Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
I could be wrong, but I suspect there are some people who believe in a deity, participate in a pseudo-religious humanistic congregation, and yet do not claim to derive their morals from their deity - they derive them this secular groundwork. So, the "religion" they practice takes on more of a personal-comfort role.
All of those churches would, more or less, go into the business of personal comfort, I guess. Perhaps something closely akin to the entertainment industry, but of a more personal and psychologically necessary (for some people) nature.
Also, as a reminder, I did correct that part of my writing by pointing out that most Humanists probably are atheists, or at the very least agnostics.
The Freedom of Speech applies to government intervention. As a collection of private, non-government organizations, the Humanist movement does have the right to say "we will not support any group that tries to make claims of fact that are clearly and demonstratably false", if it wants to.
Not all people who believe in God believe theirs is the One True God. Many believers are willing to admit that there are many equally "legitimate" ways to praise the Lord.
There could be issues of diplomacy, here. It might be a better strategy to reverse the steps: Do not call them "stupid" right off the bat. Instead, just give them a little education, and let them try to discover for themselves that their ideas could be called stupid.
That could well be true, but I think morality could best be "measured" in the actions one takes, not in where they claim those morals came from. If one acts like a very good, moral person, even if their beliefs are based on "stupid" ideals, I don't think you can generally call them immoral.
As I stated earlier, some folks have no problem believing in a god or deity of some sort, and claim nothing more than it being their own perception.
Sure, it ended up acting as a bad side effect, in the end. That does not diminish the importance of acknowledging that spirituality is integrated into our evolution, and it is simply not that easy to shed off completely.
Although is it not the goal of Humanism to get rid of all religion, in a way Humanism might be the best bet for accidentally having it got rid of. Here's an analogy to think about:
Most people who have successfully quit smoking, have done so by slowly weaning themselves away from the habit, rather than just up-and-quitting cold turkey.
Perhaps the best strategy for ridding the world of religion is to allow it to get weaned away, slowly, generation by generation.
If you attempt to up-and-rip-out religion from the people, cold turkey, you are going to get a lot of resistance, and it could backfire: Many people will cling to their beliefs even stronger, if they feel they are threatened.
I say let religion fade away, slowly, in an evolutionary process, much like how it got into our mentality, in the first place. Humanism could be a step in that process: It could end up functioning like a nicotine patch.
