a non-religion religion, do they worship themselves??? feh...
Posted on 04/23/2014 3:10:11 PM PDT by NYer
FYI ping!
“Not our Army any more” ping
If humanism is a religion then liking rock music is a religion
They’re already approving Wicca, Paganism, Santeria and Satanism and have chaplains for those. To quote our next president “What difference does it make?”
If we, as Christians, are smart, this might not exactly be a bad thing.
If “humanism” is a religion, that means that there must be, according to them, “separation between church and state”, right?
That means that the humanist philosophy cannot be constantly shoved down our throats as “neutral”, “non-religious” “reality”...dismissing Christian philosophy as an imposition of religion on folks.
Could potentially be VERY interesting...if we are smart about it.
or just fill in the blank
Exclude them from military service?
a non-religion religion, do they worship themselves??? feh...
Some of these guys need a little more combat…..as there are no atheists in fox holes….
Same-same atheism.
Yeah, but do they approve of a religion that hates all other religions and actually carries out murderous attacks against other religions on a daily bases?
Is that the same thing as a homosexualist? That’s the trendy thing to be in today’s army. Rapid advance in the ranks awaits the homosexualist. Be put in charge of those that like to call themselves Christians, what few are left in the army. Be all you can be. Call your nearest recruiter now and be briefed on the new and exciting career opportunities for homosexualists.
How does one define ‘humanist’? Is it a cult and a way to bury ones head in the sand and escape from the real world?
Thanks for the “Not our Army any more” ping.
HUMANISM
Name originally given to the intellectual, literary, and scientific movements of the fourteenth century through the early sixteenth. Their aim was to base every branch of learning on the culture of classical Greek and Roman antiquity. On its pagan side, it extolled the early non-Christian writers who stressed the full development of human nature, only vaguely interested in life after death. On its Christian side, believing humanists encouraged the free use of the treasures of antiquity without compromising the truths of the Gospel. Christian humanism began with Dante (1265-1321), while pagan humanism reached its peak in Petrarch (1304-74). Popes Pius II, Sixtus IV, and Leo X favored Christian humanism and did much to promote it. St. Thomas More (1478-1535) typified its best spirit in England. After the French Revolution the extreme humanistic spirit rebelled against Christian revelation and the Church.
All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.
Correct. Government schools are all about humanism.
The U.S. Supreme Court cited Secular Humanism as a religion in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins (367 U.S. 488). Roy Torcaso, the appellant, a practicing Humanist in Maryland, had refused to declare his belief in Almighty God, as then required by State law in order for him to be commissioned as a notary public. The Court held that the requirement for such an oath “invades appellant’s freedom of belief and religion.”
The Court declared in Torcaso that the “no establishment” clause of the First Amendment reached far more than churches of theistic faiths, that it is not the business of government or its agents to probe beliefs, and that therefore its inquiry is concluded by the fact of the profession of belief.
Actually, the Court in Torcaso rested its decision on “free exercise” grounds, not the “Establishment Clause.” Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 264-65 (1962) J. Brennan, concurring.
The Court stated:
We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person to “profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.” Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers,10 and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.11
Footnote 11 concerning “religions founded on different beliefs” contains the Court’s citation of Secular Humanism as a religion. It states
Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.
It is important to note that this citation of Secular Humanism as a religion is not merely dictum. The Supreme Court refers to the important 1957 case of Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia (101 U.S. App. D.C. 371) in its holding that Secular Humanism is a non-theistic religion within the meaning of the First Amendment.
The Ethical Culture movement is one denomination of Secular Humanism which reaches moral and cultural relativism, situation ethics, and attacks belief in a spiritual God and theistic values of the Old and New Testaments.
The Washington Ethical Society case involved denial of the Society’s application for tax exemption as a religious organization. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court’s ruling, defined the Society as a religious organization, and granted its tax exemption.
The Court Stated,
The sole issue raised is whether petitioner falls within the definition of a “church” or a “religious society” . . . . The taxing authority urges denial of the tax exemption asserting petitioner is not a religious society or church and that it does not use its buildings for religious worship since “religious” and “worship” require a belief in and teaching of a Supreme Being who controls the universe. The position of the tax Court, in denying tax exemption, was that belief in and teaching of the existence of a Divinity is essential to qualify under the statute. . . . To construe exemptions so strictly that unorthodox or minority forms of worship would be denied the exemption benefits granted to those conforming to the majority beliefs might well raise constitutional issues . . . . We hold on this record and under the controlling statutory language petitioner qualifies as “a religious corporation or society” . . . .
It is incumbent upon Congress to utilize this broad definition of religion in all its legislative actions bearing on the support or non-support of religion, within the context of the “no-establishment” clause of the First Amendment.
WHAT a load.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=homosexualist
A term preferred by some writers in preference to using “homosexual” as a noun.
In a newsmagazine cover article on Gore Vidal in the late 1970s, the celebrated author and essayist explained that, since “homosexual” is used as an adjective (”homosexual fantasy”), the noun form needed something more, well, distinctive and substantive: he used “homosexualist” to describe someone who is gay in practice, or as a state of being.
One doesn’t argue lightly with Gore Vidal but there are precedents either way in forming nouns. “Alcoholic drink” / “Joe’s an alcoholic,” uses “alcoholic” first as an adjective, then as a noun. Similarly, “Green politics” / “Cary has become a Green.”
OTOH a medical practitioner of psychiatry is not a “psychiatric” (better used as an adjective = “psychiatric evaluation”), but a “psychiatrist,” a description of a person, not a field. One who enjoys sensual things is a “sensualist” but has an appreciation of the sensual.
.
“John is an out-of-the-closet homosexual”; OR
“John is an out-of-the-closet homosexualist.”
BUT ALSO: “John is a homosexual,” OR
“John is homosexual.” — BUT NOT:
“John is homosexualist.”
It is much to be hoped that the definitions above of “same-sex love” or “practitioner of same-sex love” will stand, despite the fact that many right-wingers use it almost as a slur (it can get clinical) and avoid “gay” as a neologism. Don’t think it isn’t political, either.
“There is no God and I hate Him!” seems to be the atheist motto.
And I do not feel better knowing our military, under the self-worshipping Obama, now openly celebrates God Haters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.