|
Re: Re: Re: Re: The stars at night are big and bright
And the Supreme Court REFUSED to hear the 1994 Peloza case, which clearly stated:
| quote: | | . . . neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are “religious” for Establishment Clause purposes. Indeed, both the dictionary definition of religion and the clear weight of the caselaw are to the contrary. The Supreme Court has held unequivocally that while the belief in a divine creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from lower forms is not. [Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). Peloza, p. 521.] |
Which means the ruling of the 9th Circuit was upheld BY the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, your second source stated:
"Secular Humanism is a religion "for free exercise clause purposes," and it is not a religion "for establishment clause purposes"
Well first it was shown not to be a "religion" by the Circuit courts and SC in '94, as it is "both the dictionary definition of religion and the clear weight of the caselaw are to the contrary".
But second, what fucking straw man is "for free exercise clause purposes?" WTF is that? You can exercise pretty much anything you choose provided that you do no harm to others (i.e. invoking riots, etc.), which is exactly the point of the 1st Amendment.
And the entire argument here rests on "for establishment clause purposes", so your source really doesn't have much of an argument at all.
What's more, the 2000 D.C. Circuit court case of Kalka v. Hawk stated:
| quote: | | The Court’s statement in Torcaso does not stand for the proposition that humanism, no matter in what form and no matter how practiced, amounts to a religion under the First Amendment. The most one may read into the Torcaso footnote is the idea that a particular non-theistic group calling itself the “Fellowship of Humanity” qualified as a religious organization under California law. [It cited, among others, Peloza’s holding that secular humanism has never been held to be a religion.] |
So it's plainly clear that this is NOT recognized by the courts as a religion of any sorts.
And about that footnote by that one judge:
| quote: | Attorneys know full well that a mention in a footnote amounts to “dicta,” but not to a “holding.” This footnote does not establish any law whatsoever. Moreover, the use of this quote by those who try to prove secular humanism is a religion takes it entirely out of its context and forty years of subsequent interpretation. Among the cases cited as precedent for the dicta in this footnote is Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 1957). That case regarded the classification of an organization as a tax-exempt not-for-profit. In holding that the Ethical Society deserves such classification (the court reversed and remanded to the district court) the Supreme Court held that the legislative purpose of the tax-exemption statute was “to grant support to elements in the community regarded as good for the community,” and thus, although the Ethical Society did not demand a belief in a god, it should be accorded the status of a “religious” organization to promote the broad public purposes of the statute.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/libr...epsell_19_4.htm |
and,
| quote: | "But," you might ask, "even if secular humanism isn't a religion for legal purposes, isn't it really a religion in practical terms?" No. Look at it this way: Suppose Justice Black had been writing about an issue of interstate commerce in agricultural products, and in a footnote he included "apples" in a list of root crops. He would be wrong. It wouldn't matter what laws were involved-apples are fruits, not roots! As a factual matter, he was partly wrong about Buddhism because some branches of Buddhism do worship the Buddha as a deity. And he was wrong about secular humanism.
Secular humanism is not a religion by any definition: There are no supernatural beliefs, no creeds that all humanists are required to accept, no sacred texts or required rituals. Humanists are not expected or required to have "faith" in what is said by any authority, living or dead, human or "supernatural."
http://www.secularhumanism.org/libr...ry_18_1.01.html |
Aside of the fact that by definition it seems pretty self-evident what so-called "secular humanism" means.
| quote: | give me a chance to do it before slamming the door in my face. what do u mean, what do i have to add?? if i have an opinion contrary to yours, i should just shut up about it?? mine are just as valid as yours... |
Validity is derived from supporting evidence. The act of giving an opinion alone might be no greater than mine, but the evidence to support your assertions have not held up very well. Sorry if I’m a bit of a shithead on this, but this is one of those few misconceptions that get under my skin pretty deep.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
The Bible does not preach one specific religion.
No, it's not a religion. And they're not indoctrinating kids eighter. And no, I'm not a secular humanist, in case you were wondering.
