There are many definitions of secular humanism but, to avoid accusations of bias, let us stick to those in the Oxford dictionary. Humanism is defined as “the religion of humanity,” and the religion of humanity is itself defined as “rejecting the supernatural” and “concerned only with man’s welfare.” Thus, humanism rejects God and His laws. Secular is an adjective with many (often seemingly opposite) meanings. Its noun “secularism” is more explicit. “Secularism is a doctrine” which, among other teachings, “claims (i) that the basis of morality should be non-religious and (ii) that there should be a policy of excluding religious teaching from schools under state control.” 

Secular humanism teaches that there is no God, no absolute notion of right or wrong, no clear-cut standards of behavior, no God-given rights, and that man is supreme. 

The major target of the humanists is Christianity and they find ready allies in the media, universities, the U.N., Planned Parenthood and in the courts - including the Supreme Courts of both Canada and the U.S.A. 

It was these courts which overturned laws against abortion in the two countries, and gave us abortion on demand. Many U.S. courts have ordered hospitals to remove food and fluids from patients (not all comatose) in order to end their lives. 

Until the last 125 years the basis of the law in Canada (apart from Quebec) and the U.S.A. was English common law, which had its foundation in Christian law. Today Christianity is being replaced (or has been replaced) by humanism. Some court rulings include: 
 

• the banning of the Lord’s Prayer in schools by an Ontario court; 
• students in parts of Colorado are forbidden to sing carols, exchange Christmas cards, even wish someone a happy Christmas, on school property; 
• the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a creche could not be displayed in a public place at Christmas time (County of Allegheny v ACLU, July 1989); 

the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in classrooms, 1980. Unbelievably the Court explained that the Commandments were “plainly religious” and they could induce the students “to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey the Commandments.” The Court did not explain why students should be “protected” from meditating and obeying Commandments forbidding murder, theft, and perjury, which - after all - are part of the fundamental code of Western civilization.