John H. Calvert has written this entertaining argument regarding the establishment of “Religious Humanism” as the official state religion. The arguments made are spurious and unsupported. There are rampant examples of basic logical fallacies that I learned about in my first college course on logic.

I have no reason to doubt his account of the process that “Religious Humanism” became “Secular Humanism” however I do think that he over reaches when implying that all Atheists are by default “Secular Humanists”. I identify as an Atheist but I am not sure I would identify myself as a “Secular Humanist”. I know I agree with some of their tenets but I am not sure, being unfamiliar with a detailed description of their tenets, that I would agree with all of them. What he fails to understand is fundamentally simple and shows his complete lack of critical thinking skills.

The reason it may seem that the tenets of “Secular Humanism” are being taught in our schools is because they are based on the findings of Science. Secular Humanists, by definition, trust Science as the best source of knowledge about the universe. As an rationalist and free thinker, I believe that Science is the best way to arrive at the correct answer. I am not saying that it always arrives at the correct answer. Just look at the Drug approval and recall process. In some cases, the science was bad, and those people should be disciplined. In others, the science was good but just not good enough. However, the vast majority of drugs that make it to the market are never found to cause any issues that were not discovered during trials. Sometimes the side-effects are worth it.

His argument also make claims that are unsupported by facts presented in the argument. For instance:

Its adherents have infiltrated mainstream Christian denominations and are causing them to change their tenets and morality to embrace modern evolutionary theory, sexual promiscuity and other concepts antagonistic to individual and family values historically shown to be so important to a strong, healthy and vibrant culture.

I wonder what Secular Humanists are teaching sexual promiscuity? Is sex education supposed to promote sexual promiscuity? My daughter is 12 and had some health classes last school year in 6th grade and I can tell you I see no signs of sexual promiscuity coming on. Also, what evidence is there that Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection or any other Secular Humanist tenet is antagonistic to values that promote “a strong, healthy and vibrant culture?”

I don’t know what I expect from the WorldNutDaily but still, this kind of naive argument needs to be pointed out a laughed at. John H. Calvert, you are either a simpleton with no more knowledge then a second grader or you are deliberately lying to people to further your group’s political agenda. There can really be no other explanation of the obviously fallacious argument.