Federal Court Rules ‘Secular Humanism’ a Religion, Extends Equal Protection Rights to Atheists

usdistcourtooregonIn a landmark decision last week, a federal judge in Oregon declared ‘secular humanism’ to be a religion, opining that those who profess to be atheists and secular humanists should be afforded equal protection rights under the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution and be allowed to enjoy the same liberties to practice religion that religious groups are able to enjoy.

Jason Holden, an atheist inmate who is serving time at the Federal Correctional Institute in Sheridan, Oregon, filed suit against the Federal Bureau of Prisons in April for rejecting his requests to form a study group on humanism. The Federal Bureau of Prisons denied the request on the ground that humanism was not a religious affiliation under existing prison classification, and hence Holden elevated it to federal court.

Senior District Judge Ancer Haggerty of the federal district court ruled in favor of Holden in order to exercise his constitutional right to form a humanist study group. Haggerty ruled that Holden’s constitutional rights were violated under the First and Fifth Amendments. In his ruling, he moved to recognize secular humanism as a religion for “Establishment Clause” purposes. Under the Establishment Clause, Haggerty’s rationale is that secular humanism must be able to enjoy the same liberties as other religious organizations because it is a constitutional principle that no religion shall be established above others as a state religion.

The American Humanist Association co-filed the case with Holden in the case American Humanist Association vs United States and declared the ruling a victory for secular groups to be afforded the same legal rights that are available to Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews and Muslims – all of whom were permitted to organize under the current federal prison system. Haggerty sided with the plaintiffs, citing legal precedent in the case Torcaso vs Watkins which cited Secular Humanism as a religion in the decision to prohibit state and federal governments from passing laws to have religious requirements in holding public office.

“As humanists, we believe in the ability of mankind to transcend their differences and to reach some common ground and make the world a better place,” Holden commented during an interview with Upton Radio. “We simply want the same thing other religious groups are provided,” he said.

“The court finds that Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes,” Judge Haggerty wrote in his ruling last Thursday. “Allowing followers of other faiths to join religious group meetings while denying Holden the same privilege is discrimination on the basis of religion.”

Humanism as an organized group has grown in the past years, with members establishing Humanist congregations at Harvard University, American University, Rutgers University, and Colombia University. Nonreligious Americans which include atheists and secular humanists have fought for the rights to be included to offer invocations at government meetings. The American Humanist Association has likewise fought for the right of 3.6 percent of nonreligious Army members to have access to formal Humanist chaplains in the US military as the US Army moved to include “Humanist” as a religious affiliation.

  • Connect with Christian News


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Demopublicrat

    That should also include removing it from schools in all of its forms – can you say evolutionism?

    • http://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/ JBenning

      Yep! That “separation of church and state” thingy that doesn’t exist in our constitution. But yes, it should also be removed for the schools Oh, that will really piss em off. “But the Muslim get to be there, why can’t I?” Get ready….its coming in 10……9…..8……7……………………………

    • TheBBP

      I’d help crowd fund that movement.

    • Daniel Curtsinger

      Evolution is taught in schools for good reason. Let’s set up an analogy. We have a box, let’s label this box “origin of life on earth”. As we look inside, evolution is what we find. Its just the way it is. That’s whats in there. Just because you satand there with your eyes closed refusing to look in because someone passed you a note that says there’s something different inside, doesnt change what’s actually in there when you look. And to say that we should teach children what your note says just because you like that answer better is beyond ignorant.

      • Demopublicrat

        I opened the evolution box and all that was in there was assumptions, fraud, ad hominem attacks, appeal to authority arguments, and blind religious belief falsely labeled as science. And to say that we should teach children what your faith says just because you like that answer better is beyond ignorant.

        • Studying_Nomad

          I call bs.

          • TheBBP

            LOL, don’t be mad.

          • Demopublicrat

            What do you know, that was in there too!!

        • Evolution is a fact

          Then you are looking in the wrong box.

          • Demopublicrat

            I checked the trash can, but found the same thing in there.

      • Neiman

        No what you find there are false interpretations of the data based on political correctness, not fact. What you folk do not get is while scientific data is scientific data, one must interpret what they think that data means and in the case of evolution, they force the data to fit their political ideology, constantly have to change their interpretations when proven wrong and they will never allow the facts, that data, just to be what it is and never allow consideration of any other interpretations, no matter how valid.

      • The Lone Ranger

        Dear Mr. Curtsinger The analogy. We have a box and let’s label this box “origin of life on earth ” I ‘m following so far just one question where did this box come from sir ? No doubt a box is here , I know this carpenter who built this box : I said I know, him , without a shadow of doubt his name is Truth or Jesus . I know this because he is not of this box . He was in this box but not of this box yet his Spirit bare witness with my Spirit before I knew more than just a few scriptures. I received him as my savior and my lord by faith through grace I was born of the Spirit of God I just simply believed the scriptures .
        Romans 5:2
        By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God…… I in fact have a personal relationship with him through this spirit. I’m not perfect but he is. That’s why his righteousness is imputed to me..Think what you will of me as God is my witness I’m telling you the truth. Since he created this box he put in it whatever he saw fit. Just because you stand there with your eyes and ears closed refusing to believe the truth when you hear it because someone passed you a note that says something different . Doesn’t change the fact this box was created. I implore you search this matter out diligently for yourself search the scriptures . Start at the book of John 1:1 and read, read, read ! what do you have to lose ? You don’t have to tell anyone your studying it if you don’t want to. Here is what we all need to see about this box sir it is a natural box when we look inside natural is inside . Christ in God created this box Dear sir they are Supernatural outside and above the box It’s just the way it is, I like that, it’s just the way it is , that’s what faith is.
        1 Corinthians 2:14
        But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. …………… This is how we know truth or Jesus sir he said he was the truth and the only way, but we can discern that very fact and a whole lot more through the Spirit of God.

        John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: This can’t happen and you not know it for a fact, you be the judge . I would not waist my time in something that could not testify or prove truth to me would you ? where you spend eternal life depends on it . Check it out yourself I don’t blame anybody now days for being skeptical .
        27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning. ………..Hey I’m just a witness to the truth I’ve been with him in the spirit .

        Deuteronomy 29:4
        Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day..
        2 Corinthians 2:11
        Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices…… Help us oh God to teach our children the truth

      • Michelle Bowen

        Thats funny because I grew up with Creation being taught in the private school I attended then i moved public and I listened to them on Evolutino to see what they said. Time and time again they showed errors in their findings and time and time again they said they found the answers. Things did not go like they wanted so they lied. So unforunately you’re just holding a box full of lies and errors. I am sorry that you were fooled….but you were….and are. God created the world…its in the Bible and man has yet to disprove it…without lying about it. I grew up with BOTH being taught, so I compared them side by side…evolutionist are not scientists. they are liars who make up a really cool sounding story that took millions and millions of years….seriously! Grow up and think for yourself. YOu and people like you who dont’ want to believe say they think for themselves…but you let Evolution’s lie be shoved down your throat.

    • IslandAtheist

      The Pope and the Catholic church recognizes that evolution is a fact of life. why don’t you attack gravitationism?

      • Demopublicrat

        The pope is a fool, what’s your point? Evolution is still a religion.

    • Studying_Nomad

      Lol, yeah, only secular humanists support science education. Fail. This mentality is the reason we’re forced to import scientifically literate foreigners to work for American companies.

      • Demopublicrat

        A lot of people support science education, I do – just not someone’s religious evolution beliefs.

    • Tim Raynor

      Humanists, agnostics and atheists have nothing to do with evolution, that would be “science” you’re referring to. I highly doubt the Board of Education is going to remove science classes from the required curriculum. And last time I checked, science is in no way a religion. Just for the record, the Pope recently declared evolution as fact, which it is. Times certainly do change. 😉

      • Frank

        they are very religious in their beliefs. Who you think your trying to fool? A 2 year old?

        • Ruth

          The thing is—religion can kill you & send you to hell. I don’t like “religion”. BUT I love God, Yeshua (Jesus) & the Holy Spirit. W/O them–I am nothing.

      • Erin Carol Ponzo

        The Pope did no such thing. The Pope stated that HE believes its possible for creationism and evolution to coincide. No ‘facts’- only an opinion.

        • Neiman

          No, he said that God used evolution as the means of creation and thus said Genesis One is a lie.

          • Erin Carol Ponzo

            I apologize. What I read was that he claimed to believe, I didn’t read that he stated that as “fact”. Either way this is why I no longer associate myself as a Catholic and base my faith on the Word alone.

          • Neiman

            It is always best to be a good Berean Christian, testing everything by God’s Word alone; and, that means in any denomination or sect or group, we are on sinking sand and headed for trouble when it goes beyond “Thus saith the Lord.”

            The true Church is the Body of Christ, made up of every individual believer that have been converted from idols to the living God and our only authority is the Word of God, the written word (Bible) and the Living Word (Jesus). We have direct access by the Spirit to the Author and Finisher of our faith (Jesus); He must become everything from Alpha to Omega, beginning to end, first to last, having absolute preeminence in all things for life and eternity.

            There is no other ground for the believer.

          • Erin Carol Ponzo

            Amen.

          • Michelle Bowen

            Absolutely right! I hate the whole pope situation….and the nuns and so on set up. Whats with that?!?! I mean seriously. The Catholic church is NOT about God its about the church! I’ve NEVER see it be about God. They go thru all these traditions….and trapings and focus on talking to priests and calling them father, and confessing your sins to them. Then youg ot this joker at the top they all worship calling him his holyiness! Its in the Bible ONLY GOD! ONLY GOD! Not the pope!

          • Demopublicrat

            An interesting take on the catholic church…

          • Demopublicrat

            It also helps to have a proper version of the Bible to test with.

          • Neiman

            For the true believer, we have the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. His Word is written on our hearts.

          • Demopublicrat

            True, He would give us the proper tools.

      • Demopublicrat

        Science is in no way a religion, however evolution is not science, it is a religion and the pope is a fool.

        • Michelle Bowen

          Evolution started out a lie…and turned religion because the ‘scientists’ are so eager to accept lies and pour them upon us.

        • Tim Raynor

          Prove it.

          • Demopublicrat

            Prove evolution? Can’t happen. Prove it’s a religion? That is obvious, it’s all about faith as there is no evidence – unless you recently found some.

          • John_33

            Louis Pasteur already disproved Evolution in 1859 with the Law of biogenesis. Evolution didn’t start with Darwin; it actually started more than 2000 years ago with Aristotle. (Aristotle is the famous Greek philosopher whose ideas the Catholic Church favored. In fact, the Catholic Church’s attack against Galileo’s heliocentric theory was partly because they favored Aristotle’s geocentric model.) In this case, Aristotle suggested that living creatures came to life from non-living material through various methods. Those methods back then were rooted in mythological ideas – spirit-life or fluids, etc. This theory was known as spontaneous generation. As time progressed, and Western Europe accepted Catholicism, the theory still persisted but with secular methods for the creation of life.

            Over time, people came to realize that whole dogs never came out of rocks; nevertheless, they still pushed the theory and argued that smaller creatures came to life from non-living materials – mice were commonly said to have spontaneously come to life out of mud from the Nile River. This was accepted by people in the 1500s – seriously. Fast forward to the 1700s – yes, the Enlightenment era. People thought that bacteria were simple enough to spontaneously come to life from non-living materials. John Needham tried to prove this theory when he boiled soup to kill all bacteria and then sealed it. When bacteria grew inside, he claimed that this proved that the bacteria came from the soup. Louis Pasteur successfully disproved the theory in 1859 when he boiled the soup in a beaker with a thin, twisted neck to prevent germs from easily entering in the soup. Pasteur expressed the proof by stating that “all life [is] from life” – “Omne vivum ex vivo.”

            Spontaneous generation was a theory that dominated the world for 1700 years. That not an example of science, that’s an example of ignorance, and we had this ignorance because people refused to it give up an old theory, but wait, because it’s not over. A few years after Louis Pasteur’s experiment, Charles Darwin posited the theory of Evolution with the idea that really simple life –smaller and simpler than bacteria – once came from non-living material. Yup, it was the same old theory of spontaneous generation back again, except this time, the creatures in question were even smaller than dogs, mice, or bacteria. Now it was “organic material” that came to life. Before, it was the mysterious spirit-life of Aristotle; now, it is the mysterious, microscopic organic life.

            What’s the result? We’ve pushed this theory in schools with nothing to show for it. We’ve wasted billions of dollars to search from one planet to the next to look for life, yet there has been absolutely none. Not one fossil has been found on Mars – not even a single Martian bacteria. Why is that? Because scientists are wrong when it comes to the origins of life. We’ve had 150 years to test this theory and to mix organic material together to create life, yet nothing has arisen from it. We aren’t any closer than when we’ve started because life didn’t start from the simple microbes; it comes from God. Pasteur was closer to the truth than perhaps he even realized when he stated the Law of biogenesis. All life comes from life; therefore, the source of all life must come from an eternal source – God.

            We’ve come full circle. We’ve been fed a 2,000 year old theory that has been dressed up and is now called ‘abiogenesis.’ The real reason why people refuse to ditch Evolution is because the only alternative is that there is a God who made us and expects us to live a certain way. Many would prefer to live life the way they want to rather than obey their Creator. Sadly, people will continue to live in ignorance so long as they hold that view.

          • Bill123

            “Over time, people came to realize that whole dogs never came out of rocks”

            They let you vote, so miracles can happen.

        • Bill123

          You really go out of the way to make yourself appear stupid.

          • Demopublicrat

            That pretty much sums up the entire repertoire of evolutionists, appeal to authority arguments and ad hominem attacks. I’m quite sure if you had something of substance you would have posted that instead.

          • Bill123

            That was not an ad hominem attack. You are doing a yeoman’s job of making yourself look stupid. You are remarkable.

          • Demopublicrat

            LOL, whatever you say… while proving my point.

      • Michelle Bowen

        First of all just because the pope says somethign doesn’t make it true. I’m not a catholic and I do not respect him or his words. He’s a sell out, he just is tired of hearing both arguments. So he’s trying to appease people. Geesh…are you going to be great with it if the Pope tells you the sky is green? Or that pigs fly?! Don’t fall for his status. He’s overrated…….I don’t need him to talk to God……nor do I need the priests of his church. I grew up outside of that and I thank God every day! But I never could understand how anyone would follow this man like he’s so important.

        • Tim Raynor

          Well, don’t get me wrong, Michelle, I totally agree with you about the Pope, Catholicism and the whole lot. Really what you’re saying just shows why we have so many denominations of Christianity; everyone thinks their brand is the chosen one. My point was that someone in a high leadership role is willing to accept change in the world, so there’s no reason others cannot adapt to changes because of science.

      • jmichael39

        Alright, Tim…let’s accept, for sake of argument, your premise that the science of evolution is what is being taught in our schools’ science classes, not secular humanism. Then why isn’t intelligent design also taught? Its based completely on science as well. Secular humanists don’t like or accept the conclusions made by intelligent design advocates. But it is no less based on science than evolution. Both take scientific data and make rational conclusions and theories based off of that data. The only reason intelligent design is pushed out of the schools is because undo preference is afforded the secular humanists’ religious demands that only the theories THEY advocate should be taught in the classrooms. So, either educators are given the freedom to teach whatever scientifically based theories they want or none are taught. Which is it?

        • Tim Raynor

          “Secular humanists don’t like or accept the conclusions made by intelligent design advocates.”

          I would also add the majority in the scientific community do not accept the conclusions of intelligent design, either. They refer to it as pseudoscience, and there’s plenty of it out there. Therefore, intelligent design is solely tied to religion, at least until it can be verified and accepted by the accredited scientific community as real science, which at this time it is not.

          • jmichael39

            “I would also add the majority in the scientific community do not accept the conclusions of intelligent design, either.” – THAT is your argument? You wanna take a poll of the religious orientation of all those scientists you’re referring to, Tim? Wanna bet that all or almost all of them are secular humanists? Gee, now that we all agree that that’s a religion too (I’ve been tell you that for quite awhile now), don’t you think its a bit stupid to think that secular humanists are gonna accept the scientific conclusions that would pretty much destroy the foundations of their own religion? HMM?

            “Therefore, intelligent design is solely tied to religion, at least until it can be verified” – I was always taught to ask whenever I see a “therefore” in a sentence…what the basis of that “therefore”. “Therefore” is conclusionary….which means it has to be based upon some supposition. What supposition are you basing that on then? That a bunch of people reject the science of intelligent design as being religious based because it stands in opposition to the precepts of their own religion? You do see the logical fallacy of that, right, Tim? You are at least that rational, right?

            “at least until it can be verified and accepted by the accredited scientific community as real science,” – You mean until it can be verified by people of YOUR religion? Hmm…interesting form of logic you have there. It really suits the dogma of humanism. The self-deification process demands that everything fit into your little boxes and that they fit in exactly as your dictate. You don’t own the rights to all truth or even how one obtains or verifies truth. Once you figure out the illogic of that world view, give us truly rational people a jingle and we’ll talk. Until then, spare of your rhetoric.

          • Tim Raynor

            Wow, you’re kind of an asshole. I thought this might be a thoughtful debate. Guess I was wrong.

          • jmichael39

            get over yourself, Tim. You haven’t a logical leg to stand on and so I’m the A-Hole for pointing that out. Grow up or go somewhere where nobody will stand up to BS arguments.

          • Tim Raynor

            Ha! You’re the one with no leg to stand on. The scientific community think you’re a joke. You’re obviously the one that needs to get over yourself. Your pathetic, laughable attempt at attaching true science to creationism is beyond delusional it should grant you the Nobel in stupidity. Why the hell do you think the scientific community is fighting like hell to keep it out of science classes? BECAUSE IT’S NOT SCIENCE MORON!

          • jmichael39

            LMFAO…You are more stupid than I thought.

            Circular argument based upon the equally fallacious argument from authority.
            Intelligent Design shouldn’t be taught in schools because its not “real science” but rather based upon a religious belief.

            And who’s your authority for this argument…the people from YOUR religion.
            Why do they claim its not real science? Because their scientific conclusions don’t agree with their religious dogma?

            And why does it not conform to their religious dogma? Because its not real science..
            According to whom? According to them?

            Why the “hell” is the scientific community fighting like hell to keep it out of science classes? Because it punches a complete hole in their own religion and infringes on their religious turf. Obviously.
            But, here, let’s play a little game with that pathetic little mind of yours. You’re so unwilling to let your captive disciples in the science churches, I mean classrooms), because you’re obviously afraid of letting anyone challenge the fundamental basis of your dogma. But I’m willing to do what Paul did and give you an open chance to utterly destroy the fundamental core dogma of all of Christianity. You wanna try, big guy? Paul wrote about in I Corinthians. He literally placed all of Christianity on a thread and dared anyone like you to snip that thread and destroy everything about Christianity. You wanna give it a try, little man? Or is that beyond the level of your intellectual courage. I’m letting you into the ‘classroom’ of Christianity. Everyone here will watch you destroy everything that Christianity stands on. You game?

    • Ralph Spoilsport

      That should also include removing it from government schools in all of its forms – can you say evolutionism?

      Anyone who mentions gods when teaching evolution science is doing it wrong.

      • Demopublicrat

        Either you’re brain-dead or you didn’t read the article, evolution is the religion of secular humanists.

        • Ralph Spoilsport

          You’re completely ignorant about evolution.

          • Demopublicrat

            I hear that all the time from evolutionist believers, but I never see any proof that backs up their religion. It certainly appears that it is not me who is ignorant about evolution.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            It certainly appears that it is not me who is ignorant about evolution.

            No, you really are ignorant. You don’t know the first thing about evolution. You have to posit some worldwide, century-long conspiracy to explain why evolution has been an accepted science for so long. Tinfoil-hat level kookery.

          • Demopublicrat

            That’s aluminum foil. I would expect a blind religious follower such as yourself to say something like that – especially when that’s all you have. It is painfully obvious YOU have no knowledge of evolution or you would try and impress me with all of the evidence proving your hoax. I won’t hold my breath as there is NO evidence proving the religion being fraudulently taught in government schools as science. If I take a turd and paint it gold – it’s still a turd there Ralphy boy.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            You can remain pig-ignorant if you like, and follow iron-age superstition. And you don’t even know that “tinfoil” is another word for “aluminum foil”.

          • Demopublicrat

            Tin and aluminum are quite different, but I wouldn’t expect someone who believes we came from an exploding dot to actually think for themselves – or at all for that matter.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Tin and aluminum are quite different

            True, but “tinfoil” and “aluminum foil” can both refer to foil made of aluminum, just as “tin cans” can be made out of aluminum:

            tinfoil: a paper-thin metal sheeting usually of aluminum or tin-lead alloy [Merriam-Webster]

            but I wouldn’t expect someone who believes we came from an exploding dot to actually think for themselves – or at all for that matter.

            Like I said, you can remain ignorant and follow iron-age superstitions if you like. I will still ridicule you, of course.

    • scourge99

      While we are at it we need to remove the Germ theory of disease and the Theory of Gravitation. Both are RELIGIONS!

      • Demopublicrat

        Sorry, both the Germ Theory of Disease and the Theory of Gravitation. are observable and testable, evolutionism is not. Feel free to try again.

        • scourge99

          So its not observable that DNA is major factor in phenotype expression? And its not observable that DNA mutates, changes, and has copying errors from one generation to the next?

          • Demopublicrat

            Get back to me starting with the “Big Bang” and speciation is observable. small changes with a species doesn’t prove a cow “evolved” into a whale. Try again.

          • scourge99

            I agree a cow did not evolve into a whale. Biologists don’t believe so either.

            So you agree that small changes occur. What happens when millions of small changes occur and pileup? Some of those changes might seem like big changes, right? Even though they are just the accumulation of small changes.

          • Bill123

            Evolution is a science. If you knew the definition of science, you wouldn’t be making yourself look as stupid as a bulldog.

            You are living proof that an ass evolved into a Demopublicrat, yet you continue braying like an ass. Really, really remarkable feat.

          • Demopublicrat

            Evolution is science, bla, bla, bla.

            sci·ence noun ˈsī-ən(t)s
            : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.
            Get back to me starting with the “Big Bang” and speciation when they are observable and repeatable through experiments.
            re·li·gion noun ri-ˈli-jən
            : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (like evolutionism).

          • MisterPine

            Strawman. You’re right up there with Kirk Cameron and his crockduck with that one. Clearly your understanding of evolution is zippo.

        • scourge99

          Do you observe that germs cause disease or is it inferred by correlation and a mechanistic understanding?

          Can you observe gravitation or just the effects of gravitation on objects?

          • Demopublicrat

            Not me personally, but someone actually tested and observed the results.
            Can you observe primordial ooze becoming human? The “Big Bang”?

          • scourge99

            Scientists actually tested and observed the DNA changes and can trace the lineages of organisms by looking at DNA and morphology as well as fossils. there is a reason humans have more similarities to chimp DNA than caterpillar or tree DNA. And why Dogs have more similar DNA to wolves than they do cats or humans.

          • Demopublicrat

            “lineages of organisms” speculation -> belief -> faith -> religion.
            Similarities could also prove a common designer, it is not proof of evolutionism, just more speculation.
            Now how about that big bang thing? You seem to be avoiding that.

          • scourge99

            The big bang theory has nothing to do with evolution anymore than gravitation has anything to do with evolution. The big bang theory is the observation that all the matter in the known universe seems to originate at a common point or location.

            You seemed to avoid answering the question i posed. Why do humans have more similarities to chimp DNA than caterpillar or tree DNA? And why do dogs have more similar DNA to wolves than they do cats or humans?

            Is it just coincidence that morphologically similar animals have similar DNA? Or are scientists (including Christian scientists) mistaken, lying, or involved in a conspiracy?

          • Demopublicrat

            “…seems to originate…” – religion again.

            “You seemed to avoid answering the question i posed.” You just seem not to comprehend when I do. Here’s an answer: common designer. No matter how many ways you phrase the same point, it is still not proof that evolution is anything more than a religion.
            A conspiracy? No, just a common religion, are the Mormons a conspiracy?

          • scourge99

            Its not religious. Its science; the study of the world. The same type of science used to treat cancer and put men on the moon.

            Multiple lines of evidence strongly indicate that all matter in the universe came from a common location. Some examples of the different lines of evidence is redshift, the composition of the matter in the known universe, and the cosmic background radiation.

            You seem to think the big bang theory excludes a god. It doesn’t. The big bang theory doesn’t say anything at all about how or why the original matter got there. It doesn’t say how life got started on the earth or why we have so many diverse species and fossils of extinct species.

            Your explanation for the diversity of species is god. God can be used to explain everything and anything. That is, there is nothing someone can’t explain by saying “god-did-it”. But you have no evidence for that.

            Luckily Christian and non-christian scientists have realized that “god-did-it” isn’t a good explanation. Instead of looking into the sky and saying “god makes the sun rise and fall they looked at the EVIDENCE and followed the evidence wherever it leads.

            This same approach was done by scientists when looking at the diversity of species. And it was discovered that species didn’t all magically pop into existence. All species are related and share common lineages.

          • Demopublicrat

            “Its not religious. Its science; the study of the world. The same type of science used to treat cancer and put men on the moon.” Speculation, assumptions, best biased guesses, and blind faith put a man on the moon? I doubt it.

            I didn’t say anything about excluding God, I said evolution is a religion.

            Speculation can also be used to explain anything. “God-did-it” isn’t being taught in government schools with tax-dollars as fact is it? The evolution religion is – burden of proof is on your religion.

            An exploding dot leading to the vast complexities we see today is a much better explanation?

            “…followed the evidence wherever it leads.” They don’t, they lead the “evidence”, excluding things they don’t deem naturalistic – excluding possibilities is hardly scientific.

            ” All species are related and share common lineages.” there goes the religious speculation again – you just keep proving my point.

          • scourge99

            Correct. Speculation, assumptions, best biased guesses, and blind faith about how the world works did NOT put a man on the moon. And it wasn’t used to determine the accuracy of the theory of evolution, or the theory of gravitation of the theory of germ disease, or atomic theory either. It was evidence based reasoning.

            You do realize that mostChristians find no problem reconciling evolution with Christianity? A few examples, Francis Collins, the Pope, and William Lane Craig?

            You seem to think evolution is a religion. I don’t think you know what the word “religion” means or are using a very uncommon definition in an attempt to torture out a point.

            Evolution is a strongly supported scientific theory. Just like the germ theory of disease, the theory of gravitation, and atomic theory.

            The big bang theory says nothing about an exploding dot or random chance leading to complexities we see today. The big bang theory doesn’t say anything at all about how or why the original matter got there. It doesn’t say how life got started on the earth or why we have so many diverse species and fossils of extinct species.

            Do you think stars were each created by god individually or formed due to natural forces of the universe (that were perhaps set in motion by a god)?

            Possibilities unsupported y evidence are REJECTED until data and evidence support them. That is, for example, why Christian doctors use chemotherapy and surgery to treat cancer and not prayer. Its not logically impossible that prayer can magically heal people, but evidence demonstrates consistently that it does not.

            All species are related and share common lineages because of multiple independent lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion. For example, DNA similarities, morphological similarities, and the fossil record .

            do you think the earth is thousands, millions, or billions of years old?

          • Demopublicrat

            “It was evidence based reasoning.” A belief system, or faith that their speculation, assumptions, and best biased guesses are accurate, while being completely devoid of any solid proof.

            “You do realize that mostChristians find no problem reconciling evolution with Christianity? A few examples, Francis Collins, the Pope, and William Lane Craig?” Not most. The pope is the leader of the world’s biggest cult – redressed paganism with some Christian sounding names tossed in for palatability for the masses. The other two – irrelevant.

            “You seem to think evolution is a religion.” It is.
            Religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. (Merriam – Webster)

            “Evolution is a strongly supported scientific theory.” “Scientific” so-called, it still is based on the belief the earth is billions of years old, that speciation actually occurred, and any indications (such as the fact we exist) are assumed to be a result of “evolving” with no proof. Like I said before, speculation -> belief -> faith = religion.

            “The big bang theory says nothing about an exploding dot or random chance leading to complexities we see today.” Better brush up on your religion, or are the “facts” changing again. If I’m wrong do tell me just what the big bang thing is all about.

            What I think and believe is irrelevant, that is not being taught in government schools at taxpayer expense, your religion is burden of proof is on you.

            “That is, for example…” off topic. Topic: evolution is a religion that is being taught as fact when it is not and is un-provable. You keep citing observable and testable phenomena and desperately trying to include evolution by proxy. Evolution’s speciation (the foundation of the religion) is not testable, nor is it observable, nor is there any evidence of it.

            “All species are related and share common lineages because of multiple independent lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion. For example, DNA similarities, morphological similarities, and the fossil record .” Nonsensical but I’ll try and weed through it.

            “All species are related and share common lineages…” Assumption.

            “because of multiple independent lines of evidence all point to…” more than one possibility, saying it only points to one is presumptive and unscientific.

            “For example, DNA similarities, morphological similarities…” Could prove a common designer (I wonder how many times we are going to rehash the same crap).

            “…and the fossil record.” Prove nothing more that some creature existed period, It does not prove it evolved from something else, nor does it prove it had offspring to evolve into yet another species – more religious belief. My son once asked me when he was about 8 years old, “If evolution is true, why can’t all living things fly, breath under water, and walk on land?” That is a good question, after all we have the mythological fish that sprouted legs.

            “do you think the earth is thousands, millions, or billions of years old?” Are my beliefs being taught as fact in government schools at your expense? The answer is no, again the burden of proof is on you.

          • Demopublicrat

            I believe the topic here is evolutionism – try and stick to that without digging for a straw man.

          • scourge99

            you said you don’t believe evolution because it can’t be directly observed.

            I pointed out that there are other scientifc theories that you can’t directly observe yet you probably believe them like the germ theory of disease and the theory of gravitation.

            That would demonstrate an inconsistency in your position.

    • Bill123

      Humanism is not science. Can you say please don’t start?

      • Demopublicrat

        Evolutionism is not science either it is a humanistic religion.

        • Bill123

          Theories of evolution are science, Einstein.

          I am in awe of your perseverance in striving to make yourself look stupid.

          • Demopublicrat

            Because you say so? ROTFL, and you say I look stupid, I’m not the one defending a fairytale calling it science.

          • Bill123

            Theories of evolution are science. All you are defending is stupidity.

          • Demopublicrat

            Again, because you say so? Whatever.

  • TheBBP

    I always found that atheists get bent when you accuse them as being as religious about their beliefs as anyone else of faith is. Now atheism and humanism is legally a religion… LOLOLOLOL

    • Studying_Nomad

      Only secular humanism was made a religion with this ruling. Not all atheists are secular humanist. You can use a dictionary to figure out the difference between the two.

      • KenS

        If you read the original case that this case was based on, Torcaso vs Watkins, it made atheism and secular humanism a religion.

        • Ralph Spoilsport

          It can therefore be said the same thing applies atheism, since atheism was made a religion in the Torcaso vs. Watkins case as well.

          Torcaso did no such thing. It said that requiring a religious oath was a violation of the first amendment. Torcaso might not even have been an atheist — he said that requiring him to declare a belief in a god violated his 1st and 14th amendment rights.

  • upload

    Now we can shout to the heavens, “SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!!!”

    • Studying_Nomad

      Definition of secular (which I’m pretty sure you’re implying would be removed from schools): “denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.”

      • Frank

        Religion – 4
        :  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
        — re·li·gion·less

        • The Lone Ranger

          Salvation = 1 a : deliverance from the power and effects of sin only through the shed blood of Jesus the Christ on the cross from witch our sin debt is paid in full
          John 3:16
          For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

          • Frank

            Amen

      • Demopublicrat

        You might want to read the above article there chief.

  • Be Heard

    That is so stupid! How can it be a religion when by its definition they believe in no god making it not a religion! Hope Oregon voters vote!

    • jennylynn

      Everyone worships someone or something whether they acknowledge it or not. Humanist worship man and their philosophies.

  • Frank

    Good get secularism out of government. It has no place there.

  • Reason2012

    Now that we have legal precedence that “secualar humanism” and hence the belief that populations of fish can ‘evolve’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish are a religion, this religion needs to be removed from our schools. You now have legal precedence to do so.

  • James Grimes

    Secular humanism a religion??? Please, someone tell me which god they will be worshipping… Oh my, I got it… they are going to worship themselves.

  • jennylynn

    Anything that takes faith is a belief system. But to say it will make the world a better place is a misconception. Man is not meant to be elevated, God is. Furthermore these people can never enjoy the same thing as people of faith, because they worship themselves, and their is no joy or no hope in that, just dissapointment and emptiness. Everyone fills their vacccum with something and without God it is just air with no eternal salvation.

    Isaiah 2:22 Stop regarding man whose breath of life is in his nostrils, for why should he be esteemed?

    • Neiman

      Very, very good, I especially like “Anything that takes faith is a belief system” Atheism and evolutionism are faith based belief systems, they are religions. So, they too should be removed from schools as they advance one religion (secular humanism) above all others.

      • jennylynn

        Absolutely! They are teaching religion In public schools, just the false ones. The truth is an offense to any governmental agency because it tell them that they are not God, nor is their false beliefs valid. It definately needs to be removed if they are true to their own cause.

  • Michael Steptoe

    Does this mean Freedom From Religion has to be changed to Freedom from Other Religions? lol I would have thought they didn’t want to be coined a religious group.

  • https://soundcloud.com/profgene ProfGene

    Websters Dictionary Online defines Religion: the belief in a god or in a group of gods Atheists and Secular Humanists do not not believe in a god or group of gods and every other definition of a religion involves the belief in a god. So they should have the right to meet as a group but not as a religion. For a group to meet does not require them to believe in a god. Now if the rules of the prison allow only religious groups to meet then they should make an exception for secular humanists without defining them as a religion. A non religious group can discuss morals without referring to sin which is a religious term. Now the judge could strike down the rule that only religious groups can meet say if the purpose is to discuss moral behavior but to declare a group a religion that is not a religion by the very definition of the word is wrong and trying to achieve a goal which might be right but the method is wrong. The judge could admonish the prison for favoring religious prisoners over secular human or atheist prisoners but to try to achieve that goal with a patently false declaration that atheism or secular humanism is a religion defies logic and reason and is utter nonsense and worse a distortion of what is truth and if the law doesn’t seek truth in order to achieve justice then there is no law.