Secular Humanism is a “Religion”

04 Jun

Courtesy of Google Images

Courtesy of Google Images

In A.D. 1961, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Torcaso v Watkins.  The case hinged on the right of a man who had otherwise qualified for the office of Notary Public in “Maryland” to assume that office without first confessing (as required by the Maryland Constitution) that he believed in God. The man was an atheist and refused to falsely confess that he believed in God when, in fact, he did not.  More, he contended that the requirement for a confession of a belief in God was an unconstitutional “religious test”.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the atheist as struck down the requirement that public officers had to affirm their belief in God as a prerequisite for holding public office.

The Torcaso case is probably most famous for a footnote which declares,

“Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.”

With that footnote, the Supreme Court elevated “Secular Humanism” and other atheistic philosophies to the status of “religions“.

The Torcaso case has had far-reaching implications.  52 years later, we can’t have a “creche” in public buildings around Christmas time to celebrate the birth of Christ and governments can say “Happy Holidays,” but not “Merry Christmas”.

I find it interesting that what may be the most important result of this case (that “secular humanism” be recognized as a religion) only appears as a footnote.

The Supreme Court’s’ footnote #11 applies to “religions in this country”.  I wonder what “country” they’re referring to.  Are they referring to the several “United States,” the singular “United States,” or “The United States of America”?

After all, our “Declaration of Independence” declares in its second and third sentences:

1) “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” And,

2)  “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men. . . . .”

Thus, the two fundamental principles of the Declaration are:  1) We each receive our most important rights from God; and 2) the primary duty of government is to “secure” those God-given, unalienable Rights to each of us.

I’ve argued for several years that it’s these God-given, unalienable Rights that elevate each of us to the status of an individual sovereign and reduce the government to the status of our public servant.

I’ve also argued that government doesn’t want to be our public servant and has therefore worked diligently to cause us to forget that this country started with the spiritual principle that each living man and woman is endowed by their Creator with “certain unalienable Rights”.

It’s clear from the “Declaration of Independence” that the nation named “The United States of America” (as per the Articles of Confederation in A.D. 1781) was built on the spiritual foundation laid by the “Declaration of Independence” of A.D. 1776.

Thus, it seems inexplicable and perhaps logically impossible that the nation called “The United States of America” could be deemed to have any “religions” that did not include a “god” in the sense of an individual “Creator”.

I.e., insofar as Buddhists, Taoists, Ethical Culturists, and Secular Humanists deny the existence of a god who acts as their Creator, the practitioners of those godless “religions” have no moral standing to claim the God-given, “unalienable Rights” on which “The United States of America” was founded.

If the members of those godless “religions” can’t claim “unalienable Rights,” then it follows that such atheists cannot be individual “sovereigns”.  More, in relation to such atheists, the government may be absolved from its primary duty to “secure” any God-given, unalienable Rights.

That means that, in relation to members of any atheistic “religion,” the government need not be the “public servant” but can instead be the public’s “master”.

Insofar as government seeks to rule rather than serve, government must separate us from the idea that we are each endowed with certain unalienable Rights by our “Creator”.  Thus, every atheistic “religion” (such as Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culturalism, and Secular Humanism) empowers government to rule and even oppress the people.

All of which brings me back to the Supreme Court’s reference to “in this country”.

Insofar as the nation named “The United States of America” is built on the premise that we’re each endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and insofar as that “Creator” must be “God,” then I don’t believe that the governments of “The United States of America” can recognize any philosophy that doesn’t include “God” as a “religion“.  The idea of an “atheistic religion” seems to be a contradiction in terms.   That idea is certainly contrary to the spiritual principles on which this nation was built.   I.e., given that “The United States of America” was based on spiritual principles that depend on the existence of a “Creator,” it seems virtually impossible that that nation could ever recognize an atheistic philosophy as a “religion”.

Yes, Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culturalism, and Secular Humanism may be godless philosophies, but within the nation named “The United States of America,” they can’t be “religions”.  To claim that we can have “religions” that deny the existence of God is like claiming with have have mathematicians who deny the existence of numbers.

So, when the Supreme Court declares that, “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others,”  I’m left to wonder to which “country” does the Supreme Court refer?

Over the years, I’ve seen evidence to support the hypothesis that, at the “State” level, the terms “The State” and “this state” may signal whether we’re dealing with a State of the Union or a Territory.  (See, The State vs this state.)  Is it possible that at the federal level, the term “this country” is also code to signal some atheistic country other than the nation named “The United States of America”?

If you go back to the beginning of the Torcaso case, you’ll see that it hinges on both the 1st Amendment (freedom of religion) and the 14th.  I have absolutely no doubt that the 1st Amendment is intended to protect the States of the Union styled “The United States of America”.  I have no doubt that “The United States of America” is built on spiritual principles that include recognition of the existence of God.  I conclude that “The United States of America” can’t be an atheist “country” and I presume that “The United States of America” can’t enact laws that recognize atheistic philosophies as “religions”.

But is it possible that the 14th Amendment created a singular “United States” that is an atheist “country”?

Did the 14th Amendment lay the foundation for a new “country” other than “The United States of America”?

I’ve attached my study notes on the Torcaso v Watkins case as a PDF file.  These notes filled with highlights that make sense to me but may be distracting, confusing and even annoying to others.  If you’d like a pristine copy of the case, go here.  If you’d like to download my copy of the case with my notes, highlights, etc., try 130602 1961 Torcaso v Watkins SECULAR HUMANISM.


Tags: , , , ,

41 responses to “Secular Humanism is a “Religion”

  1. cynthia

    June 4, 2013 at 8:17 AM

    In a technical aspect I have to concur with how you have taken ap art the pieces of this interesting quandry. I have seen ‘in your face’ evidence that ‘government’ is in fact ‘split’ between ‘followers of the Owl’ (Bohemian Grove) and ‘followers of the Eagle (America). Just research the ‘tax exemption cards’… which have image of an animal on them. It is also curious that one has a doe\deer (not stage) and the other a buffalo. To me this means ‘they’ (higher levels) want ‘us’ to consent to being animals in some capacity.

  2. owlmon

    June 4, 2013 at 9:52 AM

    Definition of Human Being

    Are you a ‘person’, an ‘individual’, or a ‘human being’? These words, at law, define you as being spiritually ‘dead.’ This is how the world makes its attachment to you.

    The terms, ‘person’, ‘individual’, ‘human being’, etc., are not in Christ.

    Words like “individual,” and “human being” do not even appear in Scripture! These are ‘created’ terms by the natural man (1 Cor 2:14). These words describe the ‘old man’, but not the ‘new man’ in Christ (Col 3:9-10).

    In Balantine’s Self Pronouncing Law Dictionary, 1948, page 389, Human Being is defined as “See Monster.” On page 540 of this same Law Dictionary, Monster is defined as “a human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal.”

    In Webster’s New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, pages 879-880, a Monster is defined as “a person so cruel, wicked, depraved, etc., as to horrify others.”

    From the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd Edition, page 901, Human Being is defined as a “Natural man: unenlightened or unregenerate,” and on page 1461, Unregenerate means “not regenerate; unrepentant; an unregenerate sinner; not convinced by or unconverted to a particular religion; wicked, sinful, dissolute.”

    In Webster’s New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 657, Humanitarianism is defined as “the doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid.”

    In Colliers New Dictionary of the English Language, 1928, Humanitarian is defined as “a philanthropist; an anti-Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine of Christ’s divinity; a perfectionist.”

    And in the Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, 1990, page 653, Humanism is defined as “any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values and dignity predominate, especially an ethical theory that often rejects the importance of a belief in God.”

    Therefore, when anyone calls himself or herself a ‘human being’, or a ‘humanitarian,’ they are saying (according to every definition of these words, and according to the law), “I’m an animal; I’m a monster; I’m not saved; I’m unrepentant; I’m an unregenerate sinner; I’m not converted; I’m wicked, sinful, and dissolute; I’m cruel, depraved, unenlightened; and I reject Christ’s divinity and the importance of a belief in God.”

    “Individuals [Bondman] rely for protection of their right on God’s law, and not upon regulations and proclamations of departments of government, or officers who have been designated to carry laws into effect.” Baty v. Sale, 43 Ill. 351.” [Codes, edicts, proclamations, and decisions are not Law, which define or regulate the Good and Lawful Bondman. Therefore, title 42 “law” suits are ungodly, and are the redress for and of human beings, i.e., non-believers.]

    The Septuagint uses the term “human beings” only one time, and its meaning is identical to the above definitions. Let’s look at the last verse of the book of Jonah, where Nineva was full of men who were unrepentant, unregenerate, unconverted, wicked, sinful, dissolute, cruel, depraved, unenlightened, rejected the importance of a belief in God. Or, in other words, “human beings.”
    “and shall not I spare Nineve, the great city, in which dwell more than twelve myriads of human beings, who do not know their right hand or their left hand…?” [Jonah 4:11 (Septuagint)]
    The “human beings” of Nineve did not know their right hand from their left because they did not know the Truth and were lost. They did not know God, they were separated from God. However, those human beings were willing to turn from their ways and learn the things of God, so He spared that city from destruction.
    The term “human being” is also synonymous with the term ‘natural man.’
    “The natural man is a spiritual monster. His heart is where his feet should be, fixed upon the earth; his heels are lifted up against heaven, which his heart should be set on. His face is towards hell; his back towards heaven. He loves what he should hate, and hates what he should love; joys in what he ought to mourn for, and mourns for what he ought to rejoice in; glories in his shame, and is ashamed of his glory; abhors what he should desire, and desires what he should abhor.” [Thomas Boston, quoted in Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications 1987), page 584].
    And the Word confirms:
    “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” [1 Corinthians 2:14,]
    The above verse witnesses to us that the natural man is spiritually dead. The ‘natural man’ in Scripture is synonymous with the ‘natural person’ as defined in man’s laws.
    “Natural Person means human being, and not an artificial or juristic person.” Shawmut Bank, N.A. v. Valley Farms, 610 A. 2d. 652, 654; 222 Conn. 361.
    “Natural Person: Any human being who as such is a legal entity as distinguished from an artificial person, like a corporation, which derives its status as a legal entity from being recognized so in law. Natural Child: The ordinary euphemism for ‘bastard’ or illegitimate.” [Amon v. Moreschi, 296 N.Y. 395, 73 N.E.2d 716.” Max Radin, Radin’s Law Dictionary (1955), p. 216.]
    Those that are spiritually dead belong to the prince of this world because he’s dead himself. Satan has dominion over the natural man, for he is the prince of this world [John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11]; and, as a consequence of this, he has dominion over those of the world, i.e., human beings, the natural man – those who receive not the things of the Spirit of God and reject Christ. Because the bondman in Christ is sanctified from the world, he is separated from the adversary’s dominion over him–sin [John 8:34]. This is the cause for Christ having sanctified Himself in the Truth of the Word of God – to provide the entrance to the refuge in and through Himself for us.

    • owlmon

      June 4, 2013 at 9:55 AM

      Thats the real scam going down with regards to calling yerself human,,,only dumb goyim call themselves humans

      • homelessholocaust

        June 4, 2013 at 12:12 PM

        7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.=ADAM, MAN,= Living Soul

        And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. [a Help meet for Him? is that a Slave? YES. ADAM has the “” “””the breath of life; ”’breathed into his nostrils”’] BY YAHWEH ELOHIM [and man became a living soul.””] ADAM is the MAN.

        19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

        20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

        21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

        22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

        23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

        [there is no evidence of [ breathed into HER nostrils] the breath of life; [and WOman THEREFORE DID NOT became a living soul.INSTEAD WOMAN WAS/IS a Human Being, less than ADAM-in short, NOT a LIVING SOUL.]

        It was not until the 20th. Century that female creatures of the “Human Being” sorts…MONSTERS. begain to gain ascendancy over their MASTER- “ADAM=MAN=LIVING SOUL.

        This is a Hard Saying, who can receive it? Jesus said, “john 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

        61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

        Full Disclosure: My Great Great Great Relative was Rebbi Issaic ben Jacob Bernays,

        Bernays, Isaac
        German rabbi. He was born in Mainz and served as rabbi in Hamburg from 1821. In his struggle against Reform Judaism, he denounced the Reform prayerbook. His modern approach to Orthodoxy influenced his disciple Samson Raphael Hirsch.

        Of his sons the celebrated philologist Jacob Bernays, professor and chief librarian at the University of Bonn, kept faithful to the religious views of his father, while the well-known literary historian Michael Bernays, who was only fourteen years old on his father’s death, was converted to Christianity. [I came from this branch of Bernays Family Tree, we became Episcopal in America; , yet I follow Torah.]

        I espound this facts about Family Tree to explain where my “Unorthodox” learning comes…I Have A Rich And Famous Family Tree Raised by Grandmother & Her Mother, I heard many wonderful tales and family stories. I was a Avid Reader & Detested, still do, the TELE-VILE-SIN “Idol” that, like the IDOLS of POPIST ROME, Connects the HERD of BOVINE BEASTS constantly to AMERICA’S GOD…NOT YAH, NOT JESUS, but SATAN-LUCIFER. lie machine!]
        Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

        61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

      • Yartap

        June 4, 2013 at 7:07 PM

        Thanks owlmon,
        That is some great information!

        I have a QUESTION: Is there a difference between calling someone “Human” verses “Human Being?” Is a “human being” someone who appears to be “human?”

    • NDT

      June 4, 2013 at 2:43 PM

      Cicero made the distinction between humans and others as homo humanus and homo barbarus. In this sense human beings are creatures of Rome. Also, human rights are fictions of law:

      A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and or being charged with duties, while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised. (Black’s 2nd (1910))

  3. homelessholocaust

    June 4, 2013 at 11:43 AM

    Isn’t it a good thing
    Posted on June 3, 2013 by Phil

    That the hospitals will all be run by the government in the future?

    Neuroscientist Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness

    “Do your neighbors believe in a God a little too much? We have a cure for that.” – Government

    Oh sure, it’d be nice to put an end to radical Islamists. But those who don’t like abortion or same-sex marriage are so much easier to round up.
    This entry was posted in Evil walks the earth, The Government is Not Your Friend. Bookmark the permalink.

  4. Carlton

    June 4, 2013 at 2:48 PM

    Adask said, ‘But is it possible that the 14th Amendment created a singular “United States” that is an atheist “country”?’

    There is no indication that the 14th Amendment created a new country. Nor is there any sign of such a new country in existence now.

    Rather, the entity that was created is more like a corporation. In fact, it is exactly like a corporation. An atheist corporation.

    So, being a 14th Amendment citizen (as opposed to an American citizen) means you are an employee of the United States corporation.

  5. NDT

    June 4, 2013 at 2:56 PM

    “Thus, the two fundamental principles of the Declaration are: 1) We each receive our most important rights from God; and 2) the primary duty of government is to “secure” those God-given, unalienable Rights to each of us.”

    Security is an aspect of the relationship between a man and his deity. A man who looks to government for security is buying into the principle of Roman citizenship.

  6. Yartap

    June 4, 2013 at 7:59 PM


    Oh course, the 5 to 4 Gang got it wrong in the case. Maryland or any other state has the right to set the standard for any requirements of office, even religious origins/beliefs. The First Amendment only restricts Congress and no others. The Supremes should have not heard the case (if we are talking about the union with a Constitution/We the People). Further, likewise and on the other hand, any state can reject and restrict Christians and/or other types from service of office. But, in our country, the believers in God given unalienable Rights know where their foundation lays.

    I define Religion as: Whatever a man thinks as true and whatever a man believes as true – That is his religion.

    I believe in true Christian Free-Will, just as Jefferson believed. That is what makes us a truly Christian Nation. What I don’t believe in – is allowing non-Christians to run the place and change the rules (constitution and God given rights).

    If one has to affirm to uphold a constitution in a state, then why couldn’t one be made to affirm belief and allegiance in the all-mighty God? North Carolina once required that only Protestants could only hold elected offices. Now – that’s a good rule!

    A 5 to 4 Gang that requires a state to be “so-called” neutral in religious beliefs and affiliation, is then, forcing the religion of secular humanism upon an office of trust.

  7. Anthony Clifton

    June 5, 2013 at 8:03 AM

    you may ask yourself…how did I get here…?

    the word religion is properly defined as a belief system, so-called ‘Orthodox’ so-called ‘Judaism’ uses the same Talmud as the other branches of so-called ‘Judaism’,

    Jesus did not instruct his disciples to practice ‘Judaism’….He admonished “To KNOW the TRUTH”…

    how the Toe of Ra enters the “narrative” is a real mystery…as no so-called “Jews” existed before the word “Jew”..enters the “lexicon”…

    …..the MONEY CHANGERS & PHARISEES did however practice the religion that later becomes to be known a TALMUDIC JUDAISM and the so-called “Law” of Talmudic Judaism which stipulates that the braindeadgoy need to traverse innumerable rabbit trails of sublime nonsense and jump through ever diminishing smaller flaming hoops of verifiable joo poo to please those in “AUTHORITY” because not only are they “JEWISH” they also print the currency and OWN the Media…and operate a kosher crack house called CONgress….see 29 standing ovations

    From Mullins…Curse of Canaan…

    The Hexapla, or Seal of Solomon, is a six-pointed star. In the Cabala, six is esteemed as a male number, which has been assigned by the Kabbalists to Microprospus, the Vau of the Hebrew alphabet, and the six middle signs. The Cabala itself is the basis of Theosophy; in the Encyclopaedia Judaica, under the entry “Theosophy,” it merely says, see Kabbala.

    The Kabbala took shape as a definite system, a secret Sophia or body of knowledge, after the fall of Jerusalem. It relied heavily on numerology and incantations. The Hebrew gematria is a code which is based upon numerology. Devious explanations and prophecies are worked out by laboriously tracing various numerological values. For instance, through gematria it is shown that Moses wrote the Farewell Song; the first six letters of the first six sentences are the same as Moses name in Hebrew-345.

    The Cabala claims that the sacred number offers the prospect of knowledge. This number, 142857, is divided from the Eternal Number, One, or one million, or God plus six symbols of endlessness; divided by 7, it always comes out 142857. The primary numbers, 1 through 9, make up the triangle of the ternary, the completed Image of the three worlds. 9 is also the number for Mars; the secret name of god is number 9, and the period of gestation is 9 months; all of this information is to be found in the Cabala.The chants and incantations from the Cabala include such esoterica as the Key of Solomon,which gives the formula for summing up Lucifer: “So come forth! Enter! or I shall torture you endlessly by the force of the powerful names of the Key: Alglon, Tetragram, Vaycheons,Stimulametion, Ezphraes, Petregrammaton, Olzaran, Irion, Erython, Existron, Erzona, Onera,Orosyn, Mozan, Messias, Soter, Emanu, Saboot.”

    curiously, only stupid idiots repeat the same lies to themselves everyday…no matter what…..!

    is it possible that the Almighty is not SCHIZOPHRENIC….?


  8. Tadeusz Kościuszko

    June 5, 2013 at 9:44 AM

    Adask, just how in the hell can a FREE MAN now be classified a terrorist? You have a absolute genius about you and a perspective about the constitution. You admiration for the law is utterly amazing. I really deaply appreciate your dedication to your country, and your fellow men. We the people need a GOD fearing man like your self in the judiciary. The public trustees in office now are like a silent fart compared to you a 2 mile wide tornado. Keep up the LOVE!

  9. Peg-Powers

    June 5, 2013 at 8:06 PM

    AMEN, Kos! I agree with you. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. And time is short.
    We need one million wise and faithful MEN.

  10. cadfile

    June 6, 2013 at 11:46 AM

    Your analysis is not correct on a few counts:

    1. The footnote about nontheistic philosophies is known as “dicta” in legal terms. Dicta is a plural and shortening of “obiter dictum,” or “said in passing.” Such statements are personal opinions of the justice – they are not necessary to the final result and have no legal force.

    2. The Declaration of Independence was replaced first by the Articles of Confederation in 1781 and then by the US Constitution in 1789 and neither document mentions God

    3 And your biased analysis is exactly why Torcaso v. Watkins was an important case – to confirm the prohibition of religious tests for holding elected office and to state if we talking about the privileges granted to the religious then Secular Humanism should be included to also benefit from those privileges if given (like tax exemptions for groups).

    • Yartap

      June 6, 2013 at 12:17 PM

      Sorry cadfile,

      Both, the Articles and Constitution were signed in “the year of our Lord.”

      • cadfile

        June 6, 2013 at 1:01 PM

        “the year of our Lord” is how they use to date documents it is no more a force of law than writing “sincerely”

      • Yartap

        June 6, 2013 at 3:41 PM


        If the Founders had said, “in the year of Satin,” would that have had no meaning? Many features of the Constitution come from the Holy Scriptures, i.e., like the three branches of government.

      • cadfile

        June 6, 2013 at 4:07 PM

        The Bible mentions communism with approval in Acts.

        The Bible says that the rulers are appointed by god so obey them so no democracy.

        And oh yeah, Timothy says to pay your taxes.

        Do you really want to use the Holy Bible to base a government on? How is that not different than what the Taliban want to do?

      • Yartap

        June 6, 2013 at 5:46 PM


        With what I perceive as your logic of events at our founding, the questions that arise are these: So, what went wrong with our founders position with the King? Did they fight the King about taxes? Did they abandon their Christian beliefs? Didn’t Jefferson claim that of all the religions, the Christian religion was the fairest and friendliest to liberty? Does the Constitution implement the Christian concept of Free Will? Was not religion left up to the states? Didn’t God question the believers about having a king over them, which followers requested and desired? Why did Jefferson say “a high wall of separation between church (a Christian term of Christ’s followers,, why not the word: “religions?”) and state?” Doesn’t the Constitution say “an establishment” (denomination) of religion (what religion?, in the year of our Lord)?

        Knowing where this country came from and its beliefs preservers liberty and freedom to us all. With this knowledge, it over shadows the secular humanism lie and the political correctness that pollutes this nation.

    • Adask

      June 6, 2013 at 12:40 PM

      1. The footnote may not have any legal force, but you should convey that principle to the subsequent justices on the Supreme Court who continue to assert that “secular humanism” is a religion and apparently base that opinion on the Torcaso case.

      2. The Articles of Confederation did not replace the “Declaration of Independence”. See, “The Organic Laws of The United States of America” on this blog. The “Declaration of Independence” mentions our “Creator” as the source of our most important and unalienable Rights. The word “Creator” was clearly intended to signify “God”.

      3. Your third statement appears to be missing one or more words. I don’t clearly understand whatever it is that you meant to write. However, as for any statutory privileges granted to the religious, I suspect that the Founders–recognizing the spiritual foundation on which this nation was built–wanted to reward the “religious” with privileges like tax exemptions in hopes that the “religious” would help to preserve those spiritual foundations.

      In any case, insofar as secular humanism denies the existence of God, it also denies the existence of the “unalienable Rights” that were declared to exist in the “Declaration Of Independence” as a grant from our “Creator”. By denying the existence of God and unalienable Rights, secular humanism frees government from its primary obligation (declared in the “Declaration”) to “secure” those God-given, unalienable Rights.

      Without those unalienable Rights, you and I, your children and mine, are nothing but animals in a dog-eat-dog world where might makes right and a police state is the natural order of things. If you want to live in such world, continue to defend secular humanism and evolution. On the other hand, if you’d like to see a restoration of some semblance of liberty and personal dignity in this country, you should at least pay lip service to the “Creator” and his gift of “unalienable Rights”. However, if your “reason” compels you to believe in concepts like evolution and secular humanism, at least recognize that they both lead us towards a violent world where force overrules reason and murder by government is often deemed unremarkable.

      Genesis 9:6 explains the fundamental reason why we shouldn’t murder other men or women is that we are made in God’s image.

      What fundamental reason exists under the theory of evolution or secular humanism to eschew murder–that it’s not “politically correct”? That it’s not “ethical”? That it’s damaging to our “self-esteem”? Evolution and secular humanism are philosophies that ultimately rely on survival of the fittest–or of the most murderous–and are therefore conducive to violence and a primitive culture.

      No matter how much secular reason you may advance, you can bet that if your nation ain’t got God, bubba, you got tyranny. Bet on it.

      • cadfile

        June 6, 2013 at 1:16 PM

        1. Secular Humanism has not been deemed a religion in any other supreme court rulings so if the Torasco footnote means what you think it means we should see other cases where a ruling refers back to that footnote and deems SH a religion – but there isn’t any. To find any part of the government defining religion is the in the tax code to apply to groups getting 501 (3)(c) tax exemption and the definition the IRS is allowed to use is so vague that any deeply held beliefs is considered a religion for tax purposes.

        Secular Humanism doesn’t even fit into the common use of the word religion – there are no supernatural beliefs in SH, no holy book, no prelate, and no central authority telling SHs what to think and how to conduct gatherings.

        2. The current law of the land is the US Constitution. People have tried to support other wacky ideas by using the D of I and courts have shot them down – don’t you think if the founders had wanted the US to be a Christian nation they would have put it in the document instead they don’t mention God at all, put in a prohibition on religious tests, and included specific a right to freedom of religion in the 1st amendment.

        3. By privileges I meant the advantage one has because they follow a religion that a majority of people in the community follow. The court rulings have supported the idea that either all points of views (aka “religions”) get supported or none of them do – the government can’t pick and choose who to give support to.

      • Adask

        June 6, 2013 at 1:48 PM

        I’m sure the “D of I” sounds “wacky” to everyone in government who advocates a police state. But to those of us who hope to restore liberty to this country, the “Declaration of Independence” sounds profound on both a political and spiritual level.

        I suggest that those who regard the “D of I” as “wacky” stop taking a three-day weekend on or about the 4th of July, because that holiday still celebrates the “wacky” ideas in the “D of I”.

        Incidentally, if, as you claim, the Articles of Confederation replaced the “D of I,” why do we still celebrate the 4th of July (when the “D of I” was enacted)? Why don’t we instead celebrate the date when the Articles of Confederation were enacted? Your claim that the Articles replaced the Declaration is false.

        Again, if you’ll read the article entitled “The Organic Laws of The United States of America” you’ll see that as late as A.D. 1875–7 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified and nearly a century after the Articles of Confederation had been adopted–the Congress declared that four documents–the Declaration of Independence,” the Articles of Confederation, NW Ordinance, and the Constitution of the United States–to comprise “The Organic Law of The United States of America”. There is no suggestion that the “D of I” is not, to this day, as much the “law” as the Constitution. That equivalence has been largely forgotten, but it still appears to be true.

      • Adask

        June 6, 2013 at 8:26 PM

        You’re correct. I misread your association of “wacky” with the DOI to think you were referring to idea within the DOI as “wacky”. You were only referring to some ideas that were external to the DOI that were “wacky”. That’s undoubtedly true. You can also find similar “wacky” ideas that are advanced by the Supreme Court and other branches of government that are supposedly based on the Constitution. Lot’s of wackyness goin’ around.

      • Secretariat

        July 14, 2013 at 10:33 PM

        This posting, is to give the user known as ‘Cadfile’ a thumbs up. I hope my thumbs are at least worth 2 cents…lol, each?

        Anyhow, the founding fathers were Deist ( Nothing more, nothing less. See:

        And for these reasons, they began expressing these beliefs from the Deist ideologies in their so-called Organic Law. Instead of relying upon unseen conditions or forces, to force others to act accordingly or accept conditions predicated upon unknowable and unreasonable propositions for creating self-governance for whom such was first Ordain (Declaration of Independence-1776).

        And, if you wish to take liberty with either history or myself, please avail yourself, of our efforts to exercise the precious self-evident truths (, to which the Nature’s Law and Nature’s (Creator/Creative) Science of Right Reason entailed to each, equally. Until then, I AM….

        Most graciously…’In Honor We Trust,’

    • Anthony Clifton

      June 7, 2013 at 9:35 AM

      isn’t there a cage at the zoo for curiosities such as this…? [AMDOCS]

      The Zionist Terrorist U.S. Administration is on the defensive after media revelations of large-scale surveillance programs that tapped into ordinary U.S. citizens’ use of telephones and the internet.

      The director of national intelligence confirmed Thursday night that the “JEWISH feral “government” has been secretly collecting information on all braindeadgoy for years from the nation’s largest Internet companies like Google, Facebook and, most recently, Apple. [Comverse] [ODIGO] . . .

      Officials told the New York Times that the data was gathered as part of a program code-named Prism, which is authorized under a seemingly foreign intelligence law that was recently renewed by

      the Zionist crack whores in Congress, and that the program searches for potential anti-semites and …various and sundry “national security threats”…..excluding the 30 million invaders and the terrorists printing the currency and owning the media…or tanks driving into “Christian Churches” working for the ADL/FBI….

      take it away…Andy

  11. Carlton

    June 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM

    The US Constitution says its purpose is to “secure the blessings of liberty”. Blessings are from God, as was commonly understood when this document was written.

    Also, most of the state constitutions open with thanks to God for their liberty, which confirms the meaning of the “blessings” language in the federal constitution.

    • Adask

      June 6, 2013 at 2:49 PM

      Exactly. In A.D. 1776, the “Declaration of Independence” declares that the “unalienable Rights” flowing from our “Creator” include “Liberty”. The third sentence of the Declaration reads “That to secure these [God-given, unalienable] rights, governments are instituted among Men. . . .”

      In A.D. 1788, the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States described one of the purposes of the Constitution as to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. To describe Libery as a “Blessing” is clearly consistent with the Declaration’s earlier description of “unalienable Rights” (including Liberty) as flowing from our “Creator”.

      Sometimes it’s almost amazing how many little links and clues can be found when we read closely.

      • cadfile

        June 6, 2013 at 3:29 PM

        If you have to look for little clues and links then you have a problem.

      • Adask

        June 6, 2013 at 8:23 PM

        If you’re so sure you’re right that you can ignore “little clues and links,” then you have a problems.

    • cadfile

      June 6, 2013 at 3:36 PM

      I didn’t say that the D of I was “wacky” – please debate what I actually said and not what you think I said.

      The D of I is part of our history but to base your argument on the first document that setup our government and ignore the current law of the land and the court rulings based on the Constitution then I can only conclude you are being silly. Again if the founders really wanted us to be a Christian nation then why didn’t they specifically spell it out in the Articles and Constitution. The words and the what is known about what happened during the drafting of the Constitution shows they chose NOT to establish the US as a Christian nation because they knew what happens when the state and church are mixed. That is the fact and I don’t need to look for little clues or links to prove it.

  12. pop de adam

    June 6, 2013 at 5:30 PM

    Do you believe in democracy? You might believe it exists, you might think it a quaint mental construct. If you believe in democracy and live your life in that manner, consider what you may be endorsing: A vote is simply your opinion about what you think should or should not be, what is right and wrong. Should laws that effect real live people be based on the opinions of anyone or everyone? Who and what you vote for today, others may vote against you and yours tommorrow. What if they generally don’t like you, and are willing to outlaw you based upon their opinion of you.

    I rather like the simpler ideas such as: treat others as you would like to be treated. If both governments and religions are reliant on the confidence and faith of their members, what if you have none for either? Democracy is the belief that a majority by its existence is right all the time. Does this seem a little dangerous? Is it immune from manipulation?

    The government would tell us it has granted us the right to pick and choose or abstain altogether from believing in what ever religion we like or dislike, up to the point when you might refute belief in the possibility of a just government and entirely leave it in the past.

    Government and religion share so many characteristics of eachother, I think it disingeneous to suggest that they have nothing in common. The dependance of belief in both, is what I think makes them the same thing.

  13. palani

    June 7, 2013 at 9:03 AM

    Neither the U.S., the U.K. , the Swiss Federation, the E.U. or any other federation of independent nation-states has ever been sovereign. Perhaps too much emphasis has been placed upon the religious practices of federations as these practices are not binding and don’t matter. Not being sovereign it follows then that they are not of any particular religious denomination. What does matter is whether they uphold the agreement(s) that they have engaged in. Once they have breached their contract/treaty or have been proven bankrupt they cease to exist. Things that no longer exist need to be ignored and new alliances formed. There is a better chance of stable alliances with entities that stand behind their agreements.

  14. Mertensv16

    June 11, 2013 at 11:49 AM

    “There is no suggestion that the “D of I” is not, to this day, as much the “law” as the Constitution. That equivalence has been largely forgotten, but it still appears to be true.”

    The DOI was never intended to be, and is not, law. This should be obvious when one observes that the DOI is a justification for revolution, while the Constitution characterizes revolution as punishable treason.

    Those who believe the First Amendment applies only to Congress and that the States have a free hand regarding religion (as well as free speech and free press, which those same people would have to admit the States may abridge if their view were correct) ignore the fact that the Supreme Court has held that the First applies to the States via the 14th Amendment. You may disagree with the Court, but it’s the law. Even without regard to this theory of incorporation, however, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment would prohibit a State from discriminating against someone on the basis of his religion or his lack thereof.

    • palani

      June 11, 2013 at 3:10 PM

      Better consider going back to law school, Mert. Maybe you can ask for breach of contract and get your money back for failing to teach you properly.

      If you can’t believe in Congress then who DO you believe in:

      Organic laws of the United States of America

      The Organic Laws of the United States of America can be found in Volume One of the United States Code which contains the General and Permanent Laws of the United States. U.S. Code (2007)[1] defines the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, and the Constitution of September 17, 1787.

      • Mertensv16

        June 11, 2013 at 3:43 PM

        “If you can’t believe in Congress then who DO you believe in”

        I have never believed something is true simply because Congress says so, and I’m surprised you don’t feel the same way.

        As Lincoln supposedly said, “Calling a tail a leg doesn’t mean it is one.” Congress is certainly free to put whatever label on the DOI it wishes, but in my opinion it would be more proper to call the DOI an organic document of the United States instead of an organic law.

        To claim that the DOI is law and as such somehow authorizes the government to promote some sort of religious agenda and to deny to non-theists the rights that are accorded to theists is very much misplaced. The Torcaso court arrived at the right result – we are not a theocracy, and the deistic language of the DOI doesn’t make us one.

      • Adask

        June 11, 2013 at 4:19 PM

        If you’ll read my article “The Organic Law of The United States of America,” you’ll see that circa A.D. 1875 (7 years after the 14th Amendment was allegedly ratified) the Congress admitted in the Revised Statutes that that “Organic Law” still included four documents: 1) The “Declaration of Independence” (A.D. 1776); 2) The Articles of Confederation (A.D. 1781); 3) The Northwest Ordinance (A.D. 1787); and 4) the Constitution of the United States (A.D. 1788). The Congress made no effort to suggest that any of the three documents prior to the Constitution had been repealed or otherwise suspended. Thus, according to Congress of A.D. 1873-1875, the “Declaration of Independence” is every bit as much the law today as the Constitution. Read the article. Visit the links in the article to the Statutes at Large that verify this contention.

        It’s true that the territories of the United States are not a theocracy and probably suit atheists quite nicely. However, the States of Union styled “The United States of America” were founded on spiritual principles that were unprecedented, profound and radical. So the question becomes, where are you? In an atheistic territory or within a spiritual State of the Union?

  15. palani

    June 11, 2013 at 4:43 PM

    “I have never believed something is true simply because Congress says so, and I’m surprised you don’t feel the same way.”

    Perhaps my opinion makes no difference at all and how they decide to illuminate the truth makes it the truth FOR THEM. I have been instructed not to argue so I choose to be agreeable whenever I can.

    Have YOU have any luck arguing with Congress, Mert?

  16. Mertensv16

    June 11, 2013 at 5:12 PM

    Mr. Adask, I don’t deny what Congress did; I simply take issue with its calling the DOI a law. As to whether it is currently just as much the law as the Constitution, perhaps you can reconcile the DOI’s advocacy of revolution with the Constitution’s referring to revolution (in the sense of making war against the United States) as treason. Which one is the law? You might also consider whether the DOI’s unarticulated premise — that when it referred to “all men” being created equal and endowed with inalienable rights it didn’t really mean all men (because of the existence of slavery and the legal subjugation of women) — is still the law today.

    I would commend to you a Supreme Court opinion that is a most eloquent exposition of free thought.: ” If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943).

  17. Dr. Robert Christopher Laity

    July 15, 2013 at 4:37 AM

    Arthur, The Founders were NOT all “Deists”. If you know history you know that they were all Christians. Atheism is an absence of theism. Secular Humanism is NOT a religion. Neither is Islam. The Founders wrote in the Freedom of Religion provision to pertain ONLY to the right of the several “Christian” denominations in American to practice their respective Christian beliefs.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s