Articles on Secular Humanism by a Baptist Preacher
By Pastor Ed Rice
We shall see in this treatise that Secular Humanism is indeed a religion which is prohibiting the free exercise of all other religions in the public school. It is an atheistic religion with a Humanist Manifesto and Affirmations of Humanism, which has and spreads intolerable ignorance about it's intended monopoly on the whole public square with its misrepresentation of 'Separation of Church and State;' is an atheistic religion which has irresponsible intolerance towards any who believe in God, and an atheistic religion which has an ignoble indifference to both 'Individual Soul Liberty', and true 'Separation of Church and State' both concepts founded, termed, secured and sternly held to by Baptists.
Article 1 The Secular Humanist's Intolerable Ignorance
Article 2 The Secular Humanist's Unconstitutional Intolerance
Appendix 1 Correspondence and Published Letters
Appendix 3 Separation of Church and State
Appendix 4 The Problem Statement for Educational Reform
Article on Secular Humanism by a Baptist Preacher #0600 TOC
The Secular Humanists' Intolerable Ignorance.
In their words, Humanism is an “atheistic progressive philosophy of life that affirms an ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity”. We are establishing herein that a philosophy that deals with ethics, and with the questions; “Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going? and How do I get there?” is a religion. To be ignorant is to be unaware or uninformed. To be intolerably ignorant is to be so with a refusal to accept information and to purposefully and willfully stay ignorant. Such are secular humanists, the atheistic religion, because of their purposeful bias to remain godless, no matter what, their purposeful bias to obliterate all other religion's free speech in the public square without accepting that humanism is a religion, and their purposeful hatred and willful ignorance for the historical book called the Holy Bible, and the historical phrase “Separation of Church and State.”.
The Bible says “The fool hath said in his heart There is no God.” Please don't be ignorant about the religion of atheism taught by mandate in your school district. Allow me to illustrate how foolish this really is:
One could say, “I don't believe there is any gold in China.” And we would say they are entitled to their opinion and tolerate them. But when they start a movement and infiltrate some national teachers association and mandate that it be taught exclusively in all public schools, come on! When they insist that references of gold brought from China to America be removed from every text, pledge, and class and that teachers not be allowed to say 'gold' and 'China' in the same sentence one might see how ludicrous this is. Not the secular humanist; they can't see it at all. 'No gold in China' is a statement of faith until you have overturned every rock in China. Every rock to a considerable depth! Now if this country were founded on the gold that came from China, you might understand why those who know and love the heritage of this free country would be upset. If you found this movement using some of that gold to finance their faith based conjecture into the public square every one should get upset. The secular humanist has made a faith based conjecture that there is no god in the universe. Without turning over a single stone to substantiate this conjecture they have forced it into our public schooling and will not tolerate any other teaching. They have used the gold in the statement “Separation of Church and State” to cause a people, ignorant of it's meaning, to enforce their edict of separation of god and country and especially separation of Jehovah God and country. Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of this Jehovah God (a by faith conjecture), is the sole founder of this thing called a Church (a by historical fact conjecture.) Its separation from state has to do with Baptists vs the Roman Empires Imperial Catholic Church and her daughters, not religion and not the public square. Do not ignorantly allow a religion of atheism make it mean separation of God and country. I have been told by the intolerably ignorant, that I could not take our Baptist Sunday School class into a village owned public square because of 'Separation of Church and State!' Atheistic Humanists are now using this faulty logic to force all public school teachers and staff to behave themselves as if they were atheistic in religion and thus prevent every other free exercise of religion in the public school. In the story line all it took was one child to stand and say “The Emperor has no clothes.” In America that child is mocked and scorned by NPR, hated by the NEA, sued by the ACLU and locked up by judicial decree. Could it be more obvious “The Emperor has no clothes!” and there could still be gold in China!
This is an excerpt from an Open Letter to School Boards from a Baptist Preacher. You should read the entire letter at www.gsbaptistchurch.com/humanism You may be blocked from this site on your schools computer because it contains information about God and His Son the Lord Jesus Christ which is not allowed in your school because of 'Separation of Church and State.' Go figure. Go learn. Check out the Emperor. Do something.
The Secular Humanists, their atheistic religion, contends that they are THE philosophy springing from science, i.e. the only philosophy or world view springing from pure unadulterated science. The existence of God cannot be proven by science, therefore it must not be taught, or eluded to, or conceived as possible in their religion, i.e. their naturalistic philosophy and world view of where did we come from, why are we here, where are we going. They insist that the public be kept free from the free inquiry into the book, the Holy Bible, they ban it from our public schools. The scientific method, their bible, contends that we make observations, devise a hypothesis, do experimentation and draw demonstrated conclusions that then become their theory and eventually, after many infallible proofs, becomes a law. For example, this is how the 2nd law of thermodynamics1 came into being. There are two great hypocrisies in their atheistic, science only religion. First, as just illustrated, science cannot prove what is not true, it can only prove what is true. Thus, their conjecture that there is no supernatural anywhere in the universe is a 'faith based' conjecture not a science based conjecture.
Secondly, the humanist cannot even stick with their scientific method in answer to the question “Where did I come from.” They hypothesize that we got here by a process that defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics. They hold up the conjectures of Charles Darwin as the mechanism for their hypothesis. A hypothesis does not become a theory because a majority of scientists believe in it. It does not become a theory because several more observations seem to substantiate it. They must experiment, not dig around and find fossils that might substantiate their hypothesis, but perform a number of laboratory experiments. In a laboratory they must demonstrate as true, or even possible, a process of genetic mutation which defies this 2nd law of thermodynamics and substantiates a process of natural selection. There should be a demonstration of a transition from one species to another. Especially beneficial would be a laboratory transition between the plant and animal kingdoms as Darwin hypothesized, but even a laboratory transition from one species to another would be substantial. Their laboratories are strangely silent. They conjecture the production of amino acids from rock and simple life forms springing from these acids rubbing together in nature. But their test tubes are always empty. No mutated fruit fly that can jump like a flea, or mutated flea that could suck and fly like a mosquito. All their mutations support the 2nd law, so they abandon the laboratory and go make more observations. They turn over more rocks, even rocks on other planets and moons. They write thick books on their observations. Their unsubstantiated hypothesis grows remarkably large and is paraded in front of everybody stark naked. The majority of scientists hold to their world view, and all are coerced to stand behind the naked body or loose their credentials. So they must be right and theirs must be the only 'theory' which can be taught in the public science class, the only 'science' voiced on NPR and viewed on public television. But the scientific method still insists that evolution is not even yet a theory but still only a hypothesis which is very, very popular. It is such a popular atheistic hypothesis that it has become a 'sacred cow!' They have not demonstrated the revocation of the 2nd law so they reword it, and try and make it say 'change is good.' It is hypocrisy. The secular humanists must know this or be intolerably ignorant.
Such hypocrisy is often obvious to their own rank and file, but such openness and free thinking is quickly washed from view. Jonathan Wells' book “Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth, Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong” dare not be found in our public school science room because it does not carry the party line. Noted Author Kurt Vonnegut made these blatant observations in an NPR interview this week:
NPR There was another novel that you wrote, called slapstick .... and part of that novel was that the United States had vulcanized, it had become a series of feudal societies... and obviously that has not literally happened but is there anyway that metaphorically it has happened?
Well we are terribly divided politically, yes, and you know, I don't mean to intimidate you and your listeners but I have a Masters degree in Anthropology from the University of Chicago ...
Anyway it is obvious through the human experience that extended families and tribes are terribly important. We can do without an extended family, as human beings, about as easily as we can do without vitamins or essential minerals.
Where you can see tribal behavior now is in this business about teaching evolution in a science class and intelligent design,... look it is the scientists themselves, they are behaving tribally
NPR How are the scientists behaving tribally?
They say, you know, about evolution, that it surely happened, the fossil record it shows that, but look, my body and your body are miracles of design the scientists are pretending that they have the answers as to how we got this way when natural selection could not possibly have produced such a machine ...
NPR Does that mean you would favor teaching intelligent design in the classroom?
Look, It is what we are thinking about all the time, if I were a physics teacher or a science teacher it would be on my mind all the time, as how ... we really got this way, it is a perfectly natural human thought and OK, and if we go into the science class we can't think this? Well OK, But as soon as we leave we can start thinking about it again without giving aid and comfort to the lunatic fringe of the Christian religion?
Also, I think it is tribal behavior, I don't think that Pat Robertson for instance doubts that we evolved, he is simply representing a tribe.
NPR There are tribes on both sides here then?
Yes.
NPR May I ask what tribes, if any, that you belong to over the years?
Well its an ancestral tribe and these were immigrants from north of Germany, who came here about the time of the Civil war, anyway, these people called themselves free thinkers, they were impressed incidental by Darwin; they are called humanists now, people who are not so sure that the Bible is the word of God
NPR Who are denounced by some religious people as being Secular Humanists
Well That is exactly what I am. The trouble with being a secular humanist is we don't have a congregation, we don't meet, so it is a very flimsy tribe, but, well, there is a wonderful quotation from nature. Nature said “Only a person of deep faith can afford the luxury of skepticism.” it is that something perfectly wonderful is going on, I do not doubt it, but the explanations I hear do not satisfy me.
NPR That is the long view from Kurt Vonnegut. His latest book is called a “Man Without a Country” .... This is morning edition from NPR news, I'm STEVE INSKEEP 1/23/06
It is this blinding hypocrisy, this blatant foolishness, that the Secular Humanists uses to blind the eyes of Americans and force them to chant the misguided phrase “Separation of Church and State.” As their atheism monopolizes the teaching in the public schools all teachers and administrators are forced to behave as if they too were atheists lest they be sued by the ACLU.
I then have a theory. It says that the book we call the Holy Bible, a book written by 40 different authors over a period of over 2000 years with no deviation in theme and content on the questions of life, is true and the best basis for life issues. The humanists precedent that we can go from a hypothesis to a theory with nothing more than lots and lots of observations adequately substantiates my theory. My theory also deals with life questions like “Where did we come from?” Why then is my theory and now even my object of study banned and prohibited from the public school? Secular humanism is an intolerant atheistic religion. One that demands that such a source book as the Bible, which contradicts their world view, be banned from the public square. Humanists contend that school children must remain ignorant about the book that initiated their schools founding. Even the very basics of it's laws, say for example the basic ten, must not appear anywhere in the public where the humanists are promoting their atheism. It is hypocrisy! Very popular, judicially authenticated, sacred cow hypocrisy.
Humanism is a religion of life that has an unconstitutional teaching monopoly in our public schools and wants one on the whole 'public square.' This religion has as it's god the 'atheistic naked square.' They would substitute their god into our pledge to eliminate 'One nation under God.” An 'atheistic naked square' that they would idolize and substitute for the motto that founded this great country, the motto on our currency, “In God We Trust.” And an 'atheistic naked square' that they would drape over every court house occurrence of the Holy Bible's commandments, even though those commandments form the basis for all law in this great country. This humanist religion will not stop until it has only its atheism brandished and lauded in every avenue of public school, public property, and government. They want every prayer banished and every other free exercise of religion prohibited.
The Baptist who founded, paid for and secured the 'Separation of Church and State' and the concept of 'Individual Soul Liberty' need to step up again and stop the unconstitutional government favoritism of one religion, humanistic atheism, and their prohibition of the free exercise of other religions. But you can do something as well. Please inform the general public and your public school board members about this travesty, a short letter to your editor would be appropriate. Please inform your government representatives about this travesty, both state and federal, congressmen and representatives. With our nations attention focused on our supreme court justices, it would be a good time for you to speak up. We need a grass roots education that this thing called humanism is an intolerant prohibitive monopoly seeking religion that owns the ACLU, Senator Kennedy, our Senator Schumer, and the progressive humanist liberal democrats. It is a religion united with a state and it would burn Baptists at the stake as much as the Roman and Protestant religions did. We should pray for sure. Speak for certain.
Pastor Ed Rice
Article on Secular Humanism by a Baptist Preacher #0601 TOC
The Unconstitutional Intolerance of Secular Humanists
Although the Secular Humanist claims tolerance as one of their ten commandments, they are wholly and wrongfully intolerant of me, an ordained Fundamental Baptist Preacher of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and of my kind, Fundamental Bible Believing Christians. By their own affirmation they “deplore our efforts to explain the world in supernatural terms and to look outside nature for salvation”, ... their deploring swiftly cultivates their intolerance. By their own declaration they have lumped fundamental Bible believing Christians into their hated and opposed 'antisecularist' and wrongfully called us 'authoritarian religions.' Their unwarranted hatred and opposition makes them not only wholly intolerant but wrongfully intolerant. We shall see in this article the irresponsible intolerance of the humanist.
The Secular Humanist will tolerate only their religion in the public square. Towards all other religion they are intolerant. By a carefully thought out definition 'religion' is the entity in mankind that strives to answer the questions; “Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going? And How do I get there?” The humanist tries to deny being a religion by saying that they have no belief in a deity nor a transcendent order. Thus they and Buddhism both would not be a religion! No! As much as Buddhism and Hinduism are religions, Secular Humanism is a religion and not just a philosophy. They hold up their god the 'atheistic naked square' and insists that he be the only god allowed in the public school system. For them no other idea or answer to the question; “Where did I come from?” will be tolerated; only one answer allowed, their god, the 'atheistic naked square', must be the answer to all these questions. They insist that their god be substituted into the pledge, and that the God who caused the founding of this great country be erased. They insists that their atheistic naked square be hung to cover every occurrence of the Bible's commandments that form the basis of all law in this country. They demand that their god, the atheistic naked square, be the only one printed on our money. The motto that was instrumental in founding this country; “In God We Trust” must be erased and their god must be inserted in its place. They will not tolerate and they would prohibit the presence of any god but theirs. They have their 'articles of faith' (The Affirmations of Humanism) and they do have their transcendent order to which they aspire. (A Secular Humanist Declaration Issued In 1980 By The Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism, and the Humanist Manifestos of 1933 and 1973) These affirmations and declarations deal with ethics and strive to answer the questions “Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going? And How do I get there?” Just because they insist that the answers be absolutely void of a 'supernatural' or of a 'salvation from God' they think their atheistic answers are not a 'religion' and thereby they secure absolute privilege to banish and twist laws to prohibit all other answers. Like other religions, they do this with a vehement denial of the supernatural, yet they exhibit a vehement prohibitive intolerance of those who would embrace one. Secular Humanism is not only a religion, it is a very intolerant one.
The intolerance of the Secular Humanist has taken them so far as to defy and redefine 'Separation of Church and State', founded, termed, secured and sternly held to by red blooded Baptists. Their definition requires separation of God and country and separation of Holy Bible and country. God and Bible out, their god, the atheistic naked square put in and mandated as the only answer to matters of religion. The religion of Secular Humanism has effectively insisted that their philosophy of 'Where did I come from and why am I here?' be the only tolerated answers addressed in our public schools. No other religions will be tolerated. If one strives to address these questions without bowing to their god, they will be prohibited, banned and forcibly removed. Only the Godless atheistic naked square is allowed to address these questions. They particularly villainize Christianity because it is the founder of this free country and founder of the public schools that they have invaded with their intolerance. They say that Christians have been given a 'disproportionate privilege' and thus, like affirmative action, the Christians must be banished completely to make up for the disproportion. They label Christians as intolerant and league with the ACLU to erase any remnant of prayer, pledge and precedence, (especially the precedence of the 10 commandments and presence of the Holy Bible that the 10 came from.) Secular Humanism is an intolerant religion and is now the only condoned religion in our public school system, only their atheistic naked square can be worshiped as the creator. They are the only ones allowed to address the questions “Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going? And How do I get there?” All others are banned. Others are not tolerated and Christianity which produced the public school is singled out as especially heinous.
Toleration comes in various degrees. To tolerate is “to allow without prohibiting or opposing; to permit.2” To say that a humanist does not oppose Christianity and strive to prohibit it, is intolerable ignorance. By his own affirmation he will not tolerate any embracing of Jehovah God in particular; displaying a clear animosity towards Judeao/Christian society. The clarification of the degree of intolerance comes from dividing the definition between the word 'prohibiting' and the word 'opposing'. Baptists have been founder, promoter and securer of religious tolerance when it means that no religion is to be prohibited. They have always held that all individuals have the liberty to answer the questions 'Where did I come from? And Why am I here?' openly and freely without intervention of the state or prohibitions about the answers. A Baptist is intolerant-opposing of immorality, and of intolerant-prohibiting. A Secular Humanist is intolerant-prohibiting of God, Bible and Christianity. They have prohibited our involvement, prohibited free speech, and prohibited our free-exercise in the public square, securing for themselves the sole right to answer there the questions of religion. Securing for themselves the sole right to be intolerant-prohibiting. That prohibition is unconstitutional.
The Secular Humanist is intolerant in the worst degree of intolerance. They would prohibit the free expression of thought in the public square. If thought deals with the question of 'Where did I come from?' they insist that they be the only ones to provide the answer to that question, and that the only answers to be entertained must have only their god, the atheistic naked square and no regard for the 'supernatural'. If thought deals with the question of 'Why am I here?' they demand that only answers obtained outside the influence of the Holy Bible can be expressed. If thought deals with the question of 'Where am I going?' they require that any answers must not entail any kind of faith. If thought deals with the question 'How do I get there?' they refuse to accept any argument that may step out of their defined science. Religion deals with these eternal questions. Secular Humanism is a religion dealing harshly and narrowly with these questions. They prohibit the free exercise of the answering to these questions, and the entity in man that would give answer to each is called religion. On December 15, 1791 the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights insisted that Congress make no law respecting or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The Secular Humanist takes the ACLU in their hip pocket and grossly violates this American right. Their intent is to restrict in every way possible the free exercising of religion in the public square and their intolerance is unconstitutional. In the 60s and 70s the Secular Humanist made great strides for making their god the only one allowed in the public school system. I am a Baptist preacher who does not bow to their atheistic naked square and purports that we break the monopoly which the religion of Secular Humanism has in our schools. We should not only teach intelligent design, we should teach the Biblical 6 day creation. We should openly teach that when it comes to religion, i.e. The answering of the questions 'Where did I come from and why am I here?' there are lots of theories out there.. The only theory allowed in school now is that the secular god of the atheistic naked square made us, and he violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics to do it. Some theory. Some monopoly on thought. I oppose this restrictive monopoly and you should too.
Article on Secular Humanism by a Baptist Preacher #0602 TOC
The Secular Humanists' Intolerance of 'Individual Sole Liberty' Violates My Constitutional Rights.
The Secular Humanist's Intolerance of 'Individual Sole Liberty' constitutes a huge stepping stone whereby they have restricted the free exercise of religion and gained a majority thinking in our society. A majority opinion about intolerance of the free expression of religious beliefs about our origins does not make it constitutionally acceptable. A majority thinking that a wall of separation need exist between God and Country does not make it constitutionally viable. A majority thinking that man must have gotten here without the intelligence of the supernatural, ... thus two rocks and some dirt naturally got together and naturally by random chance, produced amino acids that spontaneously generated life that naturally kingdom-iated, phylum-iated, class-iated, order-iated, family-iated, genus-iated, and finally naturally by random speciated! till one species even got a PHD, ... this wildly hypothetical majority opinion does not license the silencing of the other (more reasonable) hypothesis in the science classes of America just because it relies on 'naturalism.' These are unconstitutional acts of the humanist atheistic religion. Humanists are so swift to erect walls between their religion of atheistic naturalism and anything which might be supernatural, that they cannot tolerate critical analysis or free thinking in their presence. They just want to make sure all such 'religion' is separated from them and their society, especially their court owned school classrooms. This swift thoughtless wall of separation leaves them in the dark where they want to be, but they are evangelical, wanting everyone else to share their darkness. They are wall builders, fundamentalists, whom they hate are wall busters. The war is not slight.
The Secular Atheistic Humanist first reject the Bible as the word of God. That, of course if their prerogative, but then like any other religion or philosophical persuasion they do their dead level best to get as many others to follow their philosophy down this vein. Again, this is their prerogative until they cross a constitutional right wherein they forbid one from the free practice of one's belief and one's religion. They have done this when they use the court system to keep the Bible out of the public square, particularly out of the public3 school. And the decree that teachers, who believe the Bible, must now act like, teach like, and converse like they are Bible rejecting atheists, violates the free exercise of their religion. This forced acting like there is no Bible and there is no God is what violates the constitutional rights of teachers and students. The violation of the constitutional right of free speech and free expression of religious beliefs is particularly coming to bear in the science class, wherein it violates the rights of students, and violates the rights of a free society, and free thinking. It violates my rights, as my religious convictions forbid my use of the public schools wherein the 'religion' of atheism is mandated by the courts and by the gross intimidation of the ACLU. The courts forcing the beliefs of one philosophy and world view into the science classrooms of America is a violation of the constitution.
The Secular Atheistic Humanists construct an artificial wall between God and Country. The Supreme Court's Establishment Clause rehtoric
The Atheists writes: It is a central dogma of all fundamental Christians that the Bible is without error. They teach this conclusion by "reasoning" that god cannot be the author of false meaning and he cannot lie. Is this true? If written by a perfect being, then it must not contradict itself, as a collection of books written by different men at different times over many centuries would be expected to contradict each other.
With this in mind, let us have a look at the Bible on several subjects.
ON THE SABBATH DAY
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." -- Exodus 20:8
"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." -- Romans 14:5
ON THE PERMANENCY OF THE EARTH
"... the earth abideth for ever." -- Ecclesiastes 1:4
"... the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." -- 2Peter 3:10
Could I now take their exactly quoted statement and say:
The American Atheists Organization says “The Bible is without error.” In an article from their web site they have declared that the Bible is “written by a perfect being,” even though they declare it to be “written by different men at different times over many centuries!”
ON SEEING GOD
"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30
"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18
Glossary TOC
ar·ti·cle (är“t¹-k…l) n. Abbr. art. 1. An individual thing or element of a class; a particular object or item: an article of clothing; articles of food. 2. A particular section or item of a series in a written document, as in a contract, constitution, or treaty. 3. A nonfictional literary composition that forms an independent part of a publication, as of a newspaper or magazine. 4. Grammar. Any of a class of words used to signal nouns and to specify their application. In English, the indefinite articles are a and an and the definite article is the. 5. A particular part or subject; a specific matter or point. --ar·ti·cle tr.v. ar·ti·cled, ar·ti·cling, ar·ti·cles. To bind by articles set forth in a contract, such as one of apprenticeship. [Middle English, from Old French, from Latin articulus, part, diminutive of artus, joint. See ar- below.]
au·thor·i·tar·i·an (…-thôr”¹-târ“¶-…n, …-th¼r”-, ô-thôr”-, ô-th¼r”-) adj. 1. Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime. 2. Of, relating to, or expecting unquestioning obedience. See Synonyms at dictatorial. --au·thor”i·tar“i·an n. --au·thor”i·tar“i·an·ism n.
bi·as (bº“…s) n. 1. A line going diagonally across the grain of fabric: Cut the cloth on the bias. 2. Usage Problem. a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment. b. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice. 3. A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others. 4. Sports. a. A weight or irregularity in a ball that causes it to swerve, as in lawn bowling. b. The tendency of such a ball to swerve. 5. The fixed voltage applied to an electrode. --bi·as adj. 1. Slanting or diagonal; oblique: a bias fold. --bi·as tr.v. bi·ased or bi·assed, bi·as·ing or bi·as·sing, bi·as·es or bi·as·ses. 1. To influence in a particular, typically unfair direction; prejudice. 2. To apply a small voltage to (a grid). [French biais, slant, from Provençal, perhaps ultimately from Greek epikarsios, slanted.]
big·ot (b¹g“…t) n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. [French, from Old French.]
————————————————————
WORD HISTORY: A bigot may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost certainly apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant “an excessively devoted or hypocritical person.” Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense “a superstitious hypocrite.”
Bud·dhism (b›“d¹z”…m, b‹d“¹z”-) n. 1. The doctrine, attributed to Buddha, that suffering is inseparable from existence but that inward extinction of the self and of worldly desire culminates in a state of spiritual enlightenment beyond both suffering and existence. 2. The religion represented by the many groups, especially numerous in Asia, that profess varying forms of this doctrine and that venerate Buddha. --Bud“dhist adj. & n. --Bud·dhis“tic adj.
Chris·tian (kr¹s“ch…n) adj. 1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings. 3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike. 4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents. 5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane. --Chris·tian n. Abbr. Chr. 1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus. [Middle English Cristen, from Old English cristen, from Latin Christi³nus, from Greek Khristianos, from Khristos, Christ. See CHRIST.] --Chris“tian·ly adj. & adv.
WORD HISTORY(by Pastor Edward Rice): A Christian by original and stricter definition is one who is Christlike in behavior because he has previously become a believer in Christ and been trained as a disciple of Christ. The first use of the word was not just to believers but to disciples in The Acts of the Apostles chapter 11, verse 26 it says “And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” To be a believer in Christ one must affirm Jesus Christ as God and saviour of their soul. Thus cults, which deny the trinity of the Godhead and Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ are not Christian. Fundamental Christians are those who go back to the fundamentals of the Biblical teachings of Christ as the source of all faith and practice. Thus the religion of Roman Catholicism, a religion which unites Church and State, a religion which mandates and forces the baptism into their ranks (by mandatory infant baptism, by law and even by sword, see their doctrine of two swords), a religion which utilizes Roman celibate priests and buying and selling of penance, (this due to their Latin mistranslation of the term 'presbyter' to priest and the term 'repentance' to penance), a religion which holds a Pope as their infallible authority and not the Bible, is not Christian. And the protestant daughters of the Roman religion who strove to burn and drown Christians with such a uniting of Church and State powers, and still Baptize their infants (infant Baptism is a Roman practice nowhere sanctioned in the Bible) are not Christian in practice but Roman.
doc·tri·naire (d¼k”tr…-nâr“) n. 1. A person inflexibly attached to a practice or theory without regard to its practicality. --doc·tri·naire adj. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a person inflexibly attached to a practice or theory. See Synonyms at dictatorial. [French, from doctrine, doctrine, from Old French. See DOCTRINE.] --doc”tri·nair“ism n. --doc”tri·nar“i·an n.
e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism (¹-l¶“t¹z”…m, ³-l¶“-) n. 1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. 2.a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class. b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class. --e·lit“ist adj. & n.
e·van·gel·ism (¹-v²n“j…-l¹z”…m) n. 1. Zealous preaching and dissemination of the gospel, as through missionary work. 2. Militant zeal for a cause. --e·van”gel·is“tic (-j…-l¹s“t¹k) adj. --e·van”gel·is“ti·cal·ly adv.
e·van·gel·ize (¹-v²n“j…-lºz”) v. e·van·gel·ized, e·van·gel·iz·ing, e·van·gel·iz·es. --tr. 1. To preach the gospel to. 2. To convert to Christianity. --intr. To preach the gospel. --e·van”gel·i·za“tion (-j…-l¹-z³“sh…n) n. --e·van“gel·iz”er n.
ig·no·ble (¹g-n½“b…l) adj. 1. Not noble in quality, character, or purpose; base or mean. See Synonyms at mean2. 2. Not of the nobility; common. [Middle English, of low birth, from Old French, from Latin ign½bilis : i-, in-, not; see IN-1 + n½bilis, gn½bilis, noble; see NOBLE.] --ig”no·bil“i·ty (-b¹l“¹-t¶) or ig·no“ble·ness n. --ig·no“bly adv.
Laws of Thermodynamics The first law of thermodynamics says that the total quantity of energy in the universe remains constant. This is the principle of the conservation of energy. The second law of thermodynamics states that the quality of this energy is degraded irreversibly. This is the principle of the degradation of energy. The two principal laws of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems, that is, entities with which there can be no exchange of energy, information, or material. The universe in its totality might be considered a closed system of this type; this would allow the two laws to be applied to it. About 1850 the studies of Lord Kelvin, Carnot, and Clausius of the exchanges of energy in thermal machines revealed that there is a hierarchy among the various forms of energy and an imbalance in their transformations. This hierarchy and this imbalance are the basis of the formulation of the second principle. The image of the inexorable death of the universe, as suggested by the second principle, has profoundly influenced our philosophy, our ethics, our vision of the world, and even our art. The thought that by the very nature of entropy the ultimate and only possible future for man is annihilation has infiltrated our culture like a paralysis. This consideration led Leon Brillouin to ask, "How is it possible to understand life when the entire world is ordered by a law such as the second principle of thermodynamics, which points to death and annihilation?"(from Entropy and the Laws of Thermodynamics, by J. de Rosnay @1998) The Bible description of the universe, both it's creation by an outside influence, i.e. an almighty God, its degradation and its pending demise is in perfect league with these laws. The hypothesis that species are 'evolving' into higher life forms is in perfect contrast to these laws. (from Pastor Ed Rice)
lit·er·al·ism (l¹t“…r-…-l¹z”…m) n. 1. Adherence to the explicit sense of a given text or doctrine. 2. Literal portrayal; realism. --lit“er·al·ist n. --lit”er·al·is“tic adj.
par·ti·san1 (pär“t¹-z…n) n. 1. A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea. 2. A member of an organized body of fighters who attack or harass an enemy, especially within occupied territory; a guerrilla. --par·ti·san adj. 1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a partisan or partisans. 2. Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics. [French, from Old French, from Old Italian dialectal partisano, variant of Old Italian partigiano, from parte, part, from Latin pars, part-. See PART.] --par“ti·san·ship” n.
pa·ro·chi·al (p…-r½“k¶-…l) adj. 1. Of, relating to, supported by, or located in a parish. 2. Narrowly restricted in scope or outlook; provincial: parochial attitudes. [Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin parochi³lis, from parochia, diocese. See PARISH.] --pa·ro“chi·al·ism n. --pa·ro“chi·al·ist n. --pa·ro“chi·al·ly adv.
plu·ral·ism (pl‹r“…-l¹z”…m) n. 1. The condition of being plural. 2. A condition of society in which numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups coexist within one nation. 3. Ecclesiastical. The holding by one person of two or more positions or offices, especially two or more ecclesiastical benefices, at the same time. 4. Philosophy. a. The doctrine that reality is composed of many ultimate substances. b. The belief that no single explanatory system or view of reality can account for all the phenomena of life.
sec·tar·i·an (sµk-târ“¶-…n) adj. 1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect. 2. Adhering or confined to the dogmatic limits of a sect or denomination; partisan. 3. Narrow-minded; parochial. --sec·tar·i·an n. 1. A member of a sect. 2. One characterized by bigoted adherence to a factional viewpoint. --sec·tar“i·an·ism n.
Secular humanism is a philosophy and world view which centers upon human concerns and employs rational and scientific methods to address the wide range of issues important to us all. While secular humanism is at odds with faith-based religious systems on many issues, it is dedicated to the fulfillment of the individual and humankind in general. To accomplish this end, secular humanism encourages a commitment to a set of principles which promote the development of tolerance and compassion and an understanding of the methods of science, critical analysis, and philosophical reflection. (taken from secularhumanism.com)
tol·er·ate (t¼l“…-r³t”) tr.v. tol·er·at·ed, tol·er·at·ing, tol·er·ates. 1. To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit. 2. To recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others). 3. To put up with; endure. See Synonyms at bear1. 4. Medicine. To have tolerance for (a substance or pathogen). [Latin toler³re, toler³t-, to bear. See tel…- below.] --tol“er·a”tive adj. --tol“er·a”tor n.
tran·scen·dent (tr²n-sµn“d…nt) adj. 1. Surpassing others; preeminent or supreme. 2. Lying beyond the ordinary range of perception: “fails to achieve a transcendent significance in suffering and squalor” (National Review). 3. Philosophy. a. Transcending the Aristotelian categories. b. In Kant's theory of knowledge, being beyond the limits of experience and hence unknowable. 4. Being above and independent of the material universe. Used of the Deity. --tran·scen“dence or tran·scen“den·cy n. --tran·scen“dent·ly adv.
trea·tise (tr¶“t¹s) n. 1. A systematic, usually extensive written discourse on a subject. 2. Obsolete. A tale or narrative. [Middle English treatis, from Anglo-Norman tretiz, alteration of treteiz, from Vulgar Latin *tr³ct³tºcius, from Latin tr³ct³tus, past participle of tr³ct³re, to drag about, deal with. See TREAT.]
tyr·an·ny (t¹r“…-n¶) n., pl. tyr·an·nies. 1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power. 2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler. 3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: “I have sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” (Thomas Jefferson). 4.a. Use of absolute power. b. A tyrannical act. 5. Extreme harshness or severity; rigor. [Middle English tyrannie, from Old French, from Late Latin tyrannia, from Greek turannia, from turannos, tyrant.]
APPENDIX 1 Letters of Interest TOC
Pastor Ed Rice, Good Samaritan Baptist Church
54 Mian St Box 99, Dresden, NY 14441
(315) 536-0878 www.gsbaptistchurch.com
Tom Flynn, Editor, FREE INQUIRY Magazine 1/7/06
Director of The Robert G. Ingersoll Birthplace Museum
P.O. Box 664
Amherst, NY 14226-0664
(716) 636-7571-213
I wanted to meet with you at sometime because I would rather look my enemy in the eye than chat on the phone or barrage him with mail. You are my enemy because you are an enemy of the cross of Jesus Christ my Lord, not for any personal purpose. I am sure you are a very charismatic and likable guy. I wanted to correspond with you because your actions, letters, and writings reveal your intolerance, even hatred, for Bible Believing Christians. Your desire to obstruct, hush and annihilate them is indeed confirmed in the closing paragraph that you wrote to my mission field.
"It's time for tolerance ... and it's time to admit that the traditional Christmas is way to narrow and sectarian for an increasingly multicultural society."
I am one of the dogmatic, partisan, narrow-minded (sectarian) members of a sect that you want to eliminate from the face of our society; that you want to duct tape the mouth of; that you want to exterminate in the name of Godless tolerance. Your idea that a Bible Believing, Bible Preaching, Christian has no place in a multicultural society, and should thereby be banned and silenced, has permeated the town of Dresden where I exercise the commission form my Lord Jesus Christ to preach the saving gospel to every creature. Your 'tolerance' of all except those who belong to Christ is straight from your father Satan, whom you pretend does not exist, and of whom you seem to be intolerably ignorant. (“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” Holy Bible John 8:44) We need to meet and correspond because I expect that you are my enemy in woeful ignorance. And if that is not true, because we need to have battle lines drawn.
I wish to contribute to your magazine for atheists, agnostics and secular humanist some articles I am now writing to deal with three major issues. Your kind is wholly intolerant of my 'sect' as you call us, woefully ignorant of the Holy Bible and the Holy God of that Bible, Jesus Christ the Righteous, and intolerably ignorant of a 2,006 year old Baptist battle cry called 'Individual Soul Liberty.' Articles dealing with these three issues will indeed be a test of how much free inquiry you will tolerate in your magazine the “Free Inquiry.” My first article is in draft. We should meet so I am not woefully ignorant of your devices and intentions. In days past and in my military career I have seen enemies remain cordial.
Servant of my God the Lord Jesus Christ
Pastor Ed Rice
attch. Response to Penn Yan Chronicle opinion.
Penn Yan Chronicle-Express
Dear Sirs, 1/3/06
Please print this rebuttal to Tom Flynn's intolerance in your Dec 28th paper.
Pastor Ed Rice
Good Samaritan Baptist Church, 54 Main St, Dresden NY 14441 (315) 536-0878
Mr. Tom Flynn ought not be dismayed by the intolerance of Christians, especially when it comes to a celebration about their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Christians are commissioned by the Lord Jesus Christ to preach the gospel to every creature, to persuade men every where to believe on Him and to evangelize the world. Biblical Christians have an evangelical faith in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ and Mr. Tom Flynn and his agnostic atheist cronies need to learn tolerance of such evangelistic outreach, preaching and persuasion, especially around Christmas time. A true Christian is not to be silently tolerant of unbelief, of other faiths, or of an atheist. If a person knows Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour they will tell anyone and everyone about that relationship, and do so with a fervent desire that they would also come to know Him in the same way. Prior to 1776 Baptist Preachers were put in jail for preaching the gospel to every creature. But today every Christian has the freedom to share their faith in Christ with everybody that they meet.
Mr. Flynn, following the godless mold of Robert Green Ingersoll, is being intolerant of Biblical Christians, as he whines about their celebration of Christmas and calls them a meaningless minority. Anyone who does not celebrate Christmas, as he boasts, needs to be an evangelical target for those who know the truth about Jehovah God and His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ.
Ed Rice
Dear Pastor Rice, 1/9/06
Thanks for writing. After reading your words it doesn't seem like we have much to discuss. But one point cries out for clarification. You said I charge that "a Bible Believing, Bible Preaching, Christian has no place in a multicultural society, and should thereby be banned and silenced." Actually such a Christian has a most fitting place in a multicultural society -- it's called private life. Expressing your religion at church, in the home, over breakfast in the diner, no one dreams of taking that away from you. What does need to be reformed is the unfair and disproportionate privilege Christianity still enjoys to be expressed in the public square ... in ways taxpayers of other belief systems have no way of avoiding, nor any way to avoid being forced to support through their taxes.
In your letter to the paper, you brought up the Baptists of pre-Revolutionary America who were harshly persecuted and sometimes jailed or killed for their beliefs. Those bitter years taught lessons that American Baptists took to heart for some 200 years, during which Baptists were among the leading voices in favor of separation of church and state. (Indeed, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an organization I don't expect you think much of, was originally founded by Baptists ... as Baptists and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State! It later became "Protestants and Other Americans United" and then just "Americans United.") One of the great tragedies of American religion since around 1970 is the reactionary revolution in the Baptist movement that has led so many Baptist churches and churchmen to take the side of the oppressor.
In American public life today, the situation for nonChristians, religious and irreligious, is very much like that faced by the pre-Revolutionary Baptists -- similar in kind, if not in degree ... fundamentalists aren't executing anyone (if we don't count Barnett Slepian) or torturing anyone (if we don't count Paul Mirecki, the University of Kansas professor who was recently forced off the road and beaten by Christian zealots because he tried to teach a college course critical of intelligent design). But surely Christianity in general is taking unfair advantage of its bygone near-monopoly over American spiritual life to claim advantages in the public square that have always been unjustified ... and are now clearly intolerable. "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, "In God We Trust" on currency and coins, Christian prayer before town council meetings, out-of-control proselytizing in the Air Force Academy, millions in public support for the Boy Scouts, a hate group that discriminates against gays and atheists ... I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea. Christianity's stranglehold over the public square represents an era of creedal homogeneity in America that is long past. And it's a terrible violation of the principle that a free country should favor neither religion nor irreligion.
In a society as religiously diverse as ours, the only fair solution is a naked public square. Let us remove all religion from our public schools, our public buildings, and the activities of government. Let faith bloom freely in the home, in the church, wherever private life is lived. (I've always found it ironic that your church faces a former, long-abandoned public square most traces of which have been obliterated by later road-building. Is there a message in that?)
My concern is simple. Precisely because American religious life is so diverse, the present (and, terrifyingly, growing) favoritism toward Christianity in public life carries the seeds of grave social dislocation. When will America's growing minorities that are devout but non-Judaeo-Christian decide they've had enough of having Jesus rammed down their throats ... or down their children's throats in school? The cure for this is simple ... to get back to the healthy secularizing trend of the 1960s and 1970s, to establish a naked public square where Americans of all faiths can feel equal because they can see clearly that the state isn't cutting majority Christians any favors that they are denied. I suspect that no one would recognize this more clearly than the American Baptists of 200-odd years ago.
If this constitutes a drawing of battle lines, so be it.
Secularly yours,
Tom Flynn
Director, Robert Green Ingersoll Birthplace Museum
61 Main Street
Dresden NY 14441
315-536-1074
Owned and operated by the Council for Secular Humanism
(OFFICE ADDRESS, PLEASE USE FOR ALL COMMUNICATIONS)
PO Box 664
Amherst NY 14226-0664
(716)636-7571 ext 213
FAX (716) 636-1733
http://www.secularhumanism.org
Dear Tom, 1/13/06
Thanks for responding. I was surprised that you do know a little Baptist history, perhaps even enough to understand that the religious freedom and religious tolerance that they secured for you were then used to extricate them and all Christianity form the 'public square.' And that by an entity that pretends it is not a religion, just a philosophy. I wonder when you think a philosophy turns into a religion?
I wanted to seek clarification on three points. First you said we Baptist had our place and you would like to put us there, and it is not in the 'public square.' What is your definition of the 'public square?' You referenced the village owned property outside our door, is it your contention that I be banned and prohibited from approaching people about their relationship to Christ when they are standing there beside our Church? Would you prohibit me from preaching on the public streets of Geneva, where I regularly street preach? I also frequent the steps to city hall and the court house. Would you silence my voice there? How about the public sidewalk that crosses our Church property or the one that leads to the Penn Yan Public School? I meet to give 'religious' counsel and to tutor students (i.e. Preach) in the public library, is that holy secular ground from which you would ban my free speech? Please draw a cognizant line around this 'public square' where you would not tolerate a Baptist preacher heralding the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Secondly you talked of a 'naked public square.' Is such a naked square to be monitored and kept free of all talk of 'religion' or just free from the Christians who have been given this disproportionate privilege you perceive? Should a Buddhist be banned from your 'naked public square?' Or would he be allowed because he is a non-theist like yourself? Could the Bible be quoted in a 'naked public square?' Or is the Holy Bible to be a banned book? What is your 'naked public square' in essence?
Lastly, where does a philosophy become a religion and get banished from your Utopian society? I strongly contend that every man has religion. Every man has the drive to answer the questions “Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going? And How do I get there?” When you, begin to develop a belief system that addresses these question that reside in every human being you are developing your religion. Yours is quite well developed and documented and godless (but not alone on the last point.) Yet you contend that yours is the superior democratic secular philosophy and not a religion. Your Secular Humanistic answers to these questions are so elitist that you would ban all other discourse from our public schools, our public buildings, and the activities of government, and allow only yours to be entertained, and that elitism is being done in the name of tolerance and freedom of religion. Seems to be a glaring disparity. Do you see it? When does a philosophy become a religion? Has yours?
I shall not address here your repeated villainization of fundamentalist as you attribute all of societies woes to our backs. Nor shall I address your avowed hatred for the Boy Scouts of America. They and us fundamentalist do oppose moral depravity in our society. Not prohibit, but oppose. You would thereby prohibit our voice and rights, not oppose but prohibit. You should get a dictionary and figure out what intolerance is, opposition or prohibition. You might then re-examine the secular humanist's history and stance on prohibition.
Please clarify these three items for me. Such discourse is enlightening in the least.
Pastor Ed Rice
Opinion Sent to 7 local papers 1/13/06 (PY,Dun,NR,CL,FL,RD,SN)
Religion Still Taught In Public Schools
With the confirmation hearings for a justice underway we need to revisit the banning of all religion in the public square. Religion is by definition “A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.” But to keep Buffalo Bill fans from organizing into one we better understand a religion to be that entity in man which seeks answer to certain questions. Where did I come form? Why am I here? Where am I going? How do I get there? A philosophy or systematic consideration which pursues these kind of issues is a persons religion. Every human being with the rational power to think will address these types of questions and in life will develop a belief system which takes care of them. Thus, every human being who can think, has a religion. To think that we can get our children through 12 grades of public education without addressing these questions is quite naive. What must be determined is what types of answers will we allow our children to pursue. Once we know that, we can just ban and prohibit all the unacceptable answers from the public schools. If those unacceptable answers come from a book, like say a Holy Bible, we will ban that as well and not allow this free exercise of those types of religions with those types of answers. They will not be tolerated, not in that they will be opposed, but in that they will be prohibited. The secular humanists who own the ACLU, and have their own elitist answers to these questions, strive to prohibit the free exercise of other answers to these question. They are especially intolerant-prohibitive of Christianity. They call us intolerant, but we are intolerant-opposing, in that we oppose immorality, they are intolerant-prohibiting which is unconstitutional in this country. At present the only religion allowed in our public schools is a godless one organized and promoted by secular humanists. On Dec 15th 1791 an amendment to the Bill of Rights was supposed to stop this kind of monopoly on thought, teaching and free speech. Secular Humanists are intolerant elitists who have banned all others from the public square. Perhaps a new supreme court justice will tip the scale back toward the Constitution of the United States.
Rev Ed Rice
Dear Ed, 1/13/06
I'm pleased to address your questions. It would appear that at least some of your position is based on a distorted view of the secular humanist position, and perhaps we can clear that up!
You wrote, "the religious freedom and religious tolerance that they secured for you were then used to extricate them and all Christianity form the 'public square.'" Um, are we living on the same planet? On *my* earth, there was an effort to move in the direction of a naked public square (more on that below) in the 1960s and 70s. Had that been successful, America would have been far better prepared to cope with the great religious diversity of today, but it was *not* successful. Since the late 1980s momentum has been firmly in the opposite direction. If all Christianity has been extricated from the public square, as you suggest, then we should not have "In God We Trust" as the national motto, much less on U.S. money. "Under God" should have been removed from the Pledge of Allegiance some time back. Courts should not have upheld Ten Commandments displays in West Chester, Pa., and Austin, Texas. Faith-based organizations should still be barred from receiving public funds. No meeting of any government body should begin with a sectarian Christian prayer. No creche or menorah should be displayed in any public venue at some people's holiday time. Much to my chagrin (and I'm sure, to your approval) none of these things are the case. Far from being barred from the public square, Christianity enjoys substantial privilege there ... a level of privilege extreme enough to be quite provocative to Americans of other faiths and none.
You wrote, "I wonder when you think a philosophy turns into a religion?" Actually I have written extensively on that. I think a philosophy turns into a religion when it admits a transcendent or supernatural component. Christianity is unquestionably a religion with its claims concerning God, immortal human souls, a cosmic plan, vicarious atonement, and so on. Buddhism has no deity, but it's a religion too -- its system of karma requires a mechanism rooted outside the world of ordinary experience, a mechanism that's surely transcendent though it is impersonal. On this definition zealous Marxism could be considered a religion, too -- surely the confidence that common ownership of the means of production will lead to the withering of the state is insupportable outside of some transcendent commitment. In contrast, secular humanism makes no transcendent claims. (In fact, it disallows any appeal to transcendent entities.) Like any other school of thought or endeavor without transcendent elements, it is not a religion. And yes, that means that secular humanism (like every other nonreligious endeavor) is eligible for certain kinds of access to the public square that is -- or should be -- denied equally to all religions.
You asked what is included in "the public square." Basically, the public square is verbal shorthand for every venue owned, operated, or controlled by any governmental or quasi-governmental body. This includes municipal buildings, courthouses, correctional facilioties, public schools and their grounds, public parks, post offices, sewage treatment plants, military facilities, public hospitals, public housing, public sidewalks, and public streets.
Now we come to what I believe is your great misperception. You wrote, "Is such a naked square
to be monitored and kept free of all talk of 'religion' or just free from the Christians who have been given this disproportionate privilege you perceive?" Neither. The "naked public square" concept does *not* mean that government enforces a ban on all religious speech (with one exception I'll discuss below). That would be contrary to the First Amendment. So relax, your street preaching in Geneva is safe, unless it becomes so aggressive that it attracts attention under laws regarding harassment or public nuisance. What the "naked public square" concept forbids is any action *by government* that encodes or suggests active favoritism toward one religion against others, or toward religion in general against irreligion. So Ed Rice preaching in the old square in front of your church is OK; the village of Dresden
allowing a creche to be displayed in it in December would not be, *because it constitutes an act of government that displays religious favoritism.* A simple test for whether something violates the naked public square concept is, "Could this action give a reasonable observer the impression that government is taking sides with this religion, or with religion in general against irreligion? Is it sending a message to persons outside the favored tradition that they are second class citizens?" That's the problem with "In God We Trust" on the money -- it sends the message that if you have no god, or if you have one but its name is not God, you're on the outs with the Department of the Treasury!
On the same basis I would oppose government funding of faith-based charities -- if I had my way, it would be forbidden even for government to contract with religious agencies like Catholic Charities. I also oppose tax exemptions for religious institutions, because they amount to a government subsidy for religion. That would in no way limit anyone's freedom to practice their religion, though it *would* mean that members of each religious body would need to bear the full cost of its operation, including taxes thereon.
What I see as your misperception is the idea that the naked public square concept places limits primarily on individual expression. In fact it places limits primarily on *government.* (Read the Bill of Rights carefully -- despite its title, it doesn't create any rights. It takes those rights as "givens" and bars government from abridging them.) Individual expression is limited only secondarily: if a certain kind of individual religious expression would create the appearance of government endorsement, then AND ONLY THEN the state must prohibit that expressive act. So Ed Rice preaching on the streets of Geneva is OK. Ed Rice reserving a bandshell and using a Geneva-owned P.A. system is not, because that creates the impression that the city is endorsing your religious statements.
There is only one circumstance under which religious expression of any sort, even between individuals, should be discouraged on my view, and that is in government-controlled venues that members of the public are compelled to frequent. Children have to go to school. People who need to settle a dispute at the bar of law have no choice but to go to the courthouse. People who need to do business with the government need to visit government offices. Members of the military have no choice about being in military settings. Prisoners have no choice about being in prison, and so on. In these settings I would argue that a complete ban on religious expression, even between individuals, makes sense. Why? Because the government compels citizens to be present, *anything* that occurs in such venues carries the tang of endorsement by the state. So in my perfect secular humanist world, public school students would be forbidden from talking to one another about their religions, because any student who found the exchange offensive would have been compelled by the state to be there and hear it. Government workers would be forbidden from wearing religious symbols, using religious decoration at their workstations, or talking about religion on the job because it might offend some taxpayer who has no choice but to be there. And yes, I see a church-state problem with chaplains in the military, in prisons, and in public hospitals, though I acknowledge that there are powerful arguments on the other side (it's also unreasonable to deny the comforts of religion to believing soldiers who might end up giving their lives for the country).
Except for those situations in which government control and compulsion to attend weigh so heavily as to color anything that occurs in those venues, I seek no limitation whatever on private expression. The home is wide open to you, as is the church, and so is the public square so long as the religious speech you engage in there is free from any suggestion of state endorsement.
Secularly yours,
Tom Flynn
Editor, FREE INQUIRY Magazine
Published by the Council for Secular Humanism
PO Box 664
Amherst NY 14226-0664
(716)636-7571 ext 213
FAX (716) 636-1733
http://www.secularhumanism.org
Open Letter to Baptist Preachers 1/16/06
In their words, "Humanism is an atheistic progressive philosophy of life that affirms an ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity." A philosophy that deals with ethics, and with the questions; “Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going? and How do I get there?” is a religion. Humanism is a religion of life that has already obtained an unconstitutional teaching monopoly in our public schools and wants one on the whole 'public square.' This religion has as it's god the 'atheistic naked square' that they would substitute into our pledge to eliminate 'One nation under God.” An 'atheistic naked square' that they would idolize and substitute for the motto that founded this great country, the motto on our currency, “In God We Trust.” And an 'atheistic naked square' that they would drape over every court house occurrence of the Holy Bible's commandments, although those commandments form the basis for all law in this great country. This religion will not stop until it has only its atheism brandished and lauded in every avenue of public school, public property, and government. They want every prayer banished and every other free exercise of religion prohibited.
The Baptists who founded, paid for and secured the 'Separation of Church and State' and the concept of 'Individual Soul Liberty' need to step up again and stop the unconstitutional government favoritism of one religion, humanistic atheism, and their prohibition of the free exercise of other religions. Please inform your public about this travesty, a short letter to your newspaper editor would be a good start. Please inform your government representatives about this travesty, state and federal, congressmen and representatives. Baptist Preachers need to speak up here; I don't think some Episcopalian Priest will. With our nations attention focused on our supreme court justices, it would be a good time for you to speak up. We need a grass roots education that this thing called humanism is an intolerant prohibitive monopoly seeking religion that owns the ACLU, Senator Kennedy, our Senator Schumer, and all the progressive humanist liberal democrats. It is a religion united with a state and it would burn Baptists at the stake as much as the Roman and Protestant religions did. Pray for sure. Speak for certain.
I have written for publication the attached article on the intolerance of the Secular Humanist. (Article1 of 3) Please read it. Then freely use and distribute this information out loud.
May God bless your voice,
Pastor Ed Rice
New York City
757 Third Avenue
Suite 17-02
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-486-4430 Fax: 212-486-7693 TDD: 212-486-7803
Sent via email http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/contact/contact.html
Dear Senator Schumer 1/16/06
It is clear you are not even in the main stream concerning the selection of a chief justice and you are thus not representing me at all.
While you are swirling around in the backwaters of liberalism please consider that the intolerant progressive religion of secular humanism that you speak for has an unconstitutional monopoly of our public schools and wants to expand their unconstitutional religious monopoly to every corner of the public square.
In their words, "Humanism is an atheistic progressive philosophy of life that affirms an ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity." A philosophy that deals with ethics, and with the questions; “Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going? and How do I get there?” is a religion. Humanism is a religion of life that has an unconstitutional teaching monopoly in our public schools and wants one on the whole 'public square.' This religion has as it's god the 'atheistic naked square' that they would substitute into our pledge to eliminate 'One nation under God.” An 'atheistic naked square' that they would idolize and substitute for the motto that founded this great country, the motto on our currency, “In God We Trust.” And an 'atheistic naked square' that they would drape over every court house