Total Posts:107|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Secular Humanists dishonest tactics

Tnkissfan
Posts: 199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 9:57:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The United States government states that secular humanism is a "religion" even though there is no "god" associated with the "religions" that fall under the secular humanist umbrella.

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.

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 and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.
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."

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 has undeniably defined Secular Humanism as a religion "for free exercise purposes." When Secular Humanists want the benefits of a religion, they get them.
But when Christians attempt to get the religion of Secular Humanism out of the government schools, based on the same emotional frame of mind which atheists had when they went to court against God in schools, then pro-secularist courts speak out of the other side of their faces and say that Secular Humanism is NOT a religion "for establishment clause purposes." This is slimy deceitful legalism at its worst.

Secular Humanism is a religion "for free exercise clause purposes," and it is not a religion "for establishment clause purposes."
Is this right? Should this be allowed?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 10:02:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Secular Humanism is not a religion, but it is protected by the Free Exercise Clause. Logically, if I can choose my religion without state interference, I can also opt to not adhere to any religion. The state has no right to force people to adopt specific religious beliefs.

Moreover, the Establishment Clause dictates that the state cannot endorse any specific religion. Even if Secular Humanism is treated as a religion, it is not being endorsed in schools. Just because schools do not brainwash students into worshipping a sky-deity does not mean that they are promoting Atheism or Secular Humanism.
Tnkissfan
Posts: 199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 11:00:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
What's your definition of "endorse"?
You can't say schools aren't promoting atheism or humanism because you have no way of knowing how every state and every school operates. It doesn't change the fact secular humanists talk out of both sides of their mouth. It's a religion when it comes to tax exemption but not a religion in other instances. That is dishonest! That is abusing the system!
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 11:33:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:00:18 AM, Tnkissfan wrote:
What's your definition of "endorse"?
You can't say schools aren't promoting atheism or humanism because you have no way of knowing how every state and every school operates. It doesn't change the fact secular humanists talk out of both sides of their mouth. It's a religion when it comes to tax exemption but not a religion in other instances. That is dishonest! That is abusing the system!

Secular Humanism is not being taught in schools. Were you taught that God does not exist in your school?
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 11:54:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The removal of religion in schools doesn't necessarily mean that secular humanism is being taught in schools. however, a lot of the ideologies of secular humanism are pervasive in our society and have seeped into our schooling.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Tnkissfan
Posts: 199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 5:59:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:33:29 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:00:18 AM, Tnkissfan wrote:
What's your definition of "endorse"?
You can't say schools aren't promoting atheism or humanism because you have no way of knowing how every state and every school operates. It doesn't change the fact secular humanists talk out of both sides of their mouth. It's a religion when it comes to tax exemption but not a religion in other instances. That is dishonest! That is abusing the system!

Secular Humanism is not being taught in schools. Were you taught that God does not exist in your school?
 In Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist, a high school biology teacher tried to balance the teaching of evolutionism with creationism based on the claim that Secular Humanism (and its core belief, evolutionism) is a religion. The court emphatically rejected this claim:
Now,I could give two hoots and a hollar what anyones "religion" is but if the subject of Creationism,which is widely accepted as a possible explanation for the natural world,  can't be taught then that's showing favoratism to humanism. Note I said possibility. Is it inconceivable that Creationism and Evolution can co-exist in the classroom?
A teacher who wants to tell his students about his religious beliefs is free to do so if his religion is the religion of Secular Humanism, but may not tell his students about his religious beliefs if his religion is Christianity. Christians are not even allowed to discuss Christianity with students during lunch break.
When 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." The Court has undeniably defined Secular Humanism as a religion "for free exercise purposes." When Secular Humanists want the benefits of a religion, they get them. Secular Humanism has been granted tax-exempt status as a religion. 
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 6:32:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 5:59:20 PM, Tnkissfan wrote:
 In Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist, a high school biology teacher tried to balance the teaching of evolutionism with creationism based on the claim that Secular Humanism (and its core belief, evolutionism) is a religion. The court emphatically rejected this claim:
Now,I could give two hoots and a hollar what anyones "religion" is but if the subject of Creationism,which is widely accepted as a possible explanation for the natural world,  can't be taught then that's showing favoratism to humanism. Note I said possibility. Is it inconceivable that Creationism and Evolution can co-exist in the classroom?

Widely accepted by the general public, yes. Widely accepted by actual biologists and scientists, no. And thats all that matters when considering what to teach in a SCIENCE class.

Evolution isnt a secular humanist class, its simply a theory accepted by science. Its not a religion, its a fact.

The only time it is conceivable that Creationism and evolution can co-exist in classrooms is under religious dictatorship.

A teacher who wants to tell his students about his religious beliefs is free to do so if his religion is the religion of Secular Humanism, but may not tell his students about his religious beliefs if his religion is Christianity. Christians are not even allowed to discuss Christianity with students during lunch break.

Secular humanism is not a religion. There is no holy book, there are no sacred laws, no dogmatic beliefs. It is simply a philosophical idea, much like Democracy, or Capitalism.

Actually, nothing prevents students from discussing chrisianity. There are myriads of groups like that. Campus crusaders for christ, Teens for christ groups, etc etc. The only problem exists is when a school or teacher endorses a religion to their students.

When 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." The Court has undeniably defined Secular Humanism as a religion "for free exercise purposes." When Secular Humanists want the benefits of a religion, they get them. Secular Humanism has been granted tax-exempt status as a religion. 

Nope, because the ruling you are reffering to was written in dicta, which is only a footnote, and not an actual legal ruling. This is why in 1994, the supreme court laid down the rules to clearly state that, no, Secular humanism is NOT a religion.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 6:10:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Not all religions believe in God. Buddhism is considered a religion.

But sometimes there can be a fine line between a religion and a philosophy.
Tnkissfan
Posts: 199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 6:45:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are two basic approaches to defining religion: a substantive approach, which focuses on the content of belief; and a functional approach, which focuses on what the belief system does for the individual or community.In other words, a functional definition describes religion as "a set of beliefs, actions and emotions, both personal and corporate, organized around the concept of an Ultimate Reality. This Reality may be understood as a unity or a plurality, personal or nonpersonal, divine or not, and so forth, differing from religion to religion. Such a definition clearly encompasses the worldview of Secular Humanism and the American courts understand religion to include non-theistic religions like Secular Humanism.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not been consistent in applying its definition of religion to its present interpretation of the First Amendment. If the no-establishment clause of the First Amendment really means that there should be a wall of separation between religion and the state, why are only theistic religions being forced out of the public square specifically Christianity? If Secular Humanism is a religion, something the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged and something countless Humanists insist is true, why is it allowed in our public schools? As James Davison Hunter states,
"To be legally consistent the courts will either have to articulate a constitutional double standard or apply the functional definition of religion to the no establishment clause just as they have to the free exercise [clause]. The latter would mean that secularistic faiths and ideologies would be rigorously prohibited from receiving even indirect support from the state, which needless to say would have enormous implications for public education."[1]
[1]-Hunter, "Religious Freedom," p. 65.
  
Tnkissfan
Posts: 199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 6:50:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 6:32:16 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/7/2012 5:59:20 PM, Tnkissfan wrote:
 In Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist, a high school biology teacher tried to balance the teaching of evolutionism with creationism based on the claim that Secular Humanism (and its core belief, evolutionism) is a religion. The court emphatically rejected this claim:
Now,I could give two hoots and a hollar what anyones "religion" is but if the subject of Creationism,which is widely accepted as a possible explanation for the natural world,  can't be taught then that's showing favoratism to humanism. Note I said possibility. Is it inconceivable that Creationism and Evolution can co-exist in the classroom?

Widely accepted by the general public, yes. Widely accepted by actual biologists and scientists, no. And thats all that matters when considering what to teach in a SCIENCE class.

Evolution isnt a secular humanist class, its simply a theory accepted by science. Its not a religion, its a fact.

The only time it is conceivable that Creationism and evolution can co-exist in classrooms is under religious dictatorship.

A teacher who wants to tell his students about his religious beliefs is free to do so if his religion is the religion of Secular Humanism, but may not tell his students about his religious beliefs if his religion is Christianity. Christians are not even allowed to discuss Christianity with students during lunch break.

Secular humanism is not a religion. There is no holy book, there are no sacred laws, no dogmatic beliefs. It is simply a philosophical idea, much like Democracy, or Capitalism.

Actually, nothing prevents students from discussing chrisianity. There are myriads of groups like that. Campus crusaders for christ, Teens for christ groups, etc etc. The only problem exists is when a school or teacher endorses a religion to their students.

When 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." The Court has undeniably defined Secular Humanism as a religion "for free exercise purposes." When Secular Humanists want the benefits of a religion, they get them. Secular Humanism has been granted tax-exempt status as a religion. 

Nope, because the ruling you are reffering to was written in dicta, which is only a footnote, and not an actual legal ruling. This is why in 1994, the supreme court laid down the rules to clearly state that, no, Secular humanism is NOT a religion.

Actually,I didn't say students couldn't discuss their beliefs with each other I said *teachers* couldn't discuss their beliefs.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 8:18:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 6:50:52 PM, Tnkissfan wrote:
At 4/7/2012 6:32:16 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/7/2012 5:59:20 PM, Tnkissfan wrote:
 In Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist, a high school biology teacher tried to balance the teaching of evolutionism with creationism based on the claim that Secular Humanism (and its core belief, evolutionism) is a religion. The court emphatically rejected this claim:
Now,I could give two hoots and a hollar what anyones "religion" is but if the subject of Creationism,which is widely accepted as a possible explanation for the natural world,  can't be taught then that's showing favoratism to humanism. Note I said possibility. Is it inconceivable that Creationism and Evolution can co-exist in the classroom?

Widely accepted by the general public, yes. Widely accepted by actual biologists and scientists, no. And thats all that matters when considering what to teach in a SCIENCE class.

Evolution isnt a secular humanist class, its simply a theory accepted by science. Its not a religion, its a fact.

The only time it is conceivable that Creationism and evolution can co-exist in classrooms is under religious dictatorship.

A teacher who wants to tell his students about his religious beliefs is free to do so if his religion is the religion of Secular Humanism, but may not tell his students about his religious beliefs if his religion is Christianity. Christians are not even allowed to discuss Christianity with students during lunch break.

Secular humanism is not a religion. There is no holy book, there are no sacred laws, no dogmatic beliefs. It is simply a philosophical idea, much like Democracy, or Capitalism.

Actually, nothing prevents students from discussing chrisianity. There are myriads of groups like that. Campus crusaders for christ, Teens for christ groups, etc etc. The only problem exists is when a school or teacher endorses a religion to their students.

When 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." The Court has undeniably defined Secular Humanism as a religion "for free exercise purposes." When Secular Humanists want the benefits of a religion, they get them. Secular Humanism has been granted tax-exempt status as a religion. 

Nope, because the ruling you are reffering to was written in dicta, which is only a footnote, and not an actual legal ruling. This is why in 1994, the supreme court laid down the rules to clearly state that, no, Secular humanism is NOT a religion.

Actually,I didn't say students couldn't discuss their beliefs with each other I said *teachers* couldn't discuss their beliefs.

And whats wrong with that? Teachers are still able to preach and teach whatever they want on their own time. But during school hours, they are there in their professional capacity as a teaher, receiving funds and payment for a job.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2012 8:33:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 6:45:48 PM, Tnkissfan wrote:
There are two basic approaches to defining religion: a substantive approach, which focuses on the content of belief; and a functional approach, which focuses on what the belief system does for the individual or community.In other words, a functional definition describes religion as "a set of beliefs, actions and emotions, both personal and corporate, organized around the concept of an Ultimate Reality.

No, the difference that you are talking about, is religion, and a religious institution. A religion is the basic understanding of a set of beliefs, whereas a religious institution having to do with a belief system in respect to the individual or community.

However, the problem here, is that you can be a secular humanist AND a buddhist, or even a christian. Its called Christian humanism.

Why does this exist? Because Secular humanism is the simple belief that decisions and morality should be based on reason and logic, instead of dictated by supernatural authority. It does not reject the supernatural, it does not claim that any religion is necessarily false, it does not deny that a God exists. It is simply used to ascertain that humans alone should be the only factor in determining decisions and morality.

Your argument holds no basis, even if we were to accept your claim of the two definitions of religion.

BTW, Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

This Reality may be understood as a unity or a plurality, personal or nonpersonal, divine or not, and so forth, differing from religion to religion. Such a definition clearly encompasses the worldview of Secular Humanism and the American courts understand religion to include non-theistic religions like Secular Humanism.

Again, the supreme court in 1994 clearly stated that they understand secular humanism NOT to be a religion. There is no secular humanist institution, there is no religion.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not been consistent in applying its definition of religion to its present interpretation of the First Amendment. If the no-establishment clause of the First Amendment really means that there should be a wall of separation between religion and the state, why are only theistic religions being forced out of the public square specifically Christianity? If Secular Humanism is a religion, something the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged and something countless Humanists insist is true, why is it allowed in our public schools? As James Davison Hunter states,

I already told you, the supreme court does not acknowledge that secular humanism is a religion.

Clearly you do not understand what Obiter Dictum, Dicta, is. They are not part of the official ruling of the supreme court nor are they necessarily relevant to the ruling.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Tnkissfan
Posts: 199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 5:49:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Because if they are Buddhist or an atheist they CAN talk about it! I feel that is showing favoratism! To what degree will vary. Nonetheless,if a teacher feels like talking about his / her lack of belief in God/god(s) that is perfectly acceptable.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 7:13:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 5:49:42 PM, Tnkissfan wrote:
Because if they are Buddhist or an atheist they CAN talk about it! I feel that is showing favoratism! To what degree will vary. Nonetheless,if a teacher feels like talking about his / her lack of belief in God/god(s) that is perfectly acceptable.

Actually, no. If they try to persuade children to buddhism or does Buddhist prayer, they will also be fired, and im fine with that.

Yes, a lack of belief, isnt a belief. A lack of religion, isnt a religion. Thats pretty much what "Lack of" means. And the rules are, that religion must be kept out of schools.

But the funny thing is, i have never seen an atheist teacher preach to her children about Atheism. You just dont see it. What do you see instead? Christian teachers trying to preach about christianity to their students, and getting in trouble.
Tnkissfan
Posts: 199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 7:48:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/8/2012 8:33:02 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/8/2012 6:45:48 PM, Tnkissfan wrote:
There are two basic approaches to defining religion: a substantive approach, which focuses on the content of belief; and a functional approach, which focuses on what the belief system does for the individual or community.In other words, a functional definition describes religion as "a set of beliefs, actions and emotions, both personal and corporate, organized around the concept of an Ultimate Reality.

No, the difference that you are talking about, is religion, and a religious institution. A religion is the basic understanding of a set of beliefs, whereas a religious institution having to do with a belief system in respect to the individual or community.

However, the problem here, is that you can be a secular humanist AND a buddhist, or even a christian. Its called Christian humanism.

Why does this exist? Because Secular humanism is the simple belief that decisions and morality should be based on reason and logic, instead of dictated by supernatural authority. It does not reject the supernatural, it does not claim that any religion is necessarily false, it does not deny that a God exists. It is simply used to ascertain that humans alone should be the only factor in determining decisions and morality.

Your argument holds no basis, even if we were to accept your claim of the two definitions of religion.

BTW, Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org...


This Reality may be understood as a unity or a plurality, personal or nonpersonal, divine or not, and so forth, differing from religion to religion. Such a definition clearly encompasses the worldview of Secular Humanism and the American courts understand religion to include non-theistic religions like Secular Humanism.

Again, the supreme court in 1994 clearly stated that they understand secular humanism NOT to be a religion. There is no secular humanist institution, there is no religion.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not been consistent in applying its definition of religion to its present interpretation of the First Amendment. If the no-establishment clause of the First Amendment really means that there should be a wall of separation between religion and the state, why are only theistic religions being forced out of the public square specifically Christianity? If Secular Humanism is a religion, something the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged and something countless Humanists insist is true, why is it allowed in our public schools? As James Davison Hunter states,

I already told you, the supreme court does not acknowledge that secular humanism is a religion.

Clearly you do not understand what Obiter Dictum, Dicta, is. They are not part of the official ruling of the supreme court nor are they necessarily relevant to the ruling.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Taken from the secular humanist declaration:
"We find that traditional views of the existence of God either are meaningless, have not yet been demonstrated to be true, or are tyrannically exploitative. Secular humanists may be agnostics, atheists, rationalists, or skeptics, but they find insufficient evidence for the claim that some divine purpose exists for the universe. They reject the idea that God has intervened miraculously in history or revealed himself to a chosen few or that he can save or redeem sinners. They believe that men and women are free and are responsible for their own destinies and that they cannot look toward some transcendent Being for salvation. We reject the divinity of Jesus,"
The above statement doesn't sound like it goes along with mainstream christianity. Anyone can accept or reject the bible or start a different "Christian" religion based on anything so the whole "Christian humanist" concept doesn't represent Christianity on the whole. Yes,I read about it in Wiki but I don't accept it as genuine. Btw,I understand completely the court case reguarding secular humanism but I shall continue to refer to humanism as a belief because in my opinion it imparts a belief on individuals. If you do not accept this then so be it.
Tnkissfan
Posts: 199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 7:57:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 7:13:44 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/11/2012 5:49:42 PM, Tnkissfan wrote:
Because if they are Buddhist or an atheist they CAN talk about it! I feel that is showing favoratism! To what degree will vary. Nonetheless,if a teacher feels like talking about his / her lack of belief in God/god(s) that is perfectly acceptable.

Actually, no. If they try to persuade children to buddhism or does Buddhist prayer, they will also be fired, and im fine with that.

Yes, a lack of belief, isnt a belief. A lack of religion, isnt a religion. Thats pretty much what "Lack of" means. And the rules are, that religion must be kept out of schools.

But the funny thing is, i have never seen an atheist teacher preach to her children about Atheism. You just dont see it. What do you see instead? Christian teachers trying to preach about christianity to their students, and getting in trouble.
That's because teachers can talk about atheism without fear of retribution. You can't discuss Christianity. And for petes sake just because a teacher mentions God it doesn't mean they are brainwashing or trying to take one side over the other. You automatically assume because God is mentioned that the teacher is a fundy trying to push their religious views on the class!! To often it's assumed that a Christian teacher would take it to the extreme!
Tlhedglin
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 8:38:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 5:59:20 PM, Tnkissfan wrote:
 In Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist, a high school biology teacher tried to balance the teaching of evolutionism with creationism...:

Evolutionism? Evolution is NOT an organized belief system, it is a scientific theory based on evidence and reason, creationism is not scientific in the least. Hence why they did not want him teaching it in SCIENCE class. Next you will be talking about those damn gravitists, or the religion of magnetism.

Creation belongs in a comparative religion or theology class, perhaps sociology as well, not a Science class.

...based on the claim that Secular Humanism (and its core belief, evolutionism) is a religion.:

Which is just another theists way of conflating evolution with non-belief. Once again, something completely false, there are a vast number of religious people who accept evolution, it is not specific to ANY religion or belief. Sadly, you know it, and he does too.

Will that keep you from doing so in the future? I am doubtful.

The court emphatically rejected this claim:

As it should have.

Now,I could give two hoots and a hollar what anyones "religion" is...:

The best attitude for everyone to adopt...

...but if the subject of Creationism,which is widely accepted as a possible explanation for the natural world,  can't be taught then that's showing favoratism to humanism.:

No. Evolution is NOT exclusive to ANY religious position. You can be a theist or an atheist and still accept it, can you say the same for creationism? Plus, it IS a scientific theory, despite what Mr. Peloza may think. Scientific theories are taught where? SCIENCE CLASSES.

Note I said possibility.:

There is also a possibility that the Scientology is right and you should be worshiping Xenu right now, should we teach that as well?

Is it inconceivable that Creationism and Evolution can co-exist in the classroom?:

In a Science classroom? Yes! Other classes must be decided on a case by case basis...

A teacher who wants to tell his students about his religious beliefs is free to do so if his religion is the religion of Secular Humanism...:

Nope. If a teacher ever tried to teach that god could not exist, he would be punished just a surely as one that taught that he does.

..but may not tell his students about his religious beliefs if his religion is Christianity.:

Yes, because it is the PARENTS job to indoctrinate, not the states! Don't you get it yet?

Christians are not even allowed to discuss Christianity with students during lunch break.:

Neither are Muslims or Buddhists. get over it...

When 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.:

That was pretty stupid of them, because secular humanism has absolutely nothing to do with it.

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

A philosophical position cannot be scientific....

Logical? Yes. Scientific? No, it can't be tested verified.

The Court has undeniably defined Secular Humanism as a religion "for free exercise purposes." When Secular Humanists want the benefits of a religion, they get them. Secular Humanism has been granted tax-exempt status as a religion.:

My local non-profit black power movement gets a tax exemption, does that make it a religion?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 8:56:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A philosophical position cannot be scientific....

Logical? Yes. Scientific? No, it can't be tested verified.

errrrrr

Poof**** and there was science
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Tlhedglin
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 9:24:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 8:56:49 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
A philosophical position cannot be scientific....

Logical? Yes. Scientific? No, it can't be tested verified.


errrrrr

Poof**** and there was science

A secular humanist holds the philosophical position that morals/values should only be derived from humanity. Such a position can have proofs based on axioms and presuppositions, but it does not negate the fact that what one is presupposing has not/cannot be tested or verified according to the method.
Tnkissfan
Posts: 199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 9:32:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nope. If a teacher ever tried to teach that god could not exist, he would be punished just a surely as one that taught that he does.

I said "tell" NOT teach. Big difference. That is what I've been refering to a good portion of this thread is telling,as in informal discussions.
Tnkissfan
Posts: 199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 9:45:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is also a possibility that the Scientology is right and you should be worshiping Xenu right now, should we teach that as well?
When I said possibility I was refering to Creation being a possibility. I never said it should be taught as FACT!
I don't consider the Scientology view to be "widely accepted" wheras creation has been believed as a possibility for several thousand years.
Tlhedglin
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 9:52:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 9:32:13 PM, Tnkissfan wrote:
Nope. If a teacher ever tried to teach that god could not exist, he would be punished just a surely as one that taught that he does.

I said "tell" NOT teach. Big difference. That is what I've been refering to a good portion of this thread is telling,as in informal discussions.

A teacher is just as likely to get fired for expressing agnostic/atheistic views as gnostic/theistic views. A teacher in Brookeland, TX was fired merely because some parents THOUGHT he was an atheist, no one even knows if he really even is or not. It wasn't anything he said, or did, just that he was too "liberal".

Sorry, but it seems one really does get fair treatment no matter what side of the fence they are on, despite whatever persecution complex theist websites might be attempting to incite.
Tnkissfan
Posts: 199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 9:54:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes, because it is the PARENTS job to indoctrinate, not the states! Don't you get it yet?
I know it's the parents job but sometimes parents don't do their job. What's a kid that might not have sources you and I have available to us supposed to do? The teacher doesn't have to "indoctrinate" to answer questions someone might have about the teachers belief.
Tlhedglin
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 10:04:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 9:45:24 PM, Tnkissfan wrote:
There is also a possibility that the Scientology is right and you should be worshiping Xenu right now, should we teach that as well?
When I said possibility I was refering to Creation being a possibility. I never said it should be taught as FACT!:

No, just as a scientific theory, despite the fact that it has never survived the same rigors every other theory has HAD to. Evolution is a FACT and a THEORY. Natural selection undoubtedly occurs, variation occurs, the only thing theoretical is whether it is the ORIGIN of ALL species or not.

I don't consider the Scientology view to be "widely accepted" wheras creation has been believed as a possibility for several thousand years.:

For thousands of years the majority of people believed that the Earth was flat, and that the Sun(and the rest of the universe) revolved around it, but I will still be rather upset if my sons SCIENCE teacher tells him that these things are true.

Widely accepted has never meant right, or even appropriate for a science class, so it should not even be considered. An argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, and anyone would be ashamed to resort to it to prove the validity of an argument, should curriculum be any different?
Tlhedglin
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 10:08:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 9:54:06 PM, Tnkissfan wrote:
Yes, because it is the PARENTS job to indoctrinate, not the states! Don't you get it yet?
I know it's the parents job but sometimes parents don't do their job.:

That does not make it the states job to do so.

What's a kid that might not have sources you and I have available to us supposed to do?:

Make up their OWN minds and live with it, just like the rest of us.

The teacher doesn't have to "indoctrinate" to answer questions someone might have about the teachers belief.:

If asked outside of the school environment, he can answer all the questions he feels like. However, once stepping on school grounds, he is a representative employee of the state. ALL of the state, not just the majority.
Tnkissfan
Posts: 199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 10:18:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 8:38:20 PM, Tlhedglin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 5:59:20 PM, Tnkissfan wrote:
 In Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist, a high school biology teacher tried to balance the teaching of evolutionism with creationism...:

Evolutionism? Evolution is NOT an organized belief system, it is a scientific theory based on evidence and reason, creationism is not scientific in the least. Hence why they did not want him teaching it in SCIENCE class. Next you will be talking about those damn gravitists, or the religion of magnetism.

Creation belongs in a comparative religion or theology class, perhaps sociology as well, not a Science class.

...based on the claim that Secular Humanism (and its core belief, evolutionism) is a religion.:

Which is just another theists way of conflating evolution with non-belief. Once again, something completely false, there are a vast number of religious people who accept evolution, it is not specific to ANY religion or belief. Sadly, you know it, and he does too.

Will that keep you from doing so in the future? I am doubtful.

The court emphatically rejected this claim:

As it should have.

Now,I could give two hoots and a hollar what anyones "religion" is...:

The best attitude for everyone to adopt...

...but if the subject of Creationism,which is widely accepted as a possible explanation for the natural world,  can't be taught then that's showing favoratism to humanism.:

No. Evolution is NOT exclusive to ANY religious position. You can be a theist or an atheist and still accept it, can you say the same for creationism? Plus, it IS a scientific theory, despite what Mr. Peloza may think. Scientific theories are taught where? SCIENCE CLASSES.

Note I said possibility.:

There is also a possibility that the Scientology is right and you should be worshiping Xenu right now, should we teach that as well?

Is it inconceivable that Creationism and Evolution can co-exist in the classroom?:

In a Science classroom? Yes! Other classes must be decided on a case by case basis...

A teacher who wants to tell his students about his religious beliefs is free to do so if his religion is the religion of Secular Humanism...:

Nope. If a teacher ever tried to teach that god could not exist, he would be punished just a surely as one that taught that he does.

..but may not tell his students about his religious beliefs if his religion is Christianity.:

Yes, because it is the PARENTS job to indoctrinate, not the states! Don't you get it yet?

Christians are not even allowed to discuss Christianity with students during lunch break.:

Neither are Muslims or Buddhists. get over it...

When 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.:

That was pretty stupid of them, because secular humanism has absolutely nothing to do with it.

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

A philosophical position cannot be scientific....

Logical? Yes. Scientific? No, it can't be tested verified.

The Court has undeniably defined Secular Humanism as a religion "for free exercise purposes." When Secular Humanists want the benefits of a religion, they get them. Secular Humanism has been granted tax-exempt status as a religion.:

My local non-profit black power movement gets a tax exemption, does that make it a religion?
Secular humanism was granted tax exempt status AS A RELIGION! The black power movement I know nothing about, but I do know that secular humanist groups claim they are indeed a religion to get tax exempt status!
Tlhedglin
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2012 10:30:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 10:18:06 PM, Tnkissfan wrote:
At 4/11/2012 8:38:20 PM, Tlhedglin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 5:59:20 PM, Tnkissfan wrote:
 In Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist, a high school biology teacher tried to balance the teaching of evolutionism with creationism...:

Evolutionism? Evolution is NOT an organized belief system, it is a scientific theory based on evidence and reason, creationism is not scientific in the least. Hence why they did not want him teaching it in SCIENCE class. Next you will be talking about those damn gravitists, or the religion of magnetism.

Creation belongs in a comparative religion or theology class, perhaps sociology as well, not a Science class.

...based on the claim that Secular Humanism (and its core belief, evolutionism) is a religion.:

Which is just another theists way of conflating evolution with non-belief. Once again, something completely false, there are a vast number of religious people who accept evolution, it is not specific to ANY religion or belief. Sadly, you know it, and he does too.

Will that keep you from doing so in the future? I am doubtful.

The court emphatically rejected this claim:

As it should have.

Now,I could give two hoots and a hollar what anyones "religion" is...:

The best attitude for everyone to adopt...

...but if the subject of Creationism,which is widely accepted as a possible explanation for the natural world,  can't be taught then that's showing favoratism to humanism.:

No. Evolution is NOT exclusive to ANY religious position. You can be a theist or an atheist and still accept it, can you say the same for creationism? Plus, it IS a scientific theory, despite what Mr. Peloza may think. Scientific theories are taught where? SCIENCE CLASSES.

Note I said possibility.:

There is also a possibility that the Scientology is right and you should be worshiping Xenu right now, should we teach that as well?

Is it inconceivable that Creationism and Evolution can co-exist in the classroom?:

In a Science classroom? Yes! Other classes must be decided on a case by case basis...

A teacher who wants to tell his students about his religious beliefs is free to do so if his religion is the religion of Secular Humanism...:

Nope. If a teacher ever tried to teach that god could not exist, he would be punished just a surely as one that taught that he does.

..but may not tell his students about his religious beliefs if his religion is Christianity.:

Yes, because it is the PARENTS job to indoctrinate, not the states! Don't you get it yet?

Christians are not even allowed to discuss Christianity with students during lunch break.:

Neither are Muslims or Buddhists. get over it...

When 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.:

That was pretty stupid of them, because secular humanism has absolutely nothing to do with it.

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

A philosophical position cannot be scientific....

Logical? Yes. Scientific? No, it can't be tested verified.

The Court has undeniably defined Secular Humanism as a religion "for free exercise purposes." When Secular Humanists want the benefits of a religion, they get them. Secular Humanism has been granted tax-exempt status as a religion.:

My local non-profit black power movement gets a tax exemption, does that make it a religion?
Secular humanism was granted tax exempt status AS A RELIGION! The black power movement I know nothing about, but I do know that secular humanist groups claim they are indeed a religion to get tax exempt status!

Any non-profit organization can get tax exempt status, that was the point I was making. I can only assume you are talking about Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia in which it was ruled that:

The Washington Ethical Society functions much like a church, but regards itself as a non-theistic religious institution, honoring the importance of ethical living without mandating a belief in a supernatural origin for ethics.

And:

The Society terms its practice Ethical Culture. Though Ethical Culture is based on a humanist philosophy, it is regarded by some as a type of religious humanism. Hence, it would seem most accurate to say that this case affirmed that a religion need not be theistic to qualify as a religion under the law, rather than asserting that it established generic secular humanism as a religion.

Yes, I quoted WIKI. I feel lazy at the moment and will likely retire for the evening soon. But I do hope you take my point, generic secular humanism is still not a religion, but some sects do legally qualify as a religion.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 11:49:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 7:48:08 PM, Tnkissfan wrote:
Taken from the secular humanist declaration:
"We find that traditional views of the existence of God either are meaningless, have not yet been demonstrated to be true, or are tyrannically exploitative. Secular humanists may be agnostics, atheists, rationalists, or skeptics, but they find insufficient evidence for the claim that some divine purpose exists for the universe. They reject the idea that God has intervened miraculously in history or revealed himself to a chosen few or that he can save or redeem sinners. They believe that men and women are free and are responsible for their own destinies and that they cannot look toward some transcendent Being for salvation. We reject the divinity of Jesus,"
The above statement doesn't sound like it goes along with mainstream christianity.

Youre right, the above statement doesnt go along with mainstream christianity. Do you know why? Because the person making the declaration is talking about it from his standpoint of a non-religious atheist. He is not talking on behalf of all secular humanists.

Take a Southern Baptist christian as an example. If a southern baptist made a statement about what he believes a Christian is, do you think that everyone, from catholic to protestant would agree with every word he says? Of course not.

We have definitions of what it is to be an atheist, what it is to be a christian. Its why we can call Protestants, Catholics, Southern Baptist, Pentecostal, all of these groups, as christianity, despite their differences.The definition of what it takes to be a secular humanist, is not exclusive of christians. Individual beliefs, are.

Anyone can accept or reject the bible or start a different "Christian" religion based on anything so the whole "Christian humanist" concept doesn't represent Christianity on the whole. Yes,I read about it in Wiki but I don't accept it as genuine.

I know it doesnt represent christianity on the whole. I never claimed that all christians must be secular humanists. But the point is, that secular humanism, the definition of whether you are a secular humanist, doesnt exclude Christianity. All you need to be a secular humanist is to reject divine authority when it comes to morals and decitions.

Btw,I understand completely the court case reguarding secular humanism but I shall continue to refer to humanism as a belief because in my opinion it imparts a belief on individuals. If you do not accept this then so be it.

I never said that Secular humanism isnt a belief. Infact, in the message that you quote, i clearly stated that Secular humanism IS a belief.

But a belief, doesnt constitute a religion. Democracy is a belief, but it isnt a religion. There are plenty of things i believe, but none of them constitute as a religion.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 11:58:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
So, just to be clear, if I set up a secular humanist organisation akin to a church, I be exempt from paying tax on my income like preachers are, right?

And if not, why not? Why do religions get special favours?
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 12:16:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/11/2012 7:57:22 PM, Tnkissfan wrote:
That's because teachers can talk about atheism without fear of retribution. You can't discuss Christianity.

First off, no. You can infact discuss christianity as long as it has a clear secular purpose. You can discuss Christianities impact in history, which i learned about in the middle ages in my social studies class, including the crusades and the vaticans role in europe. You can teach christianity as part of a comparative religions class. I have no objection to any of this.

Secondly, answer this question. When was the last time an atheist teacher was caught teaching atheism?

And for petes sake just because a teacher mentions God it doesn't mean they are brainwashing or trying to take one side over the other. You automatically assume because God is mentioned that the teacher is a fundy trying to push their religious views on the class!! To often it's assumed that a Christian teacher would take it to the extreme!

I never said this, nor did i assume this. As long as it has a secular purpose, i have no problem with mentioning God, or christianity, and we allow this to happen all the time in history classrooms and such. Infact, i studied John Miltons Paradise Lost in english class.

The only problem occurs when teachers teach religion, God, or christianity for a non-secular purpose. Buddhists are atheists, and they deserve the freedom of religion as much as any Theistic religion. Yet, teaching God without any secular purpose, directly denies this right.

The only way that we can be fair to ALL religions, is if we stay secular. These laws are protecting you as much as they are protecting me. If you were a christian, i dont know if you are, but if you were, and your 8 year old Childs teacher was a Muslim, wouldnt you like the teacher not to try to convert your child to Islam?