and the cult of self-worship
Published on October 13, 2007 By lulapilgrim In Religion
As so often happens, one forum discussion leads to an other one. Such is the case here. This one comes directly out of EmperorofIceCream’s forum “Why there is no sin” in which one poster wrote the following:

It is nice to think of a one world religion and everyone abiding by the laws set forth by it, imagining everyone living peacefully, helping one another, and not have pointless wars, but that will never happen... and frankly, I wouldn't want it to be that way.

Although I think the reference was to Christianity, I pointed out that for some time the United Nations and the European Union have been busily developing their "one world religion". It's called secular and atheistic humanism. Here in America ever since the 60’s, the secularization process is progressing at an amazingly rapid speed.

To which another poster replied, “humanism isn't a religion of any type”.

So is it? Is Secular Humanism a religion?

I say yes it is. In 1965, the Supreme Court recognized Secular Humanism as a religion in its decision, the United States vs. Seeger. Even the Humanist Manifestos speak of religious humanism. Secular Humanism is a philosophical way of life, a belief system that secular humanists live by.

Could it depend on one's definition of religion? If we limit ourselves to Webster's primary definition of religion which is " the belief and worship of God ", then Secular Humanism is not a religion. But when you get to Webster's 4th definition that religion is " anything done or followed with reverence or devotion", then based on this expansion of the definition, Secular Humanism fits the definition of religion. This is exactly what the court case, United States vs Seeger, did in 1965....it essentially broadened the definition of the word "religion". Buddhism fits with this 4th definition. Buddhism is one of the world's leading religions, yet Buddhists don't believe in or worship a Supreme Being called God.

Here in the US and many European countries Christianity is being supplanted by the religion of Secular Humanism.

What is the doctrinal faith of Secular Humanism based upon and how is Secular Humanism being propagated?

The tenets of Secular Humanism come from the Humanist Manifest I and II and in the Secular Humanist Declaration. They are as follows:

The first tenet of Secular Humanism denies the relevance of Almighty God and in place of worship and prayer finds his faith in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.

The second tenet of Secular Humanism is the belief that man can begin with himself and on the basis of “human reason” alone can think out the answers to the great questions which confront mankind.

The third tenet of Secular Humanism is the belief in the inevitably of progress perpetuated through the Evolutionary Theory and its cultural application of Social Darwinism.

The fourth tenet of Secular Humanism is the belief in science as the guide to human progress and the ultimate provider of an alternative to both religion and morals. Therefore, science itself assumes a religious character and we have certainly seen this recently in radical environmentalism and global warming alarmists.

The fifth tenet of Secular Humanism is the belief in self-sufficiency and centrality of man. This tenet encompasses the assertion of the autonomy and independence of man apart from Almighty God thereby releasing mankind from all obligations to Him. This tenet promulgates the idea that man’s future and salvation is in man’s hands, thus, man not God controls the destiny of the human race.

Secular Humanism is propagated through public education, the media, the courts, and through other governmental agencies.

As man more and more declares his independence from traditional moral and religious restraints, does he soar to the heights of Neitsche's superman, but finds himself drawn to his lower nature and more often than not in the gutter of life?

I'll be using James Hitchcock's book , " What is Secular Humanism?" as a guideline. He points out that the Jesuit theologian, Henri DeLubac said that every Humanist system in the ends betrays man. There is a major and inevitable gulf between what it promises and what it is able to fulfill.

Secular Humanism promises total freedom, but man can exercise freedom, paradoxically, on in fulfillment of the commands of his Creator. All of us chafe at the limitations of life, but the Humanist acts of defiance and heedless disregard end by enslaving the individuals to his passions and to the inexorable march of history.

Since man was created by an All-Wise and All-Loving God, he cannot be truly free or happy except in loving obedience to his Creator's will. "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."

Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Oct 16, 2007
'anything' is appropriate cuz using it to define religion makes damn near everything--from dining to dishwashing or scrapbooking to sex--a religion.

what about all those sports fans who devotedly follow their favorites?


well from a biblical POV anything that gets in the way of your relationship to God is an idol. So yes, sports can be a religion of sorts. I'm not saying you can't be a sports nut, but if it consumes you more than your worship of God or gets in the way of meeting with other belivers, than I would say you have an idol in your life.


Well said, KFC.
on Oct 16, 2007
SO DAIHO POSTS:
Sexual education is not anti-Christian. It is about reproduction and in the public health sense, how to remain safe from STDs.


Certainly it's prudent for schools to have a health curriculum that teaches good old fashioned health education that includes personal hygiene as well as sound and positive attitudes toward student's personal physical, mental and social health.

SoDaiho, you no doubt are well intentioned, but foolishly mis-informed in the area of classroom sex ed. Classroom sex ed is anti-Christian. The aim is to get these kids as young as 10 in the 6th grade first thinking about being sexually active and then actually becoming sexually active (with protection from Planned Parenthood of course!) It treats sex as a technical function and imparts way too much information without any moral guidance as to its use.

This is what these sex ed/family life programs designed and implemented by sexperts from Planned Parenthood do. They are founded on "values clarification" whose secular humanistic philosophy teaches skills in “human sexuality” to our youngsters on the basis or context that anticipates or assumes that they are or will be involved in sexual behaviors of various types. Basically, students are encouraged to examine and develop their own “sexual identity” and then told “Here are a number of options you can choose in regard to your sexual health--—you decide.”

We should demand better for our youngsters than sex-ed programs which mostly openly supports sexual experimentation and instructs and advises them in co-ed group settings to use condoms, artificial birth control and abortion as options. In doing so, these schools can, wittingly or unwittingly, cause otherwise unpressured middle schoolers and teens to sexually experiment with their bodies. This type of classroom sex-ed is a highly questionable method of instruction which makes public and open what by nature is private and intimate. Its consequences are not to be minimized. Classroom sex-ed sexualizes our kids--it's anti-Christian.


Do you know that condoms do not prevent STDs, SoDaiho? We may be baosting through condom use that teen pregnancy is down, but fornication is up and as a result, we have an STD epidemic in this country.
on Oct 16, 2007
SoDaiho, you no doubt are well intentioned, but foolishly mis-informed in the area of classroom sex ed. Classroom sex ed is anti-Christian. The aim is to get these kids as young as 10 in the 6th grade first thinking about being sexually active and then actually becoming sexually active (with protection from Planned Parenthood of course!) It treats sex as a technical function and imparts way too much information without any moral guidance as to its use.


Yes Lula....basically they are looking for customers and recruiting early. It's business. I've heard past owners of Planned Parenthood admit as such after selling their business feeling guilty about it. Just think of the big business lost if the kids abstain. Not good for business.

My son and his soon to be wife have remained "pure" even after dating 3 years now. They are wearing purity rings and have been made fun of over this. They will marry in the spring and will incorporate a ceremony around giving up those rings as part of the wedding celebration. Family friends of her dad's have come right out and said this can't be true. He said they must be lying and not admitting what they are doing.

This is the third couple in the past 4 years I've seen do this. Sad to say, most don't wait.

I know one thing. These two are so looking forward to their wedding night. They will truly have something to celebrate after 3 1/2 years.
on Oct 16, 2007
My son and his soon to be wife have remained "pure" even after dating 3 years now. They are wearing purity rings and have been made fun of over this. They will marry in the spring and will incorporate a ceremony around giving up those rings as part of the wedding celebration.


Good, good, good for them. You must be so happy and proud of them. I know I would be and I hope and pray the same for my own.

You know they are absolutely counter-cultural and this is a very tough road to walk nowadays. That's what it is in a nutshell. Christians today must be counter-cultural because the culture and all it's major institutions are steeped in Secular Humanism.
on Oct 17, 2007
Add what we know from actual Supreme Court cases and some common sense, and it can be easily concluded that Secular Humanism is a religion


what you claim to 'know' about the supreme court's rulings on the subject is directly contradicted by voluminous evidence to the contrary to which i've now twice directed your attention (see comment #9 for the latest instance).
on Oct 17, 2007
anything that gets in the way of your relationship to God is an idol.


only if viewed--as qualified by kfc--from a biblical pov. while you may both choose to believe scripture absolute and total truth, your belief is nothing more nor less than exactly that: belief. faith is an essential component of belief; knowledge requires a more stringent standard--overwhelming demonstrable physical evidence.

" anything done or followed with reverence or devotion"


requires neither faith nor fact; certainly not belief or conviction in any supernatural force superior to ourselves.

insisting faith is not essential to religion in order to win a silly political argument seriously diminishes your own church, disrespects all other believers and jeopardizes religion's purported relevance. if anything can be a religion, a religion can be anything.
on Oct 17, 2007
"if anything can be a religion, a religion can be anything."

Doesn't diminish my church. See, anything CAN be a religion, because religion was never important to begin with. Faith in God and Jesus is what's important, not the religous practices.
on Oct 17, 2007
See, anything CAN be a religion, because religion was never important to begin with. Faith in God and Jesus is what's important, not the religous practices.


christianity isn't any more important to you than the nfl? glad to hear it.

according to lula's definition, faith in a supernatural being--whether jesus or shiva--isn't an absolute requirement. those who maintain classic cars with reverence and devotion are as religious as you.
on Oct 17, 2007
They are! But I may be more faithful to Jesus. Which is the part that really matters.
on Oct 17, 2007
But I may be more faithful to Jesus


do you see 'faithful' anywhere in that definition lula uses to claim humanism a religion?

(
" anything done or followed with reverence or devotion", then based on this expansion of the definition, Secular Humanism fits the definition of religion.


see any mention of faith or belief in jesus?

the part that really matters.


apparently not.
on Oct 17, 2007
Apparently you think I'm part of a religion.
on Oct 17, 2007
I'm part of a religion.


i apologize for presuming you a christian.
on Oct 17, 2007
Christianity is faith in Jesus, religion is something else.
on Oct 18, 2007
Christianity is faith in Jesus, religion is something else.


oh really?

when you locate an authoritative source for that opinion, lemme know please. check any dictionary and i'm sure you'll find the first entry very similar to these:

1 : the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies.

merriam-webster online

1. religion that follows Jesus Christ's teachings: the religion based on the life, teachings, and example of Jesus Christ

encarta

Christianity, Christian religion (a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior)

wordnet princeton.edu
on Oct 18, 2007
KINGBEE,

Thank you for joining the discussion. I apologize for taking so long to respond. I’ve been busy catching-up on some other projects.

So you disagree that the Supreme Court has recognized Secular Humanism as a religion.


what is or is not a religion cannot be decided by our courts. allowing for the possibility that ones personal philosophy may be equivalent in some respects to elements common to others' religious belief systems is something else entirely.


I've read over and over that where religious liberty is concerned the courts have extended their definition. Most people think of religion as belief in and worship of God and usually, but not always, membership in a Church, synagogue, or mosque. I've found that for separatist purposes, the courts think in the same way. Their strictures against "entanglement" generally apply only to organized religion in the traditional sense.

Again, though, where religious liberty is concerned, they have broadly extended their definition more in line with Webster's definition #4. It is here that Secular Humanism fits the definition of religion.

In the Torcase v. Watkins decision concerning conscientious objection from the military service, the Supreme Court explicitly listed Secular Humanism as a religion qualifying men and women for such an exemption. US v. Seeger is a similiar case. The court held that religion requires some belief that is the “equivalent” of belief in a Supreme Being, which would include almost anything.

Thank you for the link. It seems to substantiate that Secular Humanism fits the court broadened definition of “religion”. Go down about one quarter of the page and you’ll find the following:

[Footnote 8] This Court has taken notice of the fact that recognized "religions" exist that "do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God," Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 n. 11, e. g., "Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." Ibid. See also Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127 (1957); 2 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; J. Archer, Faiths Men Live By 120-138, 254-313 (2d ed. revised by Purinton 1958); Stokes & Pfeffer, supra, n. 3, at 560.
and re: US v. Seeger , your link has it that: “the case affirmed belief in an individual’s ... or personal moral code....” and also: “that the test of religious belief (6 J who does not belong to an orthodox religious sect) is whether it is a sincere and meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that fulfilled by God....”

As far as your comment:
The following United States Supreme Court cases have been selected for any/all references to secular humanism, a cite of Torcaso v Watkins, a religion of Humanism, etc. Notice that:

Not one single one of these cases hold that secular humanism is a religion.

Not a single one of these cases state that Torcaso v Watkins held that secular humanism was or is a religion.


I would point out that these are the "research and editing" opinions of Jim Allison.

From this we can only conclude that Jim has his opinion, you have yours, and I have mine.

So far the tally is 4 to 1 that Secular Humanism is a religion at least in the broadest sense of the definition. Even Humanist Leo Pfeffer, a noted attorney in church-state affairs in discussing the Torcaso v. Watkins case wrote "this decision made a religion out of secular humanism."

Anyway, and to the point that I will dwell upon from here on out, is that of which James Hitchcock writes,

Religious believers are entitled to wonder whether Secular Humanism or some other non-theistic "religion" is now being given a privileged place in American society. Such a claim, so far, the courts have even refused to consider seriously. Far from being neutral, the American government is now in the position of favoring unbelief over belief and irreligion over religion, although the First Amendment merely requires that the government favor no particular church over other churches or religion over no religion at all.

I wonder what do you all think about this?
3 Pages1 2 3