Eagle Forum of Sacramento

The California State Supreme Court, lead by Chief Justice Ron George, repealed California law stating that marriage is between a man and a woman as set forth by both the Legislature and the people through the passage of Prop. 22.< ?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

The Court’s ruling is breathtaking for its overreach. Using words like “dignity” (23 times), “liberty” (34 times), and “privacy” (37 times) to describe same-sex partners full right to marry, the Court overturned millennia of experience and more than 150 years of state law precedence. (For the ruling, see: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF.) In so doing, their strained justifications threw the door wide open to polygamous and incestuous marriage. How? By using the flawed logic that marriage is none of the government’s business insofar as marriage should be afforded to all to afford people privacy, liberty and dignity. The same weak logic can be applied to the “plural” marriages of the Fundamentalist LDS cult in Texas or to a devout Muslim citizen of Saudi Arabia who wishes to emigrate to California with his four wives. In fact, due to the equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, both a Fundamentalist LDS cult member and a devout Muslim could argue that their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion are being violated by any restriction on polygamy “after all, their ‘dignity,’ ‘liberty,’ and ‘privacy’” would be violated otherwise.

Allow me to close my comments with two political observations.

First, the Court’s sweeping ruling is likely to ignite support for the California Marriage Protection Act, a constitutional ballot initiative that would overrule the Court’s decision that should appear on the ballot this November. (See: http://www.protectmarriage.com/.) This, in turn, may have an impact on other California races, from the President on down to the legislative races. In this, liberal Democrats should be wary of what they wish for!

Second, I find it ironic to see commentators describe the Court as conservative since the majority of its members were appointed by Republican governors. Lest we forget, there is a simmering divide in the Republican Party over whether the label “conservative” includes social policy, or only tax and fiscal policy. Chief Judge Ron George was first appointed by Gov. Deukmejian, then appointed chief justice by Gov. Wilson. Justice Ron George has had a long history of very liberal rulings long before the same sex marriage ruling. In fact, back in 1997, I drafted a resolution opposing Justice Ron George for his election in 1998. It passed the Orange County Republican Party Central Committee, then stalled when it hit the California Republican Party. It was argued that Justice George was a Republican, so the Party should support him. The reason for my opposition to Judge George in 1997 was his ruling in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren which overturned a California law requiring parental consent for minors to obtain abortions (“privacy” of the minor girl was the reason cited in that case too). Other bad rulings already made by Justice George at that time included: a pro-criminal decision in People v. Superior Court (Romero), three anti-private property rights decisions in Ehrlich v. Culver City, Smith v. Fair Employment and Housing Commission, and Alcarez v. Vece, a pro-public union decision in Loder v. City of Glendale, and an anti-business decision in Stevenson v. Superior Court.

Of course, there is the remote possibility that Judge George’s terrible ruling really is a Republican plot in the vast right wing conspiracy to boost conservative turnout so much that McCain wins California and is elected President in 2008, stranger things have happened in the world of politics.

Just for old time’s sake, I’ve reprinted below the 1997 resolution that passed the OC Republican Party Central Committee only to fail at the California Republican Party convention. It was authored by me and my long time friend, Fred Whitaker, a respected Orange attorney who should someday be on the California Supreme Court.

*************************************
A Resolution Calling to Oppose Confirmation of Certain California Supreme Court Judges.

WHEREAS, The California Supreme Court overturned a 1987 law requiring parental consent for minors to obtain abortions.

WHEREAS, The law in question was a carefully written to meet the U.S. Supreme Court’s strict guidelines for valid parental consent legislation.

WHEREAS, Chief Justice George, Justice Chin, Justice Kennard, and Justice Werdegar ruled that the parental consent law violated the “autonomy privacy rights” of minor girls. Further that a minor girl’s uninhibited right to an abortion “is so central to the preservation of her ability to define and adhere to her ultimate values regarding the meaning of human existence and life, “we conclude that a minor who is pregnant has a protected privacy interest under the California Constitution in making the decision whether to continue or to terminate her own pregnancy.” Yet, almost a year earlier, the court ruled that the same law was valid.

WHEREAS, Lower courts in California blocked enforcement soon after its passage in 1987, claiming that girls as young as 13 or 14 possess the necessary maturity and rationality to make informed decisions about abortion. Yet, under the law do not have maturity and rationality for ear piercing and medical treatment without parental consent until age 18.

WHEREAS, These arguments, aside from ignoring common sense and human experience, are irrelevant to the issue of constitutionality which is supposed to be the only reason for the court to overturn legislation.

WHEREAS, A parent’s right to direct his or her child’s upbringing is among the most basic of human rights.

WHEREAS, Justice Mosk, in dissent, pointed out that according to the ruling, the privacy rights for minor girls would reach to those who were as young as nine years old.

WHEREAS, Justice Brown, noted in her dissent that the California Constitution protects “a parent’s interest in directing his child’s upbringing” and that the “liberty interest of a minor is qualitatively different than that of an adult, being subject both to reasonable regulation by the state and to an extent not permissible with adults.”

WHEREAS, It is illogical and inconsistent to require that minors obtain parental permission for aspirin at school, tattoos, tanning salons, body piercing, drivers’ licenses, etc., but not for a dangerous and invasive procedure like an abortion.

WHEREAS, This Court’s judicial activism is reminiscent of the Rose Bird Court when, the rule of law in California succumbed to the whim of four justices occupying seats on its highest court.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the California Republican Party joins the Republican Party of Orange County in calling upon itself and all those of good will to actively oppose confirmation for any California State Supreme Court Justice who voted to overturn the 1987 law requiring parental consent for minor girls to obtain abortions.

Cosponsors:
Fred M. Whitaker, Member
Chuck DeVore, Member

Chuck DeVore
California State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

Special Note: Please forward this e-mail to all of your California friends and associates.
This will help us get out the news about the SB 777 referendum petitions!

Overview of SB 777

As average citizens become aware of the SB 777 referendum, they have several questions
that we would like to answer in order to further educate and inform. Authored by
lesbian state senator Sheila Kuehl, and signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Senate Bill 777 prohibits any classroom instruction or school-sponsored activities
that “promote a discriminatory bias” against homosexuals, transsexuals, bisexuals,
transgenders and other controversial lifestyles. This means equal time instruction
about these lifestyles for children as young as 5. It would “promote bias” against
homosexuals to only discuss heterosexual families. Students with religious or traditional
values will be victims of reverse discrimination if they voice their opinions at
school. This is one of the most outrageous assaults on traditional families values
that we have witnessed in California. The SB 777 referendum will “refer” the bill
to California voters and ask them to overturn this shocking new law.

Major Milestone Reached!

Save Our Kids is thrilled to announce that we have already counted 100,000 signatures!
Our volunteers are working around the clock to continue counting the petitions we
receive in the mail every day. We know that we have enough petitions circulating
to qualify the referendum, but we need them returned ASAP so that we can continue
counting and preparing the petitions for submission to the Secretary of State.

To date, we have mailed more than 400,000 petitions! With space for 10 signatures
each, that equals 4 million signatures!

We have done all that we can do on our end-now it is up to the People to gather
signatures and mail them back.

Please begin mailing your petitions right away! Each and every signature will be
vital to getting the 500,000 signatures we need.

Deadline Confusion

There has been some confusion about the actual deadlines for returning petitions.
Here are the official dates:

December 21st: Last day to request petitions from www.SaveOurKids.net [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001A1f2UKqHc_PFpv3SPw-DsyBXBugpGMRFrSNLwgxds1IhaWawqHZZCEBAmQdeLTxytU5FcwBnfz0YYP8EYojjvclxuRV9nJtR6hd4HFMf_57pCnWwbKd1_A==]
*
January 4th: Last day for campaign to receive petitions (they must be mailed a few
days prior to ensure their arrival by the 4th!)

Please keep working on gathering signatures until we reach our January 4th deadline!
We need every single signature we can get to qualify this referendum.

Save Our Kids Weekend!

December 28th-30th

With only a few weeks left in the campaign, Save Our Kids is encouraging families,
Bible study groups, political organizations and churches to make one last push for
signatures. December 28th-30th is Save Our Kids weekend!

During the Christmas and New Year season, many of our fellow citizens will be out
at shopping centers and stores. This is the perfect time to set up a table to gather
signatures. In just a few hours, you can make a huge difference by informing your
fellow citizens and gathering signatures.

Churches should host a petition drive this weekend to inform their members about
this assault on traditional values. Save Our Kids has several resources to assist
churches in hosting a petition drive. So far, churches have been an integral part
of this effort. These beacons of light can push us across the finish line if they
continue to host petition drives.

We need your help to make this campaign a success!

We are continually amazed by the dedication of our pro-family allies. Average citizens
are answering the call to protect and defend the innocence of our children. Thank
you for partnering with us in this historic effort to preserve our values!

Order Petitions

Just the Facts – The Truth About SB 777 [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001A1f2UKqHc_MbrVKNRF4FiUEV0aeAuPowr7BpY_lAt5kBjNkl4oXxUNjq-mApbUQ8pBXJDxr7hfwEcYaN02G_LoBTEyzZX3KJVVN1uFi_ZBRTZEnPQL3noxCy1LIcMb_AVcsFg2kDjhZiTmZG9ocGAA==]

Contribute to the Save our Kids Campaign [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001A1f2UKqHc_O40cyogX6lK2vWc8rdWREZWRujdoOJ9kme8dv8F2_Z60tU51eNnGTf----8fqBnYBrgqx1r77oh3HqB9HoiaFJf3Yi_JqW30dUWAwX2e3tH_2UgsJCKMxlbuAlOA4n269bznjJbNplslHQ6jyG0R6AhI1QqV7gYQUDMUbDdoRcEg==]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Save Our Kids Co-Chairs
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Senator George Runner
Assemblyman Joel Anderson
Assemblyman Bob Huff
Assemblyman Doug La Malfa
Assemblywoman Sharon Runner
Assemblywoman Audra Strickland
Senate Candidate Dennis Mountjoy
Assembly Candidate Larry Dick
Assembly Candidate Jim Nielson

Subject: Sears and the Military
>
> Subject: Sears – Christmas shopping has already started
> I know I needed this reminder since Sears isn’t always my first choice. Amazing when you think of how long the war has lasted and they haven’t withdrawn from their commitment. Could we each buy at least one
> thing at Sears this year?
>
> How does Sears treat its employees who are called up for military duty?
>
> By law, they are required to hold their jobs open and available, but nothing more. Usually, people take a big pay cut and lose benefits as a result of being called up.
>
> Sears is voluntarily paying the difference in salaries and
> maintaining all benefits, including medical insurance and bonus programs, for all called up reservist employees for up to two years.
>
> I submit that Sears is an exemplary corporate citizen and should berecognized for its contribution. I suggest we all shop at Sears, and be sure to find a manager to tell them why we are there so the company gets the positive reinforcement it well deserves.
>
> Pass it on.
>
> Decided to check this before I sent it forward. So I sent the following e-mail to the Sears Customer Service Department:
>
> I received this e-mail and I would like to know if it is true. If it is, the Internet may have just become one very good source of advertisement for your company. I know I would go out of my way to buy products from Sears
> instead of another store for a like item, even if it’s cheaper at that store.
>
> This is their answer to my e-mail:
>
> Dear Customer:
>
> Thank you for contacting Sears.The information is factual. We appreciate your positive feedback.
>
> Sears regards service to our country as one of greatest sacrifices our young men and women can make. We are happy to do our part to lessen the burden they bear at this time.
>
> Bill Thorn
> Sears Customer Care
> webcenter@sears.com
> 1-800-349-4358
>
> Please pass this on to all your friends. Sears needs to be
> recognized for this outstanding contribution and we need to show them as Americans, we do appreciate what they are doing for our military!!!
>
> It’s Verified ! By Snopes.com at:
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/sears.asp
> /politics/military/sears.asp> (shows the entire
> article)

Gay demands shift from equality to special endorsement

By Michael Medved
Wednesday, December 6, 2006

In current debates over gay relationships and their position in society, we’ve moved beyond a plea for acceptance and equality to an increasingly strident claim of homosexual superiority and a demand for special status and endorsement.

In a recent syndicated column about Pastor Ted Haggard, the former head of the National Association of Evangelicals who confessed to a three year affair with a gay, drug-dealing prostitute, Ellen Goodman wrote of "people who heard a man wounded by the culture of demonization. Their sympathy was for a man primed for repression and deception by the teaching of homosexuality as a sin… More gays, more friends, families, co-workers have come to believe that gayness is not a choice, let alone a sin."

In other words, some tender-hearted Americans feel ready to forgive, even to embrace, a religious leader who routinely paid a sex-for-hire hustler to cheat in a Denver hotel room on his wife and five kids while getting high on illegal and dangerous methamphetamines. Try to imagine that Haggard had engaged in his extra-marital adventures with a female hooker, rather than a middle-aged call boy. Would anyone have come forward to express "sympathy" for the man or to view him as a sad victim of "repression"?

By the same token, former New Jersey  Democrat governor James McGreevy recently wrote a best-selling book called "Confession," describing his risky and degrading encounters in men’s rooms and back alleys. He even spoke of inviting his male lover (placed on the state payroll despite a total absence of qualifications) into his marital bed in the governor’s mansion while his wife struggled in the hospital with a troubled pregnancy. Oprah Winfrey (and others) now hail McGreevy for his "courage" in speaking so openly and proudly of his newly-discovered status as a "gay American." Would any public figure receive similarly indulgent treatment after confessing serial infidelity with a member of the opposite sex?

Finally, the Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire, Gene Robinson, made headlines as the first openly gay clergyman to reach such a leadership position in his denomination. The media paid little attention, however, to the fact that Bishop Robinson (who is currently undergoing rehab treatment for alcoholism) had initially embraced his gay identity when he left his wife and three children for a relationship with another man. Would the Episcopal Church or any other significant religious body so readily grant a position of spiritual leadership to a priest who had abandoned his family for an extra-marital affair with a partner of the opposite sex?

In high profile cases, in other words, we seem far more willing to forgive and forget faithless behavior if that infidelity involves a homosexual connection. This amounts to the granting of a special dispensation, a privileged position, to same-sex attraction-giving more latitude to gay relationships than we’d ever grant to straight romances. The justification for this attitude involves the notion that gay men who leave or destroy their families for the sake of homosexual affairs are simply discovering, at long last, their true identities after years of repression- coming to terms with "who they really are."

But what about those aging heterosexuals who may also suddenly discover– at age sixty, say-that they’ve been repressing their true identities? Couldn’t they also argue that it seemed suddenly inauthentic to remain trapped with a sagging partner of similar age, when a powerful, undeniable inner voice and the evolutionary imperative demanded they connect with nubile twenty-somethings eager for experienced and wealthy companionship?

In fact, every study of human sexuality would suggest that far more men feel tempted to heed their deep-seated, undeniable authentic desires to cheat with other (particularly younger) women than feel drawn into relationships with other men. Does this greater incidence of heterosexual temptation make it more – or less– "natural" and worthy of respect than homosexual impulses? The tendency to forgive, or even endorse, same-sex attractions while condemning the vastly more common opposite gender desires, amounts to the granting of a preferential position to homosexuality.

Where in the world did Rick Warren get so far off track?
 
Rick Warren/Barack Obama AIDS Partnership Must End,
Say Pro-Life Groups

MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin, Nov. 27 /Christian Newswire/ — As those who have worked to defend preborn children from the horrors of abortion in America and who have stood uncompromisingly against the legalized slaughter of an estimated 50 million Americans in the womb since 1973, we join with one voice in expressing our indignation and opposition to Rick Warren’s welcoming of Senator Barack Obama to his church on December 1, 2006. Rick Warren is bringing Senator Obama to his church to speak for his Global Summit on AIDS and the church and to take an AIDS test in front of the cameras at a noon press conference.

Senator Obama comes to Rick Warren’s church believing that abortion should be kept, "safe and legal". When Barack Obama campaigned for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his wife wrote a fundraising letter for him that revealed his support of partial-birth abortion. She said Obama’s position is that the "partial-birth abortion ban . . . is clearly unconstitutional and must be overturned." Support of partial-birth abortion goes a lot farther than the politicians who want abortion to be "safe and legal." Senator Obama actually supports the barbaric practice of allowing abortionists to kill babies by allowing them to be partially, born, their skulls punctured and their brains sucked out. Further, he repeatedly opposed an anti-infanticide bill in the state of Illinois that only passed after he left. Killing a child at any stage of life is a violation of God’s clear command, "Thou Shall Do No Murder". In addition,Obama’s solution to the growing AIDS crisis has been and continues to be the !
 widespread distribution of condoms, not chaste behavior as directed by the Bible.

In the strongest possible terms, we oppose Rick Warren’s decision to ignore Senator Obama’s clear pro-death stance and invite him to Saddleback Church anyway. If Senator Obama cannot defend the most helpless citizens in our country, he has nothing to say to the AIDS crisis. You cannot fight one evil while justifying another. The evangelical church can provide no genuine help for those who suffer from AIDS if those involved do not first have their ethic of life firmly rooted in the Word of God. Accordingly, we call on Pastor Rick Warren to rescind his invitation to Senator Obama immediately. The millions of silent victims who have died because of the policies of leaders like Senator Obama demand a response from those who believe that life is a gift from God. The name of the seminar at which Senator Obama will be appearing is entitled, " We Must Work Together." No, Mr. Warren, Mr. Obama, we will never work with those can support the murder of babies in the womb.

Phyllis Schlafly, President and Founder, Eagle Forum

Judie Brown, President, American Life League

Tim Wildmon, President American Family Association and American Family Radio

Joe Scheidler, President, Pro-Life Action League

Cheryl Sullenger, Operation Rescue

Matt Trewhella, Missionaries to the Preborn

Brannon Howse, President, Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network

Janet Folger, President, Faith2Action

Peter LaBarbera, President, Americans for Truth

Greg Cunningham, President, Center for Bioethical Reform, Lake Forest, California

Peggy Hamill, Director, Pro-Life Wisconsin

Cal Zastrow, Christian Action for the Preborn

Dr. Vic Eliason, President, VCY America Radio Network

Ingrid Schlueter, Host, Crosstalk Radio Talk Show

Kevin McCullough, Host, Musclehead Revolution, WMCA Radio

Chris Rosebrough, Capo Valley Church, San Juan Capistrano, California

Rev. Ken Silva, Apprising Ministries

Linda Harvey, President, Mission America

NO SEED APOLOGY

April 22-24th, at the California Republican Assembly (CRA) Conference in Pomona CA., I saw firsthand, the defensive behavior of Stage 4 of Mind Control I discuss in my Book.

Eagle Forum of Sacramento rented a table to display our information and to make available my Book Seeds of Deception: Planting Destruction of America’s Children.
Sales are going well, as can be expected for a first time author, with subject matter that is controversial. The people at the conference were very receptive to the Book.

Toward the latter part of the morning, 3 members of Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church verbally accosted me. I have a small section in Seeds about his Book The Purpose Driven Life, and its New Age implications. Prior to my research on it, I myself had bought ten copies of the Book to give as gifts. I could not finish his Book; nor did I give out the books.

Warren’s book guarantees the discovery of your life’s purpose and an understanding of the big picture. You will know how “all the pieces of your life fit together.” These are serious presumptions, since God’s Word is what leads us, not Rick Warren’s program.

The Purpose Book has over 80 quotes from Eugene Peterson’s The Message, which replaces words in the Bible and changes the original meanings. Thus Master, a teacher, is used to replace Lord, ultimate Authority and Savior. Master is referred to in the King James Bible few times to reference Christ as a teacher, in The Message over 25 times, changing His status. The Our Father is paraphrased and uses “As Above, so below” in it. When researched, I found this term has unquestionable New Age implications. These are the facts; I did not make them.

Brainwashing is subtle and the intent of my Book is to show how it can take over our world in ALL areas, including the church. Some told me to leave out this information. If I wanted the millions of Christians who followed Rick to read my book, I must not offend them. It is and never has been my intent to offend anyone; only the content concerns me.

Never more convincing was Stage 4 of Mind Control (defending one’s belief to any means) than on this conference weekend. A man in a wheelchair, traveling very fast down the corridor, headed straight for me; I knew he was a Rick Warren supporter bythe look of anger on his face. His debate reeked of anger, defiantly questioning me as to my Christian status, the church Iattended and the reasons why I had upset the church members by attacking Warren with a “New Age” label.

I was able to calm down Warren’s followers, from Saddleback Church, on four different occasions throughout the day. Most oftheir break time was spent in small circles, discussing their plan of action against me. Their faces were rigid and their eyes were angry. They even went to the head of the organization and told him I was not a Christian and why did they let me in. They were desperate enough to think that going to our National President Phyllis Schlafly would make a difference.

My amazement is that they were not concerned about the content I presented, only in defending this man. It did not matter that God’s Words were being reinvented, but only that I insulted Warren. I was stunned by the amount of energy these people gave in supporting Rick Warren!

My question is how much of their energy have they invested into saving the lives of our children who are being accosted daily with the evil of homosexual teachings and the actions of Pedophiles? How much of their energy goes into learning and educating others as to evils that permeate institutions across America? How much of their energy went into wanting to know aboutMind Control or the Marxist Dialectic? Did they want to know about SEED’s intention of transformation? Not one bought a Book!

People already in Stage 4 are usually gone and will not return from the behavior that I experienced this last weekend. It only reaffirmed my position that people who are brainwashed will not see the truth. They truly believe that the end justifiesthe means! Rick Warren’s end results are impressive, but one must ask, at what price?

The people who accosted me tried desperately for me to see how Warren was a good man; I never said he was a bad man. It wassad to see them hurting inside and wanting so much for me to apologize for what I had written. I have nothing against this man. The question remains: “What purpose is there served by using a Book that changes the meanings of God’s words?”

My allegiance lies with God and never will I adhere to a “man made program” that claims to lead one to Christ. One woman proclaimed that “love” was more important than talking about sin. This is the modern day spirituality! Yes Rick Warren has sold “millions” of books and does this intimidate me? Not so, for he is a man and only a man.

Rushing to get out my Book last year, I truly believed that people would care about the mind control content, and especially about the harm to our innocent children through the SEED program. Unfortunately I now realize that the very people I had hoped to gain support from are into modern day “love” and not “good verses evil.” Take the purpose driven information out of my Book? It will never happen, for to what goal?

The small amount of information in my Book about the purpose driven church has gained more attention than the horrors of destruction of our children. This reveals that some of our churches are deceived by a “love” that truly ignores our “social evils.”

The desperation of Warren’s followers left a lasting picture. I thought of the “weeping” women in the Bible. The differenceis that they wept over Jesus. I could not help but wonder why Warren’s followers wept over a man? I offer no apologies to anyone for the content in my Book! I did not write The Message nor did I write The Purpose Driven Life; I wrote my facts as Ifound them. I will follow God’s Word, not The Message. people I had hoped to gain support from are into modern day “love” and not “good verses evil.” Take the purpose driven information out of my Book? It will never happen, for to what goal?

The small amount of information in my Book about the purpose driven church has gained more attention than the horrors of destruction of our children. This reveals that some of our churches are deceived by a “love” that truly ignores our “social evils.”

The desperation of Warren’s followers left a lasting picture. I thought of the “weeping” women in the Bible. The differenceis that they wept over Jesus. I could not help but wonder why Warren’s followers wept over a man? I offer no apologies to anyone for the content in my Book! I did not write The Message nor did I write The Purpose Driven Life; I wrote my facts as Ifound them. I will follow God’s Word, not The Message.

There are two basic approaches to defining religion: a substantive approach, which focuses on the content of belief; and a functional approach, which focuses on what the belief system does for the individual or community. As James Davison Hunter explains:

The substantive model generally delimits religion to the range of traditional theism: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and so on. The functional model, in contrast, is more inclusive. By defining religion according to its social function, the functional model treats religion largely as synonymous with such terms as cultural system, belief system, meaning system, moral order, ideology, world view and cosmology.[1]

“Education is thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism.”

In other words, a functional definition describes religion as “a set of beliefs, actions and emotions, both personal and corporate, organized around the concept of an Ultimate Reality. This Reality may be understood as a unity or a plurality, personal or nonpersonal, divine or not, and so forth, differing from religion to religion.”[2] Such a definition clearly encompasses the worldview of Secular Humanism.

U.S. courts have moved from a generally substantive definition of religion (where the religion must affirm a transcendent deity) to a functional definition of religion even including Secular Humanism. For example, in United States v. Kauten (2d Cir. 1943), conscientious objector status was granted to Mathias Kauten, not on the basis of his belief in God, but on the basis of his “religious conscience.” The court concluded: “Conscientious objection may justly be regarded as a response of the individual to an inward mentor, call it conscience or God, that is for many persons at the present time the equivalent of what has always been thought a religious impulse.”[3] Thus, the court clearly adopted the functional definition of religion asopposed to a substantive or distinctly theistic one.

Another example of the adoption of a functional understanding of religion occurred in Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda (1957). In this case, the Fellowship of Humanity sought recovery of property taxes because, it argued, its grounds were used for religious worship (though not the worship of a transcendent deity). They were awarded a refund of paid property taxes.[4] In praise of the decision, Paul Blanshard, a signatory of the Humanist Manifesto II, declared that the court’s decision regarding the Fellowship of Humanity represented “another victory for those who would interpret the word religion verybroadly [viz. to include Secular Humanism]. . . . “[5]

One final example is well-known. In 1961 the Supreme Court handed down the Torcaso v. Watkins decision regarding a Marylandnotary public who was disqualified from office because he would not declare a belief in God. The Court ruled in his favor. It argued that theistic religions could not be favored by the Court over non-theistic religions. In fact, in a footnote thatclarifies what the Court means by non-theistic religions, we read, “Among religions in this country which do not teach whatwould generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, andothers.”[6]

Clearly, American courts understand religion to include non-theistic religions like Secular Humanism.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not been consistent in applying its definition of religion to its present interpretation of the First Amendment. If the no-establishment clause of the First Amendment really means that there should be a wall ofseparation between religion and the state, why are only theistic religions being forced out of the public square specifically Christianity? If Secular Humanism is a religion, something the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged and something countless Humanists insist is true[7], why is it allowed in our public schools? As James Davison Hunter says,

To be legally consistent the courts will either have to articulate a constitutional double standard or apply the functionaldefinition of religion to the no establishment clause just as they have to the free exercise [clause]. The latter would mean that secularistic faiths and ideologies would be rigorously prohibited from receiving even indirect support from the state, which needless to say would have enormous implications for public education.[8]

Enormous implications indeed! Even Leo Pfeffer, the Humanist attorney who argued the Torcaso case, declared that Fundamentalists, individually or collectively, have manifested no indication of giving up in their crusade against secular humanism inthe public schools. Pfeffer fears that if the Supreme Court upholds its current understanding of religion to include Secular Humanism and orders the teachings of Humanism to be removed from the public schools “the consequences may be no less than the disintegration of our public school system and the end of Horace Mann’s dream.”[9]

But Humanism remains de facto the established religion of our land, and the public schools are the main vehicle for the promotion of its worldview. As one great Humanist triumphantly declared: Education is thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday-school, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?[10]

FOOTNOTES

1. James Davison Hunter, “Religious Freedom and the Challenge of Modern Pluralism,” in Articles of Faith, Articles of Peace: The Religious Liberty Clauses and the American Public Philosophy, James Davison Hunter and Os Guiness, eds. (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1990), p. 58.
2. Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introductionto the Philosophy of Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 4.
3. United States v. Kauten, 133F. 2nd 703, 708 (2d Cir. 1943). See also, United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965).
4. Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2nd. 673 (1957).
5. “Paul Blanshard’s Column,” in The Humanist, No. 4, 1959, p. 238.
6. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, fn. 11 (1961).
7. For proof, see, David A. Noebel, J.F. Baldwin and Kevin Bywater, Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism (Manitou Springs, CO: Summit Press, 1995). Available from Summit Ministries, P.O. Box 207, Manitou Springs, CO 80829; or call (719) 685-9103.
8. Hunter, “Religious Freedom,” p. 65.
9. The Humanist, September/October 1988, p. 50.
10. Charles Francis Potter (a signatory of the 1930 Humanist Manifesto I), Humanism: A New Religion (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1930), p. 128.

[ If this information has been helpful, please prayerfully consider a donation to help pay the expenses for making this faith-building service available to you and your family! Donations are tax-deductible. ]

Author: David A. Noebel, J.F. Baldwin and Kevin Bywater, adapted from their book Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism, Summit Ministries.

Copyright © 1996, 1999, Summit Ministries, All Rights Reserved – except as noted on attached “Usage and Copyright” page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools.

www.ChristianAnswers.Net
Christian Answers Network
PO Box 200nd, and the public schools are the main vehicle for the promotion of its worldview. As one great Humanist triumphantly declared: Education is thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday-school, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?[10]

FOOTNOTES

1. James Davison Hunter, “Religious Freedom and the Challenge of Modern Pluralism,” in Articles of Faith, Articles of Peace: The Religious Liberty Clauses and the American Public Philosophy, James Davison Hunter and Os Guiness, eds. (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1990), p. 58.
2. Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introductionto the Philosophy of Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 4.
3. United States v. Kauten, 133F. 2nd 703, 708 (2d Cir. 1943). See also, United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965).
4. Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2nd. 673 (1957).
5. “Paul Blanshard’s Column,” in The Humanist, No. 4, 1959, p. 238.
6. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, fn. 11 (1961).
7. For proof, see, David A. Noebel, J.F. Baldwin and Kevin Bywater, Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism (Manitou Springs, CO: Summit Press, 1995). Available from Summit Ministries, P.O. Box 207, Manitou Springs, CO 80829; or call (719) 685-9103.
8. Hunter, “Religious Freedom,” p. 65.
9. The Humanist, September/October 1988, p. 50.
10. Charles Francis Potter (a signatory of the 1930 Humanist Manifesto I), Humanism: A New Religion (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1930), p. 128.

[ If this information has been helpful, please prayerfully consider a donation to help pay the expenses for making this faith-building service available to you and your family! Donations are tax-deductible. ]

Author: David A. Noebel, J.F. Baldwin and Kevin Bywater, adapted from their book Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism, Summit Ministries.

Copyright © 1996, 1999, Summit Ministries, All Rights Reserved – except as noted on attached “Usage and Copyright” page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools.

www.ChristianAnswers.Net
Christian Answers Network
PO Box 200