I would say Secular Humanism may be not be theistic but I would say it is religious. Religion being defined in as:”a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.“. The unprovable contention that there is no god, is no different that the claim there is a god.

Wanting a secular society devoid of theistic influences is not a presupposed good.

Jon Heer Says: “but currently there does not seem to be enough arguments or discussions in politics to say we know where that line of morality is for us to explore up to and not pass.”

I would disagree, the moral judgement made by the current administration which are cause of much concern by SEA, are the line established. I do not agree with where that line is in some cases, but I am glad there is a line. We could talk this to death and in the mean times immoral science goes on. Or we can make a decision and then talk some more. I agree with the later.

Scott+

To science religion is opaque. At best those using the tools of science will say, “we don’t know and we can’t know” about any supernatural matters. There are no tools that can scry them out, there are no repeatable miracles to test, there are no hypotheses that are falsifiable to build a test to prove them. Therefore if a pure science organization appears secular, it’s no accident. They explicitly have no opinion about religious matters! That they espouse science teaching to not be colored by ideology is actually a good thing. It encourages people to explore the difference between the two. Ideology and religion are intensely personal. Science seeks to explain and explore what is universal.

There have been many intensely religious scientists. Don’t paint SEFORA with a broad brush without knowing its membership.

I disagree with the idea of fullest extent. If we must do something in order to make the observation, then what we should do is controlled by morals and ethics.

Secular Humanism doesn’t support one political group or another. It is a non-religious set of values. The reason it is often seen in politics is because America was designed to govern the people with no religious premise. This means no laws pushing people to do something they don’t believe, no faculty organized prayer in public schools. However, religious morals can still effect politics through the people elected, for example president Bush preventing funding for stem cell research. This was clearly done because of his religion, but that is completely within his rights. The issue and whole reasoning why the SEA was organized is that a lot of scientists (and people who wish to see science progress) don’t feel properly represented in our political system. It’s the same reasoning as having a Republican as president and a Democratic Congress, you have more checks and balances. The goal SEA is trying to make is to have more discussion in politics about what’s right what’s wrong with better information. So, the SEA doesn’t want to boot the morality of the general people out of the scientific community, but rather they would like to have better representation and communication with those making laws that effect the scientific community.

Addressing a paragraph in your article:
“What secular humanist and all who in effect worship at the altar of science miss is that there is more to knowledge than what we can observe. There is more to knowledge than human reason. I here will not get into philosophy concerning our knowledge of God. I will just say we have knowledge of God that we have obtained by means that are not testable by the scientific method.”
This may be true, or this may not be. Like you said, lets not get into philosophy concerning our knowledge of God. However, even with there being more to knowledge than what we can observe, we will always explore what we can observe to the fullest extent, and use what we find to make the world a better place.