[Serious] How many reasonable solutions are there to any particular social issue?

[The Grand Nudger]

It means the same thing that religious humanism does.  Secular humanism is secular with respect to -other- religions (but certainly not all of them - plenty of fuckin "buddhists", eh?).

Consider this.  As a secular humanist, can you imagine any reason why you wouldn't want humanist principles, values, and conclusions informing your government and society?

Yes I have a problem, if the root was religious.

Quick example: a sect of Christianity with a central belief that homosexuality is to be cured instead of accepted would maintain that the greatest humanitarian decision regarding homosexuals would be to "treat" them of their horrible affliction and their belief would be informed from their bible.

I just wholly reject your "-other- religions" idea

I'd say you've offered a demonstration of it. Religious Humanism is not a reference to christians with humanist leanings.  It is a religion...it's own religion.  

The root of humanist principle, value, and conclusions is in human being - not magic books.  It's worth giving it the time.  The secularism of secular humanism is in explicit reference to things like that, and when looking for some problem you would have, you offered a problem with christianity - not humanism.  It is a problem, ofc, when any religion turns vice into virtue.  

The point - and I think I made it well if you couldn't imagine an objection that you would have - is that you are in no way secular with respect to humanism.  

Secular Humanism is simply NOT a religion and you are muddying the waters unnecessarily.

I would also assert that you need not link religious and humanism because religion has a main thrust of being the best thing for humans without an added word whereas secularism needs the humanism part to differentiate from the negating idea of secular(which simply indicates not religious, or without a god).

Being a religious humanist has nothing to do with magic books or gods - or with afterlives -.  Humanism (of any kind) asserts that humanism is the best thing for humans.   That's the religious belief that religious humanists hold.  They feel - and I agree - that it makes religious claims and is compelling to them in the same way that equal claims from other religions are.  

While the religious humanist and you, the secular humanist, are both secular in that specific way (ala policy and norms should be set by reference to human being - rather than divine authority or holy writ) - neither of you are likely to be secular..in that way..towards each others beliefs.  Because you share them, and believe they are the best for humanity.   You can't imagine any reason that your government and society shouldn't be informed by humanist principles, values, and conclusions.  In fact you think it has potential to be a voting bloc.  There are other religions that you would be unlikely to come up with an objection to as well - specifically with their influence in government and norm setting.  Religions of nature, for example.   They are also likely candidates for that bloc.

---

It would be very interesting to know what kind of practices people had in the time that the Venus of Willendorf was made. Maybe you can tell us?

We know quite a bit about practices that people had.  The figurine is, itself, a demonstration of just such a broadly distributed practice.  

I'm very skeptical that people in those days divided their society along the same lines that we do. The idea that there was a set of practices they called "religion" seems unlikely. The probability that they had something they called "religion" in opposition to "science" or "government" seems small to me. 

I'd refer you back to durkheims anthropological definition of religion, and then ask you what you think you're being skeptical about. A set of beliefs about things set apart and forbidden, which unites all who adhere to them into a moral whole.