Humanism is an ethical life stance that allows human beings to give meaning and shape to their lives without appeal to the supernatural. Humanist values are derived from reason and inspired by compassion, not by unproven and unprovable religious assumptions. Since the law is often thought to be an area based on neutral principles and guided by an unbiased process, it might be expected to provide a counterbalancing force to a politics heavily infused with religious sentiment. In fact, humanism has an uphill battle to fight in both politics and law, not only in theocratic states where religious notions provide the bedrock principles for the legal system, but even in so-called secular nations like the United States. Area IV will examine how humanism should influence the legal system, political behavior, and public policy, without jettisoning important values like religious freedom, tolerance, and separation of church and state.

Courses available in Area IV:

Area IV of the COHE examines the application of humanist principles in both the legal and political spheres. Conventional wisdom has it that the professions of law and politics are separate spheres that should be kept far apart from one another. On one hand, the art of making law is considered to be a rough-and-tumble business -- an activity in a democracy that employs negotiation, compromise, and even a little horse-trading by elected officials in their often disorganized attempts to express the will of the people. On the other hand, interpreting the law should be a solemn, sober business based on adherence to principle -- not preference. From this perspective, judges should simply apply the law as they find it, not substitute their own personal or political inclinations for its dictates.

This perspective, of an artificial boundary separating these two activities, is in reality little more than an unexamined assumption one learns and recalls from a grade school class on civics. When it comes to sorting out principle and pragmatism, the law and politics are much more closely entwined than one might initially suspect. This is especially true in the United States where the notion of judges mechanically applying the law is viewed by most serious scholars as an oversimplification that has outworn it usefulness. It is fairly obvious to most court watchers that judges have frequently joined political expediency with their legal duties. A liberal city judge who thinks marijuana smoking is harmless conduct may dismiss or lessen the punishment of each offender brought before him. Likewise, a conservative rural judge who views drinking and driving as an unmitigated evil, one that exacts a terrible toll on society, may give every offender of a DWI the maximum punishment. (These discretionary choices of leniency or severity are offered as illustrations not to praise or condemn a certain political viewpoint. They are simply indications that the decision-making process of judges is invariably based on a political calculus, especially when the judge may be facing re-election in the fall.)

In countries outside the U.S., the judicial branch may be even more rigidly controlled by the government, with little room for jurists to independently apply the law without being pressured by both external and internal political forces. One might concede at this point that a realistic understanding of most legal systems throughout the world will lead to the conclusion that most, if not all, are invariably tainted with politics. The question, then, is not whether the courts are infused with political intrigue, but whether they ought to be. And if they are, can we eliminate or alleviate the influence of politics on the judiciary if such an influence is deemed to be an undesirable burden on that system? Finally, what can (and should) the individual do, if anything, to make law more harmonious with humanistic principles of justice? Or should the humanist respond by simply playing the same political game as other special interests in getting his or her agenda advanced? We hope to provide some answers to these vital questions in our Cornerstone Course: Religion and the Constitution.  Back to top

The Cornerstone Course takes a look at the relationship of law and politics in the troublesome area of freedom of religion or belief. It specifically focuses on this area of the law as it is understood and practiced in the United States. Since humanists are equally concerned with freedom from religion as with freedom of religion, this course will be critical in determining how humanists should respond to new developments in First Amendment law. Religion and the Constitution will also provide the background and the vocabulary necessary for understanding future courses on related topics.

The Cornerstone Course will primarily examine and explain the case history of the U.S. Supreme Court from the beginning of the republic to its most recent cases dealing with prayer in school, ceremonial deisms, and public funding of religious organizations. When the student has carefully read through the various religious controversies that have come to the fore in the history of this nation, he or she will be in a better position to understand why many intelligent and principled persons come to different conclusions when addressing this vexing issue. This initial offering is, then, an exhaustive historical look at the clauses in the Constitution that specifically pertain to religious freedom.

In later modules the instructor will offer his own views on what he deems to be the correct approach to these thorny questions, including the charged issues of religious exemptions and separation of church and state. In the future the Institute hopes to create related courses in the field of politics and law similar to the current offering on religious freedom. We hope that you avail yourself of this course. We are sure you will find this intriguing topic both informational and thought-provoking.  Back to top

This introductory course will familiarize students with many issues confronting humanists in matters of the First Amendment. This amendment is split into two parts: the Free Exercise Clause, which provides for freedom of religion, and the Establishment Clause, which provides for freedom from religion. In particular, it will examine the following issues:

• conflicts between the law and religion;
• whether religious groups and individuals should receive special treatment when religiously-neutral laws unintentionally infringe upon their religious practices;
• whether separation of church and state was intended by the Founding Fathers or is simply a better system;
• the incidence of religious discrimination and intolerance in the United States;
• a historical perspective of the Supreme Court in defining religious freedom;
• discrimination specifically aimed at humanists and freethinkers by the courts and political branches; and
• the importance of a legal education in addressing these concerns

The free LAP100-1 Cornerstone Introductory Module will define key concepts related to U.S. Constitutional law and the legal system and provide a brief preview of the major controversies surrounding the First Amendment.

The LAP100-2 Cornerstone Basic Module will focus on the Free Exercise Clause and various understandings of religious freedom as seen from competing Constitutional frameworks. This section will examine cases from the very beginning of the U.S. republic to very recent contemporary controversies involving whether the courts sanction religious discrimination or afford special treatment to religious interests. It will plumb the jurisprudence of various justices and examine how shifting blocs on the court have led to reversals of precedent over time. Students will take interactive quizzes to see how well they are understanding and retaining the material.

The LAP100-3 Cornerstone Comprehensive Module will explore the Establishment Clause in the first lesson and how this provision relates to the doctrine of church/state separation. In lesson two the instructor will advance his own views why a humanist interpretation of both clauses will provide the fairest and most practical reading of the First Amendment. In the final lesson the instructor will show what the landscape of the legal system might look like if the implications of lesson two were adopted and followed. Students will not only take interactive quizzes in this section, but will be required to reply with longer answers to specific questions. By this point the student should have attained considerable background in Constitutional law cases and concepts.

Future courses within Area IV will examine more specialized topics in politics and the law. Students seeking to go on to higher modules within these courses will be expected to become even more involved in interactive communications with the instructor.  Back to top