From: dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page)
Subject: Re: A few quotes from a few years ago
Organization: Texas Instruments
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:48:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.141033.8570@dbsun.uucp>, hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
|> Mr. Page, please attribute all quotes you use.

Point well taken.

|> 
|> In article <1992Sep8.225801.18365@csc.ti.com>
|>    dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page) writes:
|> 
|> [The first quote is Jim Hulsey's]
|> 
|> >|> The State of Utah, or any other state, may not use federal tax dollars to
|> >|> promote a religion.  When the state accepts federal tax dollars for,
|> >|> education, they agree to abide by a set of rules.  Because of the
|> >|> Constitution, these rules include the prohibition of "respecting the
|> >|> establishment of religion".  If the Federal Government didn't pay for
|> >|> it, the individual states could do whatever they wanted.
|> >|> 
|> >|> I just do not want to see my tax dollars go to support your religious
|> >|> beliefs.
|> 
   [This quote is mine]

|> >Nor do I want to fund the secular humanists.  Remember, the same Supreme Court
|> >that removed prayer from schools because it "promotes" a religion has also
|> >declared that secular humanism IS a religion.  Secular humanism IS being
|> >supported with federal $s in public schools especially in the areas of sex and
|> >HIV/AIDS education.
|> 
|> In my understanding, "secular humanism" is the belief that the human race
|> has the ability to better itself without the permission or assistance of
|> a deity.  I don't ever recall hearing that philosophy espoused when I went
|> to school.

The definition of secular humanism that I am using comes from the Humanist
Manifesto II (1973).  While the document treats secular humanism as a subset
of humanism as a whole, the third paragraph of the first point certainly
argues against "religious humanism" as follows: "Some humanists believe we
should reinterpret traditional religions and reinvest them with meanings
appropriate to the current cituation.  Such redefinitions, however, often
perpetuate old dependencies and escapisms; they easily become obscurantist,
impeding the fee (sic) use of intellect.  We need, in stead, radically new
human purposes and goals."  Likewise, in the introduction to HMII:"Tradition,
moral codes, and newer irrational cults both fail to meet the pressing needs
of today and tomorrow.  False "theologies of hope" and messaniac ideologies,
substituting new dogmas for old, cannot cope with existing world realities. 
They separate rather than unite peoples."

These quotes are interesting when compared with the seventh point of the HMII.
 It begins as follows:" To enhance freedom and dignity the individual must
experience a full range of civil liberties in all societies.  This includes
freedom of speech and the press, political democracy, the legal right of
opposition to governmental policies, fair judicial process, RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
(emphasis mine), freedom of association, and artistic, scientific, and
cultural freedom."

(I recognize, however, that HMII also contains the following: "As non-theists,
we begin with humans not God, nature not deity." might be interpreted as
allowing room for deists, unitarians, etc.)

	[comments Jim's]
|> 
|> Are schools teaching sex and AIDS education in accordance with secular
|> humanistic principles?  Yes.  Are schools teaching sex and AIDS because
|> of secular humanistic beliefs?  No.

Wrong.  I guess I need to remind you that the orgin for most of the materials
used in sex and AIDS education is Planned Parenthood.  The leadership of
Planned Parenthood is openly "secular humanist".  The president of Planned
Parenthood (PPFA) at the time (1973), Alan Guttmacher, was one of the original
signers of the HMII; as was an executive vice president of Planned Parenthood
World Population, Norman Fleishman.

Just for the record, here is the entire sixth point of HMII:

"In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often
cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress
sexual conduct.  The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be
recognized.  While we do not approve approve of exploitive, denigrating forms
of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social
sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults.  The many varities of
sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered "evil".  Without
countenancing mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilized
society should be a tolerant one.  Short of harming others or compelling them
to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their proclivities
and pursue their lifestyles as they desire.  We wish to cultivate the
development of a responsible attitude toward sexuality, in which humans are
not exploited sexual objects, and in which intimacy, sensitivity, respect, and
honesty in interpersonal relations are encouraged.  Moral education for
children and adults is an important way of developing awareness and sexual
maturity."

It is interesting to note that "ammoral" public schools are teaching morals in
the realm of sex education as "an important way of developing awareness and
sexual maturity".

[Jim again]
|> 
|> Do schools have rules against stealing that are in accordance with
|> Judeo-Christian principles?  Yes.  Do schools have rules against stealing
|> because of Judeo-Christian beliefs?  No.  It is the rules of society and
|> the rights of the individual not to have their property taken.

I ask you to prove your position here.  I posted the basis for my claims in my
original post.  I have had my views (or at least what they are perceived to be)
questioned.  I have been told that our public schools provide "ammoral"
educations and, when I have proved otherwise, been called a "fundie", narrow
minded, etc.  No one has yet to truly rebut the evidence that I presented in
my original post.

[Jim again]
|> 
|> Secular humanists believe in scientific inquiry.  If a school teaches
|> science, does that school promote secular humanism?
|> 
[me]
|> >It is also interesting to note that federal $s are rather routinely used by
|> >PBS to broadcast New Age sermons.
[Jim]
|> 
|> Exaclty what do you call a "New Age sermon?"  Environmental programs?
|> The McLaughlin Group?  Masterpiece Theatre?  This Old House?

I am not referring to any of these programs.  I was in fact refering to a
program that our local PBS station broadcasts during every pledge drive.  Last
Saturday evening they broadcast a "learned" speaker as he led an audience of
several hundred to a state of "higher consciousness".  I might also point you
to the PBS catalog which contains several pages of "New Age" materials from
crystals to meditation tapes.

[me]
|> 
|> >So where is the establishment clause in these cases?
[Jim]
|>   
|> It seems that anything scientists say that does not fit into your belief
|> window becomes "secular humanism."
|> 
Since you apparently thought that I was refering to the programs that you
listed,  I'll assume that this is just a reactive comment and not respond.


Doug Page

***  The opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer.  ***