For many decades now, on First Amendment grounds, American courts have forbidden the teaching and expression of Christian faith in public schools.

Conservative Christian activists have long cried foul over this. In their view, they are the victims of a double standard: government forbids Christian expression on grounds it is a religion, but it allows the expression of *other* worldviews, like Secular Humanism, which (Christians claim) are just as religious in nature as Christianity.

In a surprising development, conservative Christians now have a powerful new ally in this fight: the American Humanist Association, America's oldest, and probably most venerable, humanist organization. No, this is not a parody. This is real.

In their recent legal complaint against the United States ("The American Humanist Association and Jason Holden v. the United States of America"), the American Humanist Association's legal team (which included an official AHA lawyer) characterized Secular Humanism as a "religion" with great force and clarity. One must say that the conservative Christian activists could hardly have done a better job.

Secular Humanism, said the AHA legal team, while being "non-theistic", meets all the requirements of a "religion" in that it is "a religious world view" with "formal religious structure, with clergy (usually known as 'celebrants' who perform Humanist weddings, funerals, baby welcoming ceremonies, counseling, and other functions commonly performed by clergy), chaplains (including a Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University)...", which has already been recognized in law as a religion, in several jurisdictions and for various purposes. (For the actual court brief, see http://americanhumanist.org/system/storage/2/b7/c/5080/20140408_Oregon_Complaint.pdf ).

This frank admission has alarmed other secular humanists, especially those over in a separate (not to say rival) secular humanist organization, the Council for Secular Humanism. Many, if not all, CSH members reject the idea that Secular Humanism has anything to do with religion, and they see the AHA's arguments (and the judge's later decision, which accepted the AHA's arguments and ruled in their favour) as establishing a legal precedent which could lead either to (A) secular humanist expression being forbidden in schools on grounds it is a religion; and/or (B) Christian expression being allowed to the extent secular humanist expression is. (For more on this court case from a CSH perspective, see the editorial "Secular Humanism: Not a Religion" by Flynn, Lindsay, and Little, in the Feb./March "Free Inquiry").

The secular humanists over at the rival CSH have a right to be worried. The history of American case law furnishes many examples of juridical "seeds" sown here and there which are later harvested by judges so as to justify sweeping jugments of great impact.

Besides...maybe the AHA has a point. The official CSH website says that Secular Humanism "is comprehensive, touching every aspect of life including issues of values, meaning, and identity". It is a "lifestance: a body of principles suitable for orienting a complete human life." Further, it "provides a cosmic outlook - a world-view in the broadest sense, grounding our lives in the context of our universe....". And members of the secular humanist community "see themselves as possessing unique attributes of self-awareness and moral agency." ( https://www.secularhumanism.org/ )

And consider that CSH founder Kurtz, in his paradoxically-titled book "Living Without Religion", called for the appointment of a Secular Humanist clergy to preside over ceremonies and rituals at specially-designated Secular Humanist meeting houses, and give Secular Humanist pastoral counseling, and teach Secular Humanist doctrines in what can only be called seminaries. He wrote up Secular Humanist creeds - articles of faith - amongst which were claims about the world which simply have NO evidence for them, despite all the Secular Humanist lip service in support of science (these creeds include political and ethical stipulations).

And as if to put as fine a religious point on it as possible, Kurtz even explicitly admitted that he sought to design the structure - theoretical and institutional - of secular humanism so as to meet the deep, abiding human needs that religion traditionally met.

So, given all that, I think a reasonable person could conclude that for CSH members to deny that Secular Humanism is a "religion" seems rather like Van Gogh denying that "Dandelions" is a painting on grounds it is not the "Mona Lisa". The denial, in a word, seems very hollow, if not meaningless.

In any case, bottom line is that the AHA is now proudly proclaiming that all forms of humanism, including secular humanism, do in fact qualify as a "religion"; a judge agreed with the AHA and wrote it into case law; this in effect gives conservative Christian activists a huge weapon in their ongoing struggle to reclaim space in public education; and the CSH's disagreement with the AHA's admission seems meaningless in that even the CSH teachings and practices on secular humanism (certainly according to the judge, and I think most people) meet the criteria for religion about as well as any other supposed religion - something which the absence of supernatural belief does not mitigate.

The basic premise is a straw man.

Schools do not prevent students from personal expressions of Christianty or any other religion or world view. They also do not allow the preaching of humanism or any other world view. The double standard is only in the imagination of those who resent being prevented from forcing their beliefs on others.

A teacher or school is constrained from promoting ANY religious or world view over another. They may (and should) teach ABOUT religion. Completely different from teaching religion.

The status of a particular Humanist organization as a religion does not change anything.

Further, a specific organized group claiming status as a religion does not mean that anyone with a similar philosophy automatically falls under that umbrella. The organization may be a religion, but the general idea is not.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2015 08:16PM by Pista.

Pista

Not sure where you live, but many different types of "personal expressions of Christianity" are forbidden in American public schools. For example, a student emceeing an assembly would not get approval to launch into a Christian prayer. Neither would a valedictorian get permission to include a meditation on the Christian hymn "How Great Thou Art". I actually *have* spoken at American public schools before, and prior to speaking, school administrators as a matter of course run down the list of forbidden expressions. They include, basically, swear words and religion.

By contrast, expressions which could be described as "secular humanist" are either not prohibited at all, or are not prohibited with anything like the strictness religious expression is.

This is precisely why organizations like the CSH are worried about the AHA's admissions. They do not wish to see equivalent rights granted to (or denied to) secular humanism and Christianity. You seem to be misundertanding the concerns of the Council for Secular Humanism. They don't want to see public schools become de facto Christian schools, but they do wish secular humanist students to be able to voice various aspects of secular humanism in school settings.

Lastly, you have misunderstood: it is not that the "American Humanist Association" has now been written into case law as a religion. It is *Secular Humanism*. Again, that's why the CSH is concerned.

The definition of "secular" is the absence of spirituality or religion. By definition ALL communication in a school that is not based on religion is secular.

Could you please provide an example of a secular expression that is also religious?

I can imagine that anti-religious speech could be problematic, but religious intolerance is different than promoting secular humanism as a religion.

I live in Colorado, which is where I hold my teaching license. I was thoroughly trained in how students and faculty can and cannot express religion in a school.

A student may be prevented from initiating a prayer if the student is representing the school. An official, school-sponsored activity is not a personal forum. A student may also be prevented from disrupting a class with any off-topic speech, including but not limited to religion. A student is not, however prevented from a truly personal expression of religion.

there you go again

Yep.

You could set a clock to his regularly timed attacks on atheism/humanism/skepticism.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2015 12:31PM by archytas.

Pista

You write: "Could you please provide an example of a secular expression that is also religious?"

Your question seems to indicate that you are missing the point of the case I described. The point is that in the recent court case "The AHA and Jason Holden v. the USA", the AHA argued that Secular Humanism is a religion, and should be treated as such by government, and the judge sided with the AHA, thus establishing a legal precedent which might come back to haunt secular humanists - by putting Secular Humanism and Christianity in the same box, a can of worms might have opened up, including in public schools. So, for example, vis-a-vis schools, the ruling sets a precedent that certain expressions which do not invoke the supernatural or deity, but do qualify as "Secular Humanist", could be restricted, just as Christians expressions are; OR it gives Christian activist surer ground for arguing for more "air time" in public schools - "air time like that other religion, Secular Humanism, gets".

That's what the CSH is concerned about.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2015 01:48AM by Tal Bachman.

I understand that the case you cited was a ruling in a specific scenario; an individual who felt his right as a Secular Humanist was not being given the same protection as those who belonged to an otherwise recognized religion.

Item 14 under the heading "facts" in the link you provided described that the plaintiff was a member of an organized 501 (c)(3) group, and that group which functions as a religion for the purposes of civil rights. This was not a sweeping ruling that all humanism as a philosophy qualifies as a religion.

If Christian critics who want to impose religion into public schools were to think they have an ally, they would be wrong. The promotion of Secular Humanism or any other world view as a religion is already disallowed in schools. The imagined double standard does not exist, and this ruling does not change that. A teacher cannot get up and "preach" Secular Humanism any more than he can preach Christianity.

What I don't get is how they think humanists are already allowed to preach their "religion" in the schools. Is this just another attack on science and evolution? If they can say Humanism is a religion then do they think they can connect evolution to them and say it is being taught as a religious tenant?

I can't imagine anything else that is a "teaching." Treat others the way you want to be treated? Isn't that a Christian teaching too?

Tal Bachman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your question seems to indicate that you are
> missing the point of the case I described. The
> point is that in the recent court case "The AHA
> and Jason Holden v. the USA", the AHA argued that
> Secular Humanism is a religion...

It made that argument for the goal of establishing a particular standing under the first amendment, which it felt it had been denied.

Making that a general, overall "fact" is as incorrect as when christians insist that "atheism is a religion, because the courts have ruled that it is!" What courts have ruled is that for the specific purpose of freedom of religious belief and thought in the first amendment, atheism (and secular humanism in this case), merit the same *protections* as a religion. It's a construct known as "legal fiction," a definition solely used for a specific application of a law without being an actual "truth." It's the same kind of legal fiction that let US courts define a corporation as a "person" solely for the purposes of first amendment protection of free speech; nobody in their right mind thinks the court's ruling means a corporation actually IS a person. The associated rulings use the legal fiction of treating a corporation as a person for one specific constitutional purpose.

This is verified by the judge's ruling in the case, where he explicitly stated:
"...Therefore, the court finds that Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes…"

Notice he specified that he's calling it a religion ONLY for "establishment clause purposes." Not any other. This is standard language for "legal fiction" rulings.


And even if one particular kind of "secular humanism" were considered a religion, it wouldn't own secularism or scientific facts, so nothing in schools would be affected.

Finally, as someone involved locally in the issues of what can and can't be said or taught regarding religion in schools -- students can say anything they want to in their own speeches, including making religious references or talking about hymns. Those rights have been upheld by the courts. If some particular school puts restrictions on what students can say, they're not being consistent with law, probably because of their own fear (and ignorance). The ONLY thing that's not allowed is organized school/teacher promotion or endorsement of religion. Students, even during official school functions or valedictory speeches, are not subject to those restrictions. The law is clear.

Here's a good summary of the law, from the US Dept. of Education, where they specifically state that students *can* do such things on their own:

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2015 11:19AM by ificouldhietokolob.

so is it your intent to discredit AHA or something ?

Redefining words is a common tactic if you can't get what you want using the normal meaning of those words.

This is a very specific case where a prison computer system has a field for an inmate's religion which includes atheism as an option but not humanism. However, atheists are not granted the same rights and benefits in that prison as religious inmates, which is the reason for the complaint.

Just because some IT-guy designed a prison computer system this way doesn't mean that humanism is a religion all of a sudden.

The law suit defines humanism in general as "a naturalistic philosophy that rejects all supernaturalism and relies primarily upon reason and science, democracy and human compassion". If you were to hold a survey, my guess is very few people would immediately call this a religion.

The plaintiffs explicitly distinguish religious from secular humanism. To argue their case, they focus on the religious humanist strand but that doesn't mean that all humanism is religious in nature, nor do they argue this.

A straw man, as usual.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2015 02:16AM by rt.

Wasn't it Orrin Hatch who defined Secular Humanism as a religion ?

Secular Humanists take themselves as seriously as religionists when they of all people should understand that nothing much has changed in the last million years. They idealize great platonic "truths" invented by what realistically aren't much more than monkeys with mush-filled skulls.

In a world where groups are competing to put sticks up people's butts, I'm happy to see a judge taking away some sticks.

Radical christians defined Evolution as religion which requires a belief rather than facts.
"Straw Man" is justly applied here. It's beyond me to comprehend any SH would make such claim.

While the general public is slowly drifting in the direction of reason, religious extremists have been seizing more and more power in official domains. To the extent that this affords secular humanism the same protections enjoyed by religion, it's an improvement. It's bullshit insofar as it legitimizes a magical worldview relative to rationalism.

I hope this decision doesn't go any further than giving equal protection to humanism under the first amendment, but it'll probably be perverted to ban laws based on "religious" secular humanism, the same way bans on "religious" sharia law have passed.

At least humanists can start screaming "Religious Persecution!!!" the way Mormons and Catholics do.

This is talking about people who belong specifically to the AHA. Not humanistic philosophy in general.

Tal, Tal why persecuteth thou me?

:o)

I'm cringing with embarrassment.

I guess I'm going to have to call myself something else now just to get the point across that I'm not religious whatsoever.

For those interested in our earlier discussion of this topic, here's a thread from January: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1485984,1485984

The plain reading of the decision is pretty clear. In order to grant secular humanists the same rights as a religion, the court ordered that it be viewed as a religion. This is a position the AHA embraces. This causes head explosions for many atheists wishing to parse this into other meanings. I'll let Tal carry on with this.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The plain reading of the decision is pretty clear.
> In order to grant secular humanists the same
> rights as a religion, the court ordered that it be
> viewed as a religion.

...for Establishment Clause purposes. Not for any other purpose. As I pointed out above, and in the previous discussion. And which you continue to ignore.


> This is a position the AHA
> embraces.

No, actually, it's not.
Here's how the AHA defines Humanism:
"Humanism is a progressive lifestance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity."
Notice: nothing about being a religion.

What it "embraces" is having the same rights AS religions do...and sometimes, for that to occur in the US, the legal fiction of considering it a religion has to be constructed. Doesn't make it one, any more than the legal fiction of a corporation being a person makes a corporation a person.

A recent press release from the AHA is very explicit in showing your claim false:

"“Giving special privileges to theistic inmates while denying the same to humanist inmates promotes religion over nonreligion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment,” said Monica Miller, an attorney with the Appignani Humanist Legal Center. “The cases make clear that prisons must accord atheists and humanists the same treatment as theistic inmates when it comes to religious study groups.”

“Disregarding the rights of humanist and atheist inmates to meet and discuss their convictions is a form of blatant discrimination against nontheists, who should receive the same treatment as anyone else in the prison system” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. “We are not claiming that humanism is a religion, but humanists and atheists must be given the same rights as the religious.” "

Notice: "We are not claiming that humanism is a religion..."
Next time, why don't you find out, from official sources, what they "embrace" before making a false claim?

http://americanhumanist.org/news/details/2015-02-humanist-group-files-lawsuit-to-assert-the-rights-of


> This causes head explosions for many
> atheists wishing to parse this into other
> meanings.

No, the only head explosions are from the people making straw-men out of this, and ignoring facts as pointed out, involving what a "legal fiction" is, how the ruling (as quoted from the judge) was defined, etc. My head threatens to explode over those who are so obtuse.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2015 03:12PM by ificouldhietokolob.

A-ha....Take on me!


C'mon, I can't believe no one's said it yet!!

I am okay with that. I am not a humanist. BUt it is a social movement that deserves protections.

But any idiot who wishes to equate Humanism with Atheism needs to argue the point. All humanists may be atheists. Many buddhists are atheists... hell many jews are Atheists. None of the religions represent atheism at all.

Atheism is lack of a belief in a deity. It has NO OTHER collateral beliefs, practices, codes, laws, etc. There are no gods. Does not need legal protection because my thoughts and beleifs are not regulated by laws. No other Atheist speaks for me, and I speak for no other Atheists. Not a religion... just an agreement that there is no justification to believe in an unsupported and irrational assertion.

So please... stop conflating atheism with other stuff. It just makes your ignorance observable and detestable. So does the repetition of subjects for a few of the "anti-atheist" posters on the board. Get over yourselves.

HH =)

Hello Happy Heretic

Not sure who you were addressing this post to, but you're spot-on: non-theism is not Secular Humanism, and is in fact compatible with many different sorts of ethical and political views. Additionally, "humanism" is not equivalent to "secular humanism": there are different strains of humanism, including Christian Humanism.

Indeed, the AHA's failure to acknowledge this variety in their arguments is one of the Council for Secular Humanism's main complaints. The CSH's point is that in pursuing a short-term victory by claiming that *any* form of Humanism qualifies as a "religion" (which the judge accepted), a precedent has been set which which could come back to bite Secular Humanism big-time.

I'm not sure why some of the posters on this thread aren't grasping this (?)

Tal Bachman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not sure why some of the posters on this
> thread aren't grasping this (?)

Quote from the AHA, posted above:

“Disregarding the rights of humanist and atheist inmates to meet and discuss their convictions is a form of blatant discrimination against nontheists, who should receive the same treatment as anyone else in the prison system” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. “We are not claiming that humanism is a religion, but humanists and atheists must be given the same rights as the religious.”


They didn't claim that.
That's not what the judge accepted.
I gave quotes from AHA and the judge to demonstrate that.
Is it that hard to grasp, Tal?

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> “Disregarding the rights of humanist and atheist
> inmates to meet and discuss their convictions is a
> form of blatant discrimination against nontheists,
> who should receive the same treatment as anyone
> else in the prison system” said Roy Speckhardt,
> executive director of the American Humanist
> Association. “We are not claiming that humanism
> is a religion, but humanists and atheists must be
> given the same rights as the religious.”
>
>
> They didn't claim that.
> That's not what the judge accepted.
> I gave quotes from AHA and the judge to
> demonstrate that.
> Is it that hard to grasp, Tal?

You don't have your facts straight. You're mistaking the spin of a spokesperson after the fact for the actual pleadings in the case. There was no legal fiction; there was only pleading that Humanism is structured like a religion, formed as a religious organization, functions like a religion, founded by religious group, has ordinances and holidays like a religion, and even has clergy and counseling like a religion. Here are a few actual quotes found in the pleadings and the judge's decision:

FACTS
14. Teague is a North Carolina state inmate currently housed at LCI who has sincerely held Humanist convictions. He considers Humanism to be his religion, which guides him through whatever life presents.
[...]
21. Whereas Atheism is a religious view that essentially addresses only the specific issue of the existence of a deity, the Humanism affirmed by Teague is a broader worldview
[...]
22. Humanism also has a formal structure akin to many religions, with clergy (usually known as “celebrants” who perform Humanist weddings, funerals, baby-welcoming ceremonies, counseling, and other functions commonly performed by clergy), chaplains (including a Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University), and with formal entities dedicated to the practice of religious Humanism, such as the American Ethical Union (based on the Ethical Culture
movement founded by Felix Adler in 1876) and the Society for Humanistic Judaism (founded by Rabbi Sherwin Wine in 1969), among others.
[...]
23. AHA’s adjunct organization, the Humanist Society, is a religious 501(c)(3) organization. The Humanist Society prepares Humanist Celebrants to lead ceremonial observances across the nation and worldwide, including weddings, memorial services, and other life cycle events. The Humanist Society started in 1939 by a group of Quakers who decided to form a nontheistic society based on similar goals and beliefs.
[...]
72. The 2012 AHA letter stated in part: “Humanism shares characteristics with many more traditional, widespread religions. It explores fundamental and ultimate questions of life and existence by appealing to science, reason, and our common humanity. Its beliefs are comprehensive in nature and encompass morality and meaning and purpose in life. Humanism even attempts to answer questions about the end of life.
[...]

The judge agreed.

Your claim to legal fiction is mysterious. An example of legal fiction is when a corporation is recognized as a person for certain purposes. Nobody claims that a corporation can register to vote or get a driver's license. It's a classification to grant a certain identity.

The difference here is that the AHA pleaded for its claim citing the _exact duplicate_ functions of a religion. I would ask you to show where exactly the legal fiction can be found. You can't cite nontheism, as other nontheistic religions are recognized as religions. Reading their pleading above, I can't find a single function of a theistic religion that the AHA did not claim as part of their purpose. Can you? They christen babies, and you really want to claim this is legal fiction? Quite a reach.

I believe this is a "be careful what you wish for" moment. Many atheists such as yourself are very upset that the court agreed that the AHA brand of atheism is a religion. The spin of a spokesperson after the fact has no bearing whatsoever on what actually took place in the court.

I suspect you never actually read the court documents. They are what's relevant here -- not the spin of a spokesperson later. Here are the links I cite from:

http://americanhumanist.org/system/storage/2/83/2/5512/Teague_Complaint_as_filed_2-25-15.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/245271872/American-Humansits-v-US

Tal, forgive me. I realize now that the case you cite is a newer one than that we discussed earlier and that I cite here. Interesting though, the pleading is very similar with similar claims that won the earlier case decided last year.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2015 02:28AM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your claim to legal fiction is mysterious. An
> example of legal fiction is when a corporation is
> recognized as a person for certain purposes.
> Nobody claims that a corporation can register to
> vote or get a driver's license. It's a
> classification to grant a certain identity.
>
> The difference here is that the AHA pleaded for
> its claim citing the _exact duplicate_ functions
> of a religion. I would ask you to show where
> exactly the legal fiction can be found.

The US Constitution, in the first amendment, prohibits congress from restricting the free exercise of *religion.* It doesn't prohibit congress from restricting thee free exercise of non-religious philosophical viewpoints or groups.

Since the first amendment was written, our society and courts have come to recognize that non-religious philosophical viewpoints and groups merit the same protection from governmental restriction as religious thought and groups do. Which leaves us in a quandry: we can deny such ideas and groups constitutional protection because the constitution only accords that protection to religions, or we can construct a legal fiction to put such groups into the protected category of "religion" solely for the purpose of first amendment protection. Most courts have taken the latter route, while at the same time (some of the courts at least) have encouraged amending the constitution so the legal fiction isn't necessary.

Amending the constitution takes a long time, is costly, and is difficult. Rather than allow the ideas and groups in question to continue to be denied rights given to religions while waiting for the constitution to be amended, the courts have used the legal fiction idea to extend first amendment protection to such ideas and groups. The groups themselves (in this case the AHA) have used arguments that they merit the same protections as religions, even though they're not religions, because in some ways they serve the same functions. THAT is what the AHA argued, THAT is what the judge agreed with -- declaring that for purposes of first amendment protections ONLY, secular humanism is to be considered a religion. It's the very definition of a legal fiction.


> You can't
> cite nontheism, as other nontheistic religions are
> recognized as religions.

For specific purposes only, in most cases. That is the case because many of our laws were written to ONLY give certain rights and protections to religions, so the only way for those groups to get the same rights and protections as religions is to pursue the legal fiction that they can be considered religions under those particular laws. To gain those rights and protections otherwise would require constitutional amendments, changes to hundreds of local laws, years of work, etc. Going the legal fiction route is simpler, quicker, and already accepted as a viable strategy.


> Reading their pleading
> above, I can't find a single function of a
> theistic religion that the AHA did not claim as
> part of their purpose. Can you?

Of course. The obvious (and perhaps most important) one: no belief in or claim of anything supernatural or "godly." Which is the very heart of the definition of a "religion," and which is why secular humanism and other groups have been *denied* the rights and protections given to religions for so long -- because they don't have that primary aspect of a religion.


> They christen
> babies, and you really want to claim this is legal
> fiction? Quite a reach.

"Christen" is a christian term. They don't christen babies. They "welcome" them. No supernatural prayer is given, no appeal to a deity is issued.

> I believe this is a "be careful what you wish for"
> moment. Many atheists such as yourself are very
> upset that the court agreed that the AHA brand of
> atheism is a religion.

I really don't care what you believe. And I'm not at all upset that courts recognize that non-religions merit the same protections as religions according to the first amendment. That's a good thing. The only "upsetting" thing is when people try to make such legal fiction rulings into something they're not -- which is what you're doing.

There is a difference between a legitimate legal precedent and a slippery-slope fallacy. Although the language of the judge in this ruling may seem somewhat problematic, it does not create an automatic definition that will necessarily be used in the future.

It's like gay marriage opponents claiming that making if gays are allowed to marry there's no stopping polygamy and non-human animals from getting married next. Precedents just don't work like that. Each case in the future will have to stand on it's own merit, and there is little to no ground for establishing secular humanism as a religion in any context other than for the protection or civil rights.

Pista Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's like gay marriage opponents claiming that
> making if gays are allowed to marry there's no
> stopping polygamy and non-human animals from
> getting married next. Precedents just don't work
> like that. Each case in the future will have to
> stand on it's own merit, and there is little to no
> ground for establishing secular humanism as a
> religion in any context other than for the
> protection or civil rights.

Exactly. The subtleties of legal precedents and the uses of legal fictions are apparently too much work to learn about for some, though. Shame.

Isn't the AHA the organization that Seinfeld character George Costanza made donations to?

That was "The Human Fund."