💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › occult › ATHEISM › secular.txt captured on 2022-06-12 at 16:11:38.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The Higher Religions (1996)
Emmett F. Fields
I must take issue with Dr. Paul Kurtz and Free Inquiry magazine (Fall
1996) in concluding that Humanism is not a religion. If there were
religious liberty in America the question of the religious status of
Humanism, and the other Higher Religions, would be simply a matter of
personal or academic interest. But as we do not have religious liberty in
America the question of religious status becomes one of great legal and
political importance. The Government will not establish a religion unless
the religion meets certain vague and unconstitutional "guidelines," and
pleases the Government agent(s) responsible for approving religions for
Government establishment.
Those religions the Government establishes are called "churches," and
those religions the Government refuses to establish are not considered
religions. The method is as old as priestcraft, and as effective as the
Holy Inquisition. For establishment purposes the Government refuses to
consider "non-religion" to be a religion, in spite of the fact that the
Supreme Court has said that non-religion has the same rights as religion.
EPPERSON v. ARKANSAS. 1968.
"Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in
matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile
to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion; and may not aid,
foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or
even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates
governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between
religion and non-religion."
The United States Government is not "neutral in matters of religious
theory, doctrine, and practice" -- it establishes and it discriminates.
The Higher Religions cannot hope to successfully compete with the
Government established lower religions, therefore the Higher Religions
must be recognized as religions and must demand an equal establishment.
The alternative is for the U.S. Government to be forced to stop
establishing religions and made to abide by the Constitution. This writer
has a Case pending in Federal Court that challenges to right of the United
States Government to establish religions.
The errors of reason in the Free Inquiry discussion would seem to support
the Government's contention that the Higher Religions are not religions at
all.
Free Inquiry makes the assumption that reasonable religious views cannot
be religious. Dr. Kurtz illustrates this mistake in his example: "If Miss
Jones rejects belief in God, never goes to Mass, and claims she is an
atheist, is she also "religious?"." Dr. Kurtz asserts that she is not
religious -- Dr. Kurtz is wrong! Certainly she is religious, she has found
a higher, grander and truer religion than the one she left behind. If Miss
Jones had simply stopped going to Mass because it was too much trouble,
retained her belief in the god assumption because, like most Americans,
she had been indoctrinated to believe the existence of a god is a question
of fact and not of faith; then, perhaps, it might be said that Miss Jones
was "non-religious."
As most Atheists (always with a capital "A") know, it requires a great
deal of courageous thought and personal anguish for one to escape the
induced obsessional neurosis that passes for religious conviction. To say
that a person who has investigated, thought, suffered and raised his or
her religious views above the lower religions becomes "non-religious" is
ridiculous.
All Humanists, Atheists, etc., know that the negative sounding
"non-religious" is an improper term that has been applied to those of us
who have found a higher and grander religion than a mere dogmatic or
"supernatural" belief. And it must be pointed out that there is a great
difference between Humanism as a Higher Religion, and Religious Humanism.
The one indicates a belief system that has escaped all ritual and dogma,
while the other indicates that many of these lower traits remain.
Dr. Kurtz said he used to believe Humanism was a religion, but that he has
now changed his mind. What was the cause of this great change of mind?
From reading the several articles that debated the question of religious
status it seems that this change was brought about more by a political
misunderstanding than by any religious considerations.
The argument seems to be that if Humanism is not a religion it is
permissible to teach Evolution in the schools. And if Humanism is a
religion that fact would, somehow, affect what is taught in science
classrooms, and cause the destruction of public education by the enactment
of school voucher systems. How absurd!
Just what is this presumed religious entanglement with science? Science is
a thing apart, it is the servant of neither the lesser, nor of the higher
religions. Science has nothing to do with religion. Science and religion
are different species of things, they neither mate nor live in the same
house.
If a modern religion finds that science has the best answers to certain
questions of religious importance, and adapts those scientific truths as
part of its religious outlook, that does not, in the least, entangle
science and religion. Science goes on its merry way of finding facts and
cares nothing about those religions that agree, or disagree, with its
empirical findings. Why then, should there be any objection to teaching
scientific facts and theries in schools simply because some religions have
had the good sense to adapt certain scientific facts into their religious
belief system?
Science becomes corrupted and entangled with religion only when a powerful
and unscrupulous religious force presumes to forcefully pervert science
with dogmatic religious assumptions. One example of such religious
perversion of science is "Scientific Creationism." Such corrupted science
is not science at all, but simply dishonest religion.
In the Free Inquiry debate Mr. David A. Noebel rightly states that
Humanism is a religion, then he makes the amazing statement that; "The
religion of Secular Humanism is the only worldview allowed in the public
schools. All other competing worldviews have been declared illegal by the
U.S. Supreme Court and effectively eliminated bit by bit -- 1962 (prayer),
1963 (the Bible), 1980 (Ten Commandments), and 1987 (God)."
All the things that were removed from the Public Schools were sectarian
religious views of the Christian belief. Christians should be ashamed for
having forced their beliefs into our public schools and upon non-Christian
children -- the Higher Religions do not do that.
And "worldview" Mr. Noebel? We do not send our children to school to learn
someone's "worldview;" yours, mine or any. We send children to school, and
pay great amounts for College, to EDUCATE our children. Schools are to
teach what mankind knows, not what this or that "worldview" might believe.
The lesser religions are so powerful that the facts of history, science,
philosophy, etc., that disprove, or seem to disprove, their religious
assumptions are simply not taught, or taught in such a way that they seem
not to contradict the ancient mistakes. We do not need more money to make
our schools better, we need less "worldview."
If we are to judge what is and what is not religion we must ask if
Christianity and other lower religions are really religions. If a
religious system has lost its myths and fables to the advance of science
and human knowledge, is it still a religion? Or is it simply an entrenched
power structure that corrupts science, changes historic facts, retards
human progress and interferes in world affairs for its own survival,
power, and profit? Is there a troubled spot in the world today that is not
caused by a difference of religion -- a conflict between the various sects
and factions within, or among, the lower religions?
The Higher Religions, such as Humanism, are in every way religions because
they address every aspect of the religion problem. The very first clause
of the First Amendment clearly states that "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion . . ." In law that part of the
First Amendment is known as the Establishment Clause; and the remainder of
the statement; "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" is known as the
Free Exercise Clause. The Supreme Court has said that the Establishment
Clause is absolute.
ZORACH v. CLAUSON; 1952.
"There cannot be the slightest doubt that the First Amendment reflects
the philosophy that Church and State should be separated. And so far as
interference with the "free exercise" of religion and an "establishment"
of religion are concerned, the separation must be complete and
unequivocal. The First Amendment within the scope of its coverage permits
no exception; the prohibition is absolute."
While the Constitution clearly states that Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, the United States Government has
enacted and enforces rules that establish preferred religions, and
discriminates against those religions the Government refuses to establish.
Government establishment of any religion(s) is a flagrant affront to the
Establishment Clause.
For establishment purposes the U.S. Government pretends the Higher
Religions are not religions at all, and thus cannot share the special
benefits and immunities showered upon the lower religions through
Government establishment and favors. Government establishment of the lower
religions has preserved dead religions and allowed them to become
religio/political powers that are a great danger to this nation. Therefore
what is, and what is not, a religion is no longer a simple academic
question, it has broad political ramifications and threatens the very
foundations of the United States as a free Nation and as a world leader.