I suspect, based on the criticisms cited in your reference, that you and I share some level of distain for the position the courts have taken on this issue.

Specifically, “Secular Humanism is a religion “for free exercise clause purposes,” and it is not a religion “for establishment clause purposes.”

The discrepancy between the Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda [1957] ruling and the Peloza v. Capistrano School District [1994] ruling and the subsequent failure of the Supreme court to resolve the isssue, has left the question half in, half out.

The Fellowship of Humanity case itself referred to humanism but did not mention the term secular humanism. More to the point they claimed their property was “used solely and exclusively for religious worship”. I’m confident that you’d be hard pressed to find any contemporary secular humanist that make any assertions of “religious worship”, hence the appended term “secular”, specifically to provide a distinction from the humanists like those of Fellowship of Humanity. In TORCASO v. WATKINS [1961] Secular Humanisms inclusion was based on a footnote [11] which failed to recognise this distinction. More over it cited the 1957 Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia case as support, but cases only criterion was that if the facilities function like a chuch we will recognise it as a church… “The question before us now is not broadly whether petitioner is in an ecclesiastical sense a religious society or a church, but narrowly whether under this particular statute it is qualified for tax exemption.”

I don’t worhip anyone, or anything. I don’t pray or meditate. There is no appeal to the supernatural and everything is necessarily subject to some degree of skepticism. Some, I suppose, congregate with others who approach contemporary problems from within the same frame work, but I’m not among them. “Faith”, in so far as trusting something to be true absent of evidence, isn’t something to be held in high regard. If this to you indicates religion then fair enough, call it religion if you like. I suspect that you recognise that too loose a definition of religion creates all sorts of problems for both clauses.

From Wikipedia
“By the 1970s the term [secular] was embraced by some humanists who, although critical of religion in its various guises, were deliberately non-religious, as opposed to anti-religious, which means that their humanism has nothing to do with spiritual, religious, or ecclesiastical doctrines, beliefs, or power structures. This is how “secular humanism” is most commonly understood by humanists today.”

The following is an interesting read on the failure of both the constitution and the supreme court to define religion:
DEFINING RELIGION: AN IMMODEST PROPOSAL
http://www.rutherford.org/Resources/WhitePapers/FREE_EXERCISE_C.PDF
“The impetus for this Article was the famous (and most troubling to an atheist and theist
alike) dictum in Torcaso v. Watkins, which equated “secular humanism” with religion.
At a minimum, this seemed to necessitate a query into whether anything “secular” could
ever be “religious,” and what makes religion constitutionally different from any other
philosophical or moral system.”

http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/definitions/humanism_religion.htm

in regards to whether Secular Humanism is a religion. It seems that for over 100 years that everyone agreed that it was and it wasn’t until the Supreme Court agreed and Christians started to protest that religion being taught that there was a change in course.

In fact, I believe the Humanist Manifesto and other original Humanists would agree that it fits the definition of a religion.

From Jefferson’s biography:
“…an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ…the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.’”

In a more insightful letter, Jefferson wrote to Dr. Benjamin Rush regarding their previous discusion about Jesus and Christianity, Jefferson wrote:
“To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other…And in confiding it to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations & calumnies. I am moreover averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public; because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience, which the laws have so justly proscribed. It behoves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. It behoves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the common right of independent opinion, by answering questions of faith, which the laws have left between God & himself.”
- edited for brevity, link to full text below…

“By arguing that the government must be secular and show no preference you are putting into place a secular humanist religion. This religion will try to eliminate Christian morality, and it will also attempt to force Christians into practicing their faith in their churches, and start to prohibit witnessing, envangelization. – MInTheGap”

Secular by definition means “separate from religion”, calling it a religion is absurd. The “humanist” part is simply an acknowledgement of a bias toward our species. In practice secular humanism is a means of addressing issue facing our species without resorting to the supernatural. It’s based on Naturalism, a philosophy, and endorses the use of the scientific method which requires skepticism. Faith is, of course, an antonym of skepticism. I consider myself fairly current on issues surrounding secular humanist issues and I’m aware of no movements toward “prohibiting witnessing, envangelization”, unless your talking about that which is directly funded by tax dollars. Would you want to pay for Muslims to go around spreading the word of Muhammad? If you do it on your own that fine, but I don’t want to foot the bill. Also, Christians already practice their faith in their churches, of their own free will… there is no reason to force them to. While true that I don’t support tax exemptions for religions, your calling “homosexuality is a sin”, is a right that I would vehemently protect. Free expression of thoughts and ideas is necessary for communication and the resolution of disagreements. Most atheists I know share this sentiment. The exception for many is the Westboro Baptist Church fiasco, on this I am mixed, it’s not as much what’s being said as where, the issue is the venue. I oppose blashemy laws, obscenity laws, and hate speech laws. The claim has been made that these types of speech are likely to incite violence, the culpability rests on those who become violent, thier suseptibility toward violence is a liability to society. The person who expresses heartfelt ideas, however objectionable, gets a free pass in my book.

My personal bias… I’m a Secular Humanist. Politically, I tend toward libertarian, hence my fondness of Jefferson. As far as the statues around Washington and other Christian symbolism, I have somewhat mixed feelings. Analogous to the demolition of the giant Buddhist statue in Iraq, the removal of these statues would be to remove something of genuine historical significance. The distiction between historical significance and governmental practice can be made. In so far as H.R. 847 was inherently partisan in it’s application it should be condemned, the fact that it’s inconsequential and irrelevant pushes it into the realm of the absurd. Two questions arise, is it the governments role to address the “greatness” of any religions? If a given religion is claimed to be “one of the great religions” what does that say about the others? I’d argue, and in my opinion Jefferson would aswell, that this is a personal matter and not an issue the government should be addressing.

This issue has waxed and waned from the beginning, as a result, from a historical perspective, a fairly compelling case can be made either way simply by cherry picking quotes. Even in context it’s a bit muddy, IMO. It really boils down to not what the US has done in the past but what you want the US to do now and in the future. More importantly, why? If the arguement is that an officially sanctioned religion or church will bolster the faithful cast your eyes over to England. They’re is a significantly higher percentage of nontheists there than here. If the reasoning is, for moral consensus in line with Biblical teachings, well there is none, the various denomination don’t agree on many things, even within a given denomination there are schisms, the Anglican Church has been ripped in half over the homosexuality issue for example. Point being is that it solves nothing, religion and politics will poison one another and all the while people will continue to believe what that which compels them.

Regarding Ron Paul, a significant grievance of mine is that he voted for H.R. 2679 “Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act”, 2006. Part of the effect of this bill was that even if you have a clear case of constitutional violation regarding the Establishment Clause, and you prove it to the court, landslide victory etc. etc. None of your attorneys fees will be awarded. These cases typically take years, and cost 6-7 figures. Few attorneys will take a case that they’re not going to get paid on, and few people have that kind of money. This effectively neuters the Establishment Clause given that in violation cases one’s only recourse is litigation, cops don’t handle this stuff. Ron Paul claims to be an advocate of the Constitution, it seems to me though that that’s only the case when the constitution is in line with his politics. It’s an underhanded way of ensuring that few violations ever see the inside of a courtroom.

The American Theory of Church and State, By Loren P. Beth (Free read!)
http://books.google.com/books?id=gM1CT4yk4mkC&printsec=frontcover#PPA62,M1

THE MORALS OF JESUS
To Dr. Benjamin Rush, with a Syllabus
Washington, Apr. 21, 1803

What Is Secular Humanism?
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=what

No, one is a restriction on the federal government, and the other is a right guaranteed by the federal government.

But I can see the confusion … since the 1st amendment says “congress shall make no law …” which indicates it only applies to the federal government. But I think that it’s fair to say that the first amendment guarantees a particular freedom (free exercise) on the one hand, but then restricts itself on the other hand with the establishment clause.

I’d certainly say, though, that it’s fair to assume that the best way to handle the first amendment is consistently. That is to say, either both clauses apply universally, or neither does. I’d like to err on the side of protecting personal liberty, so I’d personally fall on the side of applying it universally. And although the 16th amendment doesn’t say it explicitly, I’d say it’s a fair judgment to say that the rights afforded to citizens in the bill or frights, and the explicit restrictions (not the inherent ones) placed on the federal government in the constitution itself, should both be passed along to their local counterparts.

(I don’t know, maybe I’m not thinking that through far enough … jury’s still out for me).

But the supreme court is all over the place on this one. Local gun laws are not considered unconstitutional, but limiting free exercise at the state level would be considered unconstitutional. Jefferson was actually against the interpretation of the constitution falling under the sole jurisdiction of the courts, and I have to say I’m with him on this one. There needs to be some way of civilly disputing rulings that seem to be blatantly contradictory.

Ahh, the futile dreams of an idealist

However, restrictions on the federal government in the constitution only limit the federal government (redundant, huh?)

So, although it wouldn’t be smart, IMHO, for states to establish religions, I doubt it’s strictly unconstitutional. However, if a state tried to prohibit the free exercise, that would be unconstitutional.

How do you figure? The same part of the Constitution that requires free exercise also prohibits establishment. If the one applies to the states, doesn’t the other?

Incidentally, Paul’s position on this particular issue is closer to MinTheGap’s than yours. Not saying that means you have to agree with him on it, though.

However, restrictions on the federal government in the constitution only limit the federal government (redundant, huh?)

So, although it wouldn’t be smart, IMHO, for states to establish religions, I doubt it’s strictly unconstitutional. However, if a state tried to prohibit the free exercise, that would be unconstitutional.

Oh, and for the record @MInTheGap, Trent is probably just joking, although he didn’t indicate it Don’t take it personally

Also, I think that Ron Paul’s candidacy, assuming he doesn’t win the nomination, will at the very least expose the fact that there are tons of closet libertarians out there, and I think that the republicans will have to recognize that and may start incorporate libertarian ideals back into their campaigns and policy again. So even if he loses, we win

Just my 2 cents.

Allahu Akbar

~Trent

Personally, I would like to see someone have some kind of transition from where we are to where we should be, but I’m not sure the realist in me thinks this is possible.

To make it more concrete– if Paul was elected President, and he refused to sign any unconstitutional law, where would we be? At an impass? And then what? Would nothing get funded or would Congress relent? Would the people revolt?

It is quite the small world. I had a nursing home extension in Anderson when I was at BJU!

To jump in a bit- no, Jefferson wasn’t the author of the amendment, but his friend and intellectual protege Madison was- and the amendment drew heavy inspiration from the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, whose authors were Jefferson and Madison.

As for the point about states having the right to establish religion- the 14th amendment has long been interpreted in the courts as extending the Bill of Rights to the states. You may well disagree with that interpretation, but then you should disagree not only with extending the first amendment to the states, but, say, the second as well. Should states have the right to ban firearms? If not, why should they have any more right to establish religion than the federal government?

Glad you stopped by, and feel free to do so any time!

By the way, just to give you some reference, my dad, granddad, and girlfriend are BJU graduates along with you. My girlfriend actually lives just down the road from the university. I live in Anderson though, so I’m about a half hour away or so. Small world