QB says:

#79 Again appeal to authority – you missed the point. Religious freedom also implies freedom from religion. When you deny people that basic freedom by claiming everyone is in a religion, whether they like it or not, then freedom is diminished.

You also have a pretty narrow of the status of conscientious objection – religious principles, which is respect, are only one of many grounds.

Timuchin says:

#82, Unfortunately, Secular Humanism wants religious freedom without any separation of “church” and state. So out of one side of their mouths they are a religion; out of the other side they are atheist and therefore not a religion. Buddhism is also atheist and still a religion.

Conscientious objection originally was a religious exemption for secular Humanists. They have a highest object of devotion and a moral code based upon that highest object of devotion. But they had to be conscientious about it.

I was taught in school (like you were) that since there are SO many religions the schools have to go by the world view of Secular Humanism — because it is not a religion. Thus the religion of Secular Humanism became the controlling religion of the schools!

Gary, the dangerous infidel says:

#79 Timuchin wrote, “It was on the basis of Secular Humanism being a religion and the freedom of religion that there was the right to conscientious objection exemption from being drafted into the Viet Nam war. So it was foundational to the decision.”

No! However the footnoted obiter dictum remark by Justice Black concerning Secular Humanism may have been used subsequent to the “Torcaso v. Watkins” decision, it absolutely was NOT foundational to the legal reasoning for that decision. As a matter of fact, Roy Torcaso was a professed atheist and was not even claiming Secular Humanism as his religion. He was simply claiming that Maryland’s requirement to declare faith in God in order to hold office was unconstitutional.

The following quote shows the crux of the legal reasoning for the Supreme Court’s decision, and it applies equally to non-believers as well as those who have religions which do not profess a belief in god:

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, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

Timuchin says:

#86, Justice Black had to find a way out of the draft for atheists. Freedom of religion alone couldn’t do it, obviously. So he claimed Roy Torcaso to be a Secular Humanism as his religion, to get him under the freedom of religion clause. Roy Torcaso was trying the straight path of trying to overthrow the whole “freedom of religion” concept — which absolutely wouldn’t work. Not the first time a Humanist has lied for one of his own…

Timuchin says:

I did my own research on the matter. I admit it was over six years ago. Yes, Torcaso was an atheist. Yes, the case was not about the draft. The resulting decision was used as precedent for conscientious objector exemption from the draft. So the concept that atheism is a religion was further established in precedent.

Justice Black came up with the definition of a religion that Torcaso could fit and then redefined the constitution to say “religion” instead of “belief in God.” No one overthrew it. Devious of him, wasn’t it?

QB says:

Temuchin. It sounds like you have strong religious beliefs and I’m glad you live in a country where you can practice them openly and without fear of persecution. However, your arguments rate about a 9 out of 10 on the BS meter. For example, in the US conscientious objector laws go back to the Civil War. Justice Black’s opinion was in a footnote which reflects his personal opinion.

But mainly, to use the word “secular” and “religion” together is an oxymoron.