Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="njdriver" data-source="post: 2674910" data-attributes="member: 4596">Kind of hard to have any discourse if you choose NOT to read something because of its length. Notwithstanding, dicta may not be law in and of itself, but it possesses probative value, especially if future courts get involved.Had you chosen to read through what I posted, at least the article from ThinkProgress, that case portends potential problems because in it the Judge issued his ruling and found the AHA to be a religion, based on the Establishment Clause, not the Free Exercise Clause.While you may consider the matter non sequitur, be reminded previous rulings only found religious status for secular humanism under the Free Exercise Clause. Now we have a federal judge taking care of the OTHER argument that allowed The AHA to continue to teach its tenets.Maui wrote;"Secular education is not religious education. Science is not religious education."Stop repeating yourself. Saying something over and over does not make it true. Secular education stops being so when it is ruled a religion, THEN it becomes religious education."The American Humanist Society v. United States case and a couple other cases deal with whether or not humanists (secular in this case) and other non-theistic beliefs should be discriminated against versus theistic beliefs."Look, the concept is pretty straightforward. In this case a prisoner wanted to establish a humanist study group, but was not allowed because secular humanism was not on the prisons' approved religion list."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."This falls into the law of unintended consequences as far as I'm concerned.The AHA can't fight to be given the same privileges that other established religions enjoy, and once the legal victory is bestowed upon them by court ruling(s), to then claim that the teaching of any one of the same belief values found in their Manifestos is not a religion!If the AHA wants to be recognized as a religion for any perceived Constitutional benefits, similar to other religions, they cannot then divorce themselves from any Constitutional limitations those same religious groups are under when it comes to public or state education.</blockquote>

Verification