In our public schools, the doctrines and beliefs of humanism are taught to the exclusion of any other belief. Now that we have established, both in the minds of humanists and in our federal courts, that humanism IS a religion, we find that the public schools are violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment by favoring the doctrines of humanism over other religious doctrines.

Here we have a confluence of several themes that have developed over the entire course of Ben Rast's article. First, he confuses the modern philosophy of humanism with the cultural humanism that is our inheritance from ancient Greece and Rome. Cultural humanism is what we will find in public schools (as well as other public institutions), not modern philosophical humanism (whether religious or secular in nature).

Second, it's false that humanism is considered a religion in the federal courts. Humanistic groups can be considered religious for tax purposes - but those are organizations which adopt humanism and then go beyond it to create a religious sense out of what they are doing. Groups like Ethical Culture may be humanistic, but they don't represent all humanists.

Finally, we see that Rast is a bit confused over just what it is he wants to argue. Sometimes he sounds as though he is upset because the teaching of humanism is a violation of the separation of church and state, but other times he sounds as though he thinks that teaching and promoting Christianity wouldn't violate the separation of church and state. He seems to want separation to be interpreted strictly for the purposes of dealing with humanism but loosely (or ignored with a wink and a nod) for the purposes of dealing with Christianity. Very curious.

A prime example is in the presentation of the doctrine of evolution while excluding curriculum that presents even merely the scientific evidence for divine creation.

Rast implied at the very beginning of his article that the teaching of evolution is somehow representative of humanism. Arguably it is - insofar as the teaching of good, sound science is an example of the cultural humanistic tradition which can be found in our schools. In that sense, teaching about how stars form, how plants photosynthesize, and how volcanos work are also examples of humanism in public schools. This, in my opinion, is wonderful.

Currently public schools do not exclude "the scientific evidence for divine creation" because, quite frankly, there is no such thing. Hence, there is nothing at all to exclude. If you look through the peer-reviewed scientific journals dedicated to biology and the development of life on earth, you won't find a single article presenting evidence for the proposition that life is here because of an act of divine creation. You also won't find any accredited biology departments actively researching the divine creation of life.

Why? Because you'll only find such activities in theology departments - which is appropriate because it is all based upon religious beliefs rather than scientific research. Creationism is not science and it is not scientific - the more honest creationists are willing to admit this, sort of.

Humanists have worked their way into the positions of power of our education system. The NEA and the Department of Education are populated with humanists. Humanists also dominate state and local boards of education. This is not simply because of the motivation of humanists; it also indicates that Christians are not running for positions on school boards and other education policy bodies. If every Bible-believing church body had one or two qualified persons run for local and state education boards, we could soon stem the tide of humanist domination.

Imagine if the same paragraph were re-written with "humanists" replaced by "Jews" or "communists," and you'll get a sense for just what sort of loathing people like Ben Rast have for humanists. Today, humanists are scapegoats that Jews once were - and just about all of the same accusations that were once leveled against Jews are being leveled against humanists.

This isn't surprising because modern anti-Semitism which developed in the wake of the Enlightenment was not really about the Jews but, rather, about modernity. It's simply that Jews were at the forefront of modernizing movements - they often stood the most to gain and they were already heavily involved in various forms of scholarship. When people wanted to attack modernity, the Jews were the easiest targets.

Similar considerations have been at work behind American anti-communism. Granted, there were all sorts of good reasons to oppose communism, but they aren't quite enough to explain the virulent hatred that so many people had for communists and the efforts to see communists under every bed and communists behind every problem facing society. It's a bit easier to understand, however, when we consider communism as yet another aspect of modernity - this time one seeking to bring down traditional religious institution and traditional class structures.

Today, it's not longer acceptable to attack Jews and anti-communism just doesn't get the same mileage that it once did - it's hard to inspire fear of communism when even the Russians are capitalists now. The absence of traditional scapegoats does not mean, however, that the fears are gone; instead, the fears are simply transferred to new scapegoats. The same people who once attacked Jews and saw communists under every bed now have an equally tempting target in humanists. It's the humanists who are under every bed, undermining social institutions, and trying to gain control over Christian children. And, as always, good Christians must stand up to them and take back what is theirs. It's the same old story but with new labels for the villains.

This is a response to an article written by Ben Rast for Contender Ministries. Part 3 appeared yesterday.

Read More:

• Secularism 101
• Separation of Church and State 101
• Religion in Public Schools