One single religion is preached in public schools, and no other religion may compete with it within those walls. I refer to the religion of humanism.
Sometimes, when religious fundamentalists like Ben Rast criticize modern secular humanism and accuse it of infiltrating our cultural institutions for the purpose of undermining them and eliminating all vestiges of Christianity from them, they are actually conflating secular humanism with cultural humanism. True, there is some overlap between the two and at times there can be quite a lot of similarity; nevertheless, they are distinct.
Part of the problem for the argument made by religious fundamentalists is that they fail to understand that humanist traditions form the background of both secular humanism and cultural humanism. They seem to assume that Christianity, but especially Christianity as they perceive it should be, is the only influence on Western culture. That is simply not true - Christianity is an influence, but just as important are the humanist traditions which date back to Greece and Rome.
Religious fundamentalists would like to eliminate the influence of humanism and act as though that entails simply getting rid of secular humanism. In reality, however, this would entail the elimination of all vestiges of cultural humanism as well. This would entail not only overturning modernity, but also a terrible destruction of Western cultural tradition. The result would be a very repressive Christian theocracy where all traces of the philosophic and rational traditions from Greece, Rome, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment would be missing.
What Ben Rast refers to as "the religion of humanism" is, ultimately, just the cultural humanism that dates back to Greece and Rome and which has been transmitted throughout the course of Western culture. That is the humanism which exists in public schools today - indeed, public education is itself a part of the humanist tradition. If people like Rast really wanted to abandon humanism, they'd end up abandoning public schools as well.
There's no doubt that many humanists consider their ideology a religion. Charles Francis Potter, signer of the Humanist Manifesto and author of Humanism: A New Religion, wrote, "So Humanism is not simply another denomination of Protestant Christianity; it is not a creed; nor is it a cult. It is a new type of religion altogether." ... A former president of the American Humanist Association, Lloyd Morain, stated, "Down through the ages men have been seeking a universal religion or way of life. Humanism shows promise of becoming a great world faith. Humanists are content with fixing their attention on this life and on this earth. Theirs is a faith without a god, divine revelation, or sacred scriptures. Yet theirs is a faith rich in feeling and understanding." Humanist educator John Dewey, also a signer of the Humanist Manifesto, called for a new humanist religion in his work A Common Faith.
There is indeed no doubt that many humanists regard their humanism as a religion. What Ben Rast is trying to argue here, however, is that this therefore means that humanism as a whole can and should be treated by everyone as a religion. That is utter nonsense. I'm sure he wouldn't accept it that because some Christians regard their religion as requiring support for the separation of church and state, therefore everyone should treat Christianity as though it required that.
The people Rast cites are those who were major forces in "older" humanism - the humanism which was prevalent in the United States during the first to middle portions of the twentieth century. At this time, most people who regarded themselves as humanists were likely to treat their humanism as if it were a religion - and there are still many like this today. I don't mean to denigrate religious humanism with the adjective "older," though. I'm simply trying to point out that the idea of humanism as a "religion" played a bigger role among humanists several decades ago than it does now.
This is probably why Rast cites older documents rather than anything recent - were he to include modern expressions of humanism, he would not only have more trouble finding statements about it being a religion, he would find quite a few explaining how and why humanism isn't necessarily religious. Even those proponents of humanism as a religion will usually concede that while it may be a religion for them, it certainly isn't for others and that there is no reason why it needs to be. Is it that Rast didn't bother to check any humanist sources less than 40 years old, or that he did but deliberately excluded them so as not to weaken his case?
Humanism has also gained external recognition as a religion. Herbert Wallace Schneider included humanism as a religion in his book, Religion in 20th Century America.
What Ben Rast doesn't tell you here - and what he may not want readers to know - is that the book in question was written in 1952. As explained above, the religious form of humanism was much more common in the first half of the twentieth century than in the latter half. When Schneider was writing, categorizing humanism as a "religion" may have seemed quite reasonable and appropriate. That does not, however, mean that it is appropriate today - that's one of the dangers in using older works as sources of information. Sometimes, things change.
Another of humanism's monikers, "Ethical Culture," is listed as a religion in the Census of Religious Bodies published by the United States Government. Ethical Societies have received religious tax exemptions.
Ben Rast suggests here that "Ethical Culture" is simply another name of humanism - which simply goes to show that he didn't do his homework before deciding to attack humanism. Ethical Culture is not simply another name or nickname for humanism; instead, it is a humanistic organization which uses and builds upon humanistic philosophy.
Ethical Culture is "humanistic" in the similar manner to the way that Christianity is "theistic." You wouldn't say that Christianity is "another of theisms's monikers," would you? Of course not. Christianity is "theistic" in that theism plays an important role in it, but it is also much more. Similarly, Ethical Culture is "humanistic" because it incorporates humanist philosophy, but it is also more because it attempts to apply that philosophy to the way people live.
In the case Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others."
What Ben Rast is describing here is a footnote to the decision in Torcaso v. Watkins; as such, it qualifies as an obiter dictum - this means that it is simply a personal observation of the judge and hence is only incidental to reaching the opinion. It has no real weight when it comes to legal precedent and cannot be properly considered the "decision" of the court.
In accordance with this, in the 1994 9th Circuit Court decision in Peloza v. Capistrano it was ruled that the Supreme Court had never "held that evolutionism or secular humanism are 'religions' for Establishment Clause purposes," essentially refuting the argument made by the fundamentalists. It's interesting that Rast didn't bother to quote that.
This is a response to an article written by Ben Rast for Contender Ministries. Part 2 appeared yesterday. Part 4 will appear tomorrow.
Read More: