We hear the statement, "Secular humanism poses a great threat to our institutions and our way of life" recited verbatim almost as if it were the Pledge of Allegiance -- perhaps because we hear the assertion almost as often as the Pledge of Allegiance.  I certainly heard it daily when I was a born-again believer and regular listener to KERI radio.

And it was recently asserted on this blog.

I am now asking for some substantiation, some support, for that assertion.

To be fair, I can understand a bit of the apprehension.  The sensibilities of secular humanist activists seems, shall we euphemistically say, a little dull at times. 

The "Blogswarm against Theocracy," for instance, appeared deliberately timed to lash out during the Easter weekend.  Not only is this, in my opinion, a misdirected swipe at Christianity -- even though I wholeheartedly believe in their mission -- but its timing is even misplaced. 

Most theocrats like to preach their fire-and-brimstone (or, more precisely, gunfire-and-stoning) homilies on or near July 4th.  In other words, a much more appropriate time for the Blogswarm Against Theocracy would have been Independence Day -- and its mission -- by its timing alone -- would have resonated with a far wider audience.

Especially the audience that they are hoping to reach: the moderate religionist.

So, in one sense, I can empathize with the feelings of threat to "our way of life."

But getting back on topic:  I want some real, definitive answers.

>  What are "our institutions?"

> What is "our way of life?"

> How, specifically, does secular humanism threaten either?

> If it indeed threatens either, what about secular humanism makes it worse -- so much worse -- than what it is allegedly trying to supplant?

I have a few inklings, stemming from what seem to be two very different concepts of "America."

Some people identify "America" with the dominance of a particular religion (Christianity) and the observance of a specific social code by a great majority of Americans.  Some take it a little further, and identify America with the traditional dominance of the male gender.  Some take it further still, including the dominance of the white race into the mix. 

But regardless of the strength of the vision embraced by such folk, the basic theme is the same: they identify "America" with the prevalence of a specific culture and its dominant religion.  If these change, America isn't "America" anymore.

Others, such as myself, identify "America" with a paradigm of freedom, opportunity, and individualism -- and the perpetuation of a government structured so as to preserve it.  When I say the Pledge of Allegiance, I'm thinking of a country in which I'm free to pursure my dreams and choose my destiny as I see fit -- as long as I'm not hurting others.  The Pledge itself says much the same thing.  And I think of a country where I have avenues of redress -- ways to legally protect myself should the government start doing things to its citizens that the Law of the Land says it must not do.

The Founding Fathers made it perfectly clear which "America" they were founding.  They put most of their combined effort and brainpower into establishing a nation with legal protections of freedom and provisions for opportunity -- and virtually no effort toward the deliberate perpetuation of a specific dominant culture.

So, I think this, above, may have something to do with it.  From my perspective, secular humanism would strengthen, preserve, and protect our way of life -- if we define "our way of life" as the existence and valuation of America's promise of liberty and opportunity.  (How?  See here:)

But I want to know more from people who make the opposite claim.  Just how does secular humanism "threaten our institutions and our way of life?"

.