential to qualify under the statute. . . . To construe exemptions so strictly that unorthodox or minority forms of worship would be denied the exemption benefits granted to those conforming to the majority beliefs might well raise constitutional issues . . . . We hold on this record and under the controlling statutory language petitioner qualifies as "a religious corporation or society" . . . .

It is incumbent upon Congress to utilize this broad definition of religion in all its legislative actions bearing on the support or non-support of religion, within the context of the "no-establishment" clause of the First Amendment.

0 Replies

Interesting. It's hard to see how the court can say that Secular Humanism is a religion when both words, Secular, and Humanism are explicitly defined as an expression of non-religion.

I would have to understand the purpose of their ruling to see why they said this, and at the moment, I don't understand the ruling you showed. I'll have to read more later.

Thanks,

0 Replies

Quote:

Now the question is controversial. Now Secular Humanists have completely reversed their strategy, and claim that Humanism is not at all religious, but is "scientific."

How can something defined as not religious be religious?

Humanism may share characteristics of a religion.....may even be considered a religion.

But Secular Humanism cannot be a religion by definition.

That's basic logic.

0 Replies

Quote:

The Supreme Court ruled that secular humanism is a religion.

This myth is based on a misunderstanding about how Supreme Court decisions are written, and was finally laid to rest by a Federal Circuit Court ruling issued in 1994.

In the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins decision, Justice Hugo Black commented in a footnote, "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." Such footnotes, known as "dicta," are written to provide factual background to the legal principles in a decision. These dicta never have the force of law. They are merely comments.

The claim that secular humanism can be considered a religion for legal purposes was finally considered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Peloza v. Capistrano School District. In this 1994 case, a science teacher argued that, by requiring him to teach evolution, his school district was forcing him to teach the "religion" of secular humanism. The Court responded, "We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are `religions' for Establishment Clause purposes." The Supreme Court refused to review the case; they refused to reverse a ruling that secular humanism is not a religion.

"But," you might ask, "even if secular humanism isn't a religion for legal purposes, isn't it really a religion in practical terms?" No. Look at it this way: Suppose Justice Black had been writing about an issue of interstate commerce in agricultural products, and in a footnote he included "apples" in a list of root crops. He would be wrong. It wouldn't matter what laws were involved-apples are fruits, not roots! As a factual matter, he was partly wrong about Buddhism because some branches of Buddhism do worship the Buddha as a deity. And he was wrong about secular humanism.

Secular humanism is not a religion by any definition: There are no supernatural beliefs, no creeds that all humanists are required to accept, no sacred texts or required rituals. Humanists are not expected or required to have "faith" in what is said by any authority, living or dead, human or "supernatural."

People may find values and meaning in life through either humanistic or religious worldviews. But religions claim that meaning is based on a god or the supernatural, while humanists derive their meaning and values from the natural world. Secular humanism is a naturalistic, nonreligious worldview.

Source

0 Replies

Thanks Walter. That was quick scholarship. It's another example, however......if I may, of the more you repeat it, the truer it is.

0 Replies

A quote from the fragrant Lola:-

"And context is important too."

What does "context" mean?

Well-here in spendiland there's only one context.The Human Condition.All lesser contexts are skewed by laws,customs,conventions,manners etc etc.Thus by "context" most people seem to mean whatever combination of laws,customs etc are in operation at a particular time in a particular place.The human condition context shows itself in any place at any time when none of these restrictions exist.Lola once said-"We are all rats".
This is why sport is popular.Especially big time sport where there is a lot at stake.If there is a lot at stake in anything the best in the world show up to compete.And on these fields and in these stadia the laws,customs etc are at a minimum.And we love it.We vote it with our hard earned cash.
The reason for its popularity is that it gets close to the context of the human condition.
Similarly with media coverage.That is loaded up with reports of events where the human condition has got the upper hand.It fascinates us like jam fascinates wasps.
The main thing about the usual contexts where laws,customs etc apply is that they differ from place to place and time to time.Arguments about contexts,which is what they are,ought to take account of that.You might say that contexts where laws,customs etc apply are social mental states.In what I gather are called "fly-over" states a different combination of the inhibitions are prevelant than is the case in the "outlands".These are coalitions of similar,but not the same,combinations.Looking at the red/blue maps there seems to be a polarisation.If either one vanished into thin air the survivor would start all the same arguments within their coalition and raise those to the level of heated,national debate.
Just like the idea of the idea of a thing can go on indefinitely so can such a polarisation.
If the most important thing is keeping the Union in place then any sign of polarisation is similar to the first sign of rust on a girder.Thus heated arguments caused by different contexts are nation fracturing.Or at least potentially so.A government is a coalition of contexts.Or hopefully so.One might add that these internal disputes concerning contexts of laws,customs,conventions,manners etc have reached such a point of refinement that we can't light a fag within 500yds of another person and most of the cost of a fag is goverment funding which helps to finance the laws,customs etc which say that we can't light a fag etc even though most of the cost of a fag etc goes to etc etc and then etc etc etc.

Some philosophers think that all contexts are basically biological.If that's true we might be flawed.

0 Replies

Hi Lola:-

I'm flying.I just backed the winner of the Queen Mother Champion Chase.I've been waiting for it for two months.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Quote:
The Supreme Court ruled that secular humanism is a religion.

This myth is based on a misunderstanding about how Supreme Court decisions are written, and was finally laid to rest by a Federal Circuit Court ruling issued in 1994.

...

Secular humanism is not a religion by any definition: There are no supernatural beliefs, no creeds that all humanists are required to accept, no sacred texts or required rituals. Humanists are not expected or required to have "faith" in what is said by any authority, living or dead, human or "supernatural."

People may find values and meaning in life through either humanistic or religious worldviews. But religions claim that meaning is based on a god or the supernatural, while humanists derive their meaning and values from the natural world. Secular humanism is a naturalistic, nonreligious worldview.

Source

Thanks Walter. That makes more sense Smile

0 Replies

Quote:

Some philosophers think that all contexts are basically biological.If that's true we might be flawed.

We might be flawed? Man is motivated by conflict. We are doomed to it. We suffer beneath it. We struggle against it. But ultimately, we have to embrace it.

The only question then is how to manage it.

Confusing government and religion is not a good conflict management style because it's too damaging to too many people. We have to have a better way. Like all agreeing that the government must remain secular.

0 Replies

"...government must remain securlar..." Come'on Lola, you're trying to reach an ideal that humans will never come close to. Look what's happened in the US. Even the catholic church got involved in our last national election.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

"...government must remain securlar..." Come'on Lola, you're trying to reach an ideal that humans will never come close to. Look what's happened in the US. Even the catholic church got involved in our last national election.

That's right. That's why we're calling the Constitutional cops.

0 Replies

hey, I am not saying secular humanism is or should be a religion. I am just stating that it is constitutionally one, so why is it still taught in schools?

0 Replies

hyper426 wrote:

hey, I am not saying secular humanism is or should be a religion. I am just stating that it is constitutionally one, so why is it still taught in schools?

Hyper, the information provided by Walter indicates that Secular Humanism is *not* considered a religion, either constitutionally, or otherwise.

The document (case) you originally provided has been clarified by the courts in more recent cases. (see the information in Walter's post).

0 Replies

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know