(Post 5 of 5)
(Originally published in TheScoop2017, March 2017)
This is the fifth and final post in a series on religious freedom and the separation of church and state debate. The first gave a history of religious freedom and explained the debate. The second focused on the two opposing positions taken. A third described the ideology behind those who promote a strict separation argument. The fourth defined the central issue from which the debate stems: religion. Lastly, we look at the cultural consequence for promoting Humanism over theistic belief.
Humanism Promoted Over Theistic Belief
There are many sincere instructors and administrators in academia with no agenda to dissuade children and young adults away from the faith they were taught. Still, there seems to be an effort on some college campuses to remold students, as one college administrator put it saying, “Students have been indoctrinated for the first 18 years of their life by their parents and their churches, and we only have four short years to undo the damage,” from SpeakUp Student Story, (Ruth and Orit).
Ironically, the very things the AU is fighting to avoid, they are causing. An atheist organization is allowed to publicly discourage students from belief in a god, yet a Christian organization is not allowed to publicly encourage students toward belief in a god, silencing the voice of theistic religion while allowing the voice of Humanism.
On the AU website, we read there is no religious liberty if government promotes “religion over non-religion,” yet the opposite is also true, if government promotes non-religion over religion, or Humanism, a non-theistic belief system, over a theistic belief, we do not have religious liberty. Again, the AU says all Americans should have the freedom to follow a spiritual path or no spiritual path, yet in today’s public schools, only a non spiritual path is offered.
Humanist Manifesto Originally Declared itself a Religion
Bo Jinn points out in his book Illogical Atheism that the Humanist Manifestos (there are three of them), along with other humanist declarations, set out to spread an atheistic belief in the form of a new ‘humanistic religion,’ aptly named by John J. Dunphy in 1933, an atheist and humanist, when he stated “I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity …” (Ch 17 iii). The new battle cry had difficulty in court, and by the time the third manifesto was written, Humanists had changed their wording to non religion or irreligion to distance themselves from being seen as a religion.
My Opinion
The phrase separation of church and state is the perfect front on which Humanism battles because it takes the focus away from Humanism being a belief system or a religion. The main issue of this discussion should focus on Humanism being a belief system, much like Buddhism or Taoism is, and the goals set forth within the Humanist Manifesto as its doctrine. Then, and only then, would religion and irreligion be on the same playing field.
Societal Consequences
Currently, our country is out of balance. We have had a whole generation influenced by Humanism and a second generation is currently being influenced by it, turning its back on theistic belief. The result is the eroding away of core ethical foundations our morals have rested on and the laws such morals have produced, leaving in its wake a slippery set of relativistic ideals.
The debate has been going on since the drafting of the Constitution and continues today. The only difference today is the liberal enlightened philosophy is having its say. The Boisi article concludes, the concept of legal neutrality is “doomed to failure” because the concept depends on a theistic interpretation of faith.
In the court case this paper opened with, Badger Catholic v. Walsh, proponents on both sides of this culture war were represented. The court battle was over whether student fees should be used for religious instruction and indoctrination. The court sided with students’ freedom of expression. The larger battle being fought in the country is over whose ideology will be allowed to be disseminated to school attendees from kindergarten through college, and the rest of public society, thereby affecting future generations of the United States and as a result, the cultural climate of the country. We, as a nation, would do well to heed the advice of George Washington, which he gave in a speech he delivered just before he left office in 1796: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity.” He said. “religion and morality are indispensable supports.” He warned, “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” (The Boise Center).
Previous posts in this series:
Post 1: Religious Freedom: Brief history of church state debate
Post 2: Religious Freedom: pro and con positions of church state debate
Post 3: Religious Freedom: the voice behind strict separation
Post 4: Religious Freedom: religion (re)defined
Works Cited
The Boisi Center Papers On Religion in the United States, Separation of Church and State. Publication. Boston College, n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://www.bc.edu/>.
Easterbrook, Chief Judge. “Badger Catholic v. Walsh, 7th Circuit Opinion.” Alliance Defending Freedom Media. Alliance Defending Freedom, 01 Sept. 2010. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://www.adfmedia.org/>.
Edwords, Fred. “What Is Humanism.” Americanhumanist.org. American Humanist Association, 2008. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://americanhumanist.org/>.
Epps, Garrett. “Constitutional Myth #4: The Constitution Doesn’t Separate Church and State.” The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly Group, n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://www.theatlantic.com/>.
Flax, Bill. “The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State.” Editorial. Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 09 July 2011. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://www.forbes.com/>.
“Frequently Asked Questions — Religion: The First Amendment Says Nothing about ‘separation of Church and State’ …Is It Really Part of the Law?” First Amendment Center. Vanderbilt University and the Newseum, n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/>.
“Frequently Asked Questions — Religion: Has the Supreme Court Defined ‘Religion’?” First Amendment Center. Vanderbilt University and the Newseum, n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/>.
“Student Story, Ruth Malhotra and Orit Sklar, Georgia Tech’s Speech Code Declared Unconstitutional.” Speak Up :. Alliance Defending Freedom, n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://www.speakupmovement.org/StudentStories/Details/23219>.
Noebel, David A., J.F. Baldwin, and Kevin Bywater. “Is the Religion of Secular Humanism Being Taught in Public School Classrooms?” Christiananswers.net. Christian Answers Network, 1999. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://christiananswers.net/>. Adapted from Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism, Summit Ministries
” Our Mission, Our History, Our Victories, and Why We Care pages.” Americans United. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. <http://www.au.org/>.
1 thought on “Religious Freedom: societal consequence of silencing beliefs”
Comments are closed.