Many wars could be fought in deciding which is the best or the more perfect moral standard, secular humanism or christian fundamentalism. Although both appear moral, if implemented incorrectly or abused they become dangerous. This is why I disagree with the statement: "A moral society is, by definition, a religious society, and secular humanism is harmful to America's political and cultural life."
             If a moral society was equivalent to a religious society, the world would be a scary place. Morality and religion are two very different things. Morals are the values you use to decide right from wrong, whereas religion relies on a higher-being or set of religious laws to decipher right from wrong. You could be the most religious person in the world and have absolutely no morals at all. In the article titled "Consequences" the author, Stanley J. Alluisi, demonstrates this fact in his article when referring to a mother of five who murdered all of her children. Alluisi states "Andrea Yates may be a murderer, but her actions were fully consistent with her belief in God and an after life." Although Andrea Yates was religious she lacked basic moral standards. Again in the article titled "Soldiers for Christ" (from the book Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence), the author, Mark Juergensmeyer, refers to Pastor Mark Bray, who in a religious frenzy bombed and supported countless bombings of abortion clinics, all in the name of God. It would seem obvious then, that religious belief does not guarantee moral behavior.
             Although secular humanism appears moral, I believe it no more guarantees moral behavior than religion does. Secular humanism relies on human thought and science. That in itself causes conflict, because man is fallible, no man or woman is perfect. Science is constantly evolving, although this is a necessary process, this also means secular humanist thought
             ...