The Higher Religions (1996)
Emmett F. Fields

 

I must take issue with Dr. Paul Kurtz and Free Inquiry magazine (Fall 
1996) in concluding that Humanism is not a religion. If there were 
religious liberty in America the question of the religious status of 
Humanism, and the other Higher Religions, would be simply a matter of 
personal or academic interest. But as we do not have religious liberty in 
America the question of religious status becomes one of great legal and 
political importance. The Government will not establish a religion unless 
the religion meets certain vague and unconstitutional "guidelines," and 
pleases the Government agent(s) responsible for approving religions for 
Government establishment.

Those religions the Government establishes are called "churches," and 
those religions the Government refuses to establish are not considered 
religions. The method is as old as priestcraft, and as effective as the 
Holy Inquisition. For establishment purposes the Government refuses to 
consider "non-religion" to be a religion, in spite of the fact that the 
Supreme Court has said that non-religion has the same rights as religion.

    EPPERSON v. ARKANSAS. 1968.
    "Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in 
matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile 
to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion; and may not aid, 
foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or 
even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates 
governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between 
religion and non-religion."

The United States Government is not "neutral in matters of religious 
theory, doctrine, and practice" -- it establishes and it discriminates. 
The Higher Religions cannot hope to successfully compete with the 
Government established lower religions, therefore the Higher Religions 
must be recognized as religions and must demand an equal establishment. 
The alternative is for the U.S. Government to be forced to stop 
establishing religions and made to abide by the Constitution. This writer 
has a Case pending in Federal Court that challenges to right of the United 
States Government to establish religions.

The errors of reason in the Free Inquiry discussion would seem to support 
the Government's contention that the Higher Religions are not religions at 
all.

Free Inquiry makes the assumption that reasonable religious views cannot 
be religious. Dr. Kurtz illustrates this mistake in his example: "If Miss 
Jones rejects belief in God, never goes to Mass, and claims she is an 
atheist, is she also "religious?"." Dr. Kurtz asserts that she is not 
religious -- Dr. Kurtz is wrong! Certainly she is religious, she has found 
a higher, grander and truer religion than the one she left behind. If Miss 
Jones had simply stopped going to Mass because it was too much trouble, 
retained her belief in the god assumption because, like most Americans, 
she had been indoctrinated to believe the existence of a god is a question 
of fact and not of faith; then, perhaps, it might be said that Miss Jones 
was "non-religious."

As most Atheists (always with a capital "A") know, it requires a great 
deal of courageous thought and personal anguish for one to escape the 
induced obsessional neurosis that passes for religious conviction. To say 
that a person who has investigated, thought, suffered and raised his or 
her religious views above the lower religions becomes "non-religious" is 
ridiculous.

All Humanists, Atheists, etc., know that the negative sounding 
"non-religious" is an improper term that has been applied to those of us 
who have found a higher and grander religion than a mere dogmatic or 
"supernatural" belief. And it must be pointed out that there is a great 
difference between Humanism as a Higher Religion, and Religious Humanism. 
The one indicates a belief system that has escaped all ritual and dogma, 
while the other indicates that many of these lower traits remain.

Dr. Kurtz said he used to believe Humanism was a religion, but that he has 
now changed his mind. What was the cause of this great change of mind? 
From reading the several articles that debated the question of religious 
status it seems that this change was brought about more by a political 
misunderstanding than by any religious considerations.

The argument seems to be that if Humanism is not a religion it is 
permissible to teach Evolution in the schools. And if Humanism is a 
religion that fact would, somehow, affect what is taught in science 
classrooms, and cause the destruction of public education by the enactment 
of school voucher systems. How absurd!

Just what is this presumed religious entanglement with science? Science is 
a thing apart, it is the servant of neither the lesser, nor of the higher 
religions. Science has nothing to do with religion. Science and religion 
are different species of things, they neither mate nor live in the same 
house.

If a modern religion finds that science has the best answers to certain 
questions of religious importance, and adapts those scientific truths as 
part of its religious outlook, that does not, in the least, entangle 
science and religion. Science goes on its merry way of finding facts and 
cares nothing about those religions that agree, or disagree, with its 
empirical findings. Why then, should there be any objection to teaching 
scientific facts and theries in schools simply because some religions have 
had the good sense to adapt certain scientific facts into their religious 
belief system?

Science becomes corrupted and entangled with religion only when a powerful 
and unscrupulous religious force presumes to forcefully pervert science 
with dogmatic religious assumptions. One example of such religious 
perversion of science is "Scientific Creationism." Such corrupted science 
is not science at all, but simply dishonest religion.

In the Free Inquiry debate Mr. David A. Noebel rightly states that 
Humanism is a religion, then he makes the amazing statement that; "The 
religion of Secular Humanism is the only worldview allowed in the public 
schools. All other competing worldviews have been declared illegal by the 
U.S. Supreme Court and effectively eliminated bit by bit -- 1962 (prayer), 
1963 (the Bible), 1980 (Ten Commandments), and 1987 (God)."

All the things that were removed from the Public Schools were sectarian 
religious views of the Christian belief. Christians should be ashamed for 
having forced their beliefs into our public schools and upon non-Christian 
children -- the Higher Religions do not do that.

And "worldview" Mr. Noebel? We do not send our children to school to learn 
someone's "worldview;" yours, mine or any. We send children to school, and 
pay great amounts for College, to EDUCATE our children. Schools are to 
teach what mankind knows, not what this or that "worldview" might believe. 
The lesser religions are so powerful that the facts of history, science, 
philosophy, etc., that disprove, or seem to disprove, their religious 
assumptions are simply not taught, or taught in such a way that they seem 
not to contradict the ancient mistakes. We do not need more money to make 
our schools better, we need less "worldview."

If we are to judge what is and what is not religion we must ask if 
Christianity and other lower religions are really religions. If a 
religious system has lost its myths and fables to the advance of science 
and human knowledge, is it still a religion? Or is it simply an entrenched 
power structure that corrupts science, changes historic facts, retards 
human progress and interferes in world affairs for its own survival, 
power, and profit? Is there a troubled spot in the world today that is not 
caused by a difference of religion -- a conflict between the various sects 
and factions within, or among, the lower religions?

The Higher Religions, such as Humanism, are in every way religions because 
they address every aspect of the religion problem. The very first clause 
of the First Amendment clearly states that "Congress shall make no law 
respecting an establishment of religion . . ." In law that part of the 
First Amendment is known as the Establishment Clause; and the remainder of 
the statement; "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" is known as the 
Free Exercise Clause. The Supreme Court has said that the Establishment 
Clause is absolute.

    ZORACH v. CLAUSON; 1952.
    "There cannot be the slightest doubt that the First Amendment reflects 
the philosophy that Church and State should be separated. And so far as 
interference with the "free exercise" of religion and an "establishment" 
of religion are concerned, the separation must be complete and 
unequivocal. The First Amendment within the scope of its coverage permits 
no exception; the prohibition is absolute."

While the Constitution clearly states that Congress shall make no law 
respecting an establishment of religion, the United States Government has 
enacted and enforces rules that establish preferred religions, and 
discriminates against those religions the Government refuses to establish. 
Government establishment of any religion(s) is a flagrant affront to the 
Establishment Clause.

For establishment purposes the U.S. Government pretends the Higher 
Religions are not religions at all, and thus cannot share the special 
benefits and immunities showered upon the lower religions through 
Government establishment and favors. Government establishment of the lower 
religions has preserved dead religions and allowed them to become 
religio/political powers that are a great danger to this nation. Therefore 
what is, and what is not, a religion is no longer a simple academic 
question, it has broad political ramifications and threatens the very 
foundations of the United States as a free Nation and as a world leader.
