richardt@orstcs.UUCP (richardt) (08/28/85)
I don't know whether anyone from net.legal has seen the "Secular Humainst" arguments flying back and forth over on net.religion/net.politics. However, an interesting legal question has risen: 1. Given that by a 1961 decision, "Secular Humanism" is defined as a religion (in that decision, for purposes of gaining conscientious objector status); 2. A recent judge has handed down a decision which states "As Secular Humanism is a religion under the law, and the teaching of religious dogma is unconstitutuonal, the teaching of Secular Humanist dogma is thereby illegal." 3. There is an organization which calls itself "Secular Humanism"; Are we off the hook because the decision can be construed to apply only that which the organization purveys? orstcs!richardt Richard Threadgill "All rise for the wrong honorable..."