In conversation with Christians, I am frequently told that
my secular worldview is akin to a religion. Recently, one of them linked me to
the following page:
“Has the Supreme Court defined religion?”
The following paragraphs are adapted from my reply. Of
course, it is not a comprehensive investigation of the issue. However, I learned
some interesting things.
• Davis v. Beason defined religion in traditional theistic
terms.
• Wisconsin v. Yoder stated, “Not all beliefs rise to the
demands of the religious clause of the First Amendment. There needs to be
evidence of true and objective religious practices.”
• Thomas v. Review Board initially concluded that a
Jehovah’s Witness had “made a merely personal philosophical choice, rather than
a religious choice” in resigning from his job.
• Torcaso v. Watkins struck down religious tests for public
office.
• United States v. Seeger and Welsh v. United States
affirmed “conscientious objector” status for people who don’t believe in any
gods.
Looking at these examples, I see a mix of cases that affirm
the idea of religion as distinct from a secular worldview (Davis v. Beason,
Wisconsin v. Yoder, Thomas v. Review Board) and cases that prevent
discrimination against those who do not hold traditional religious worldviews
(Torcaso v. Watkins, United States v. Seeger, Welsh v. United States).
I also want to touch on the Torcaso v. Watkins footnote.
From Wikipedia, “Justice Black's use of the term ‘secular humanism’ in his
footnote has been seized upon by some religious groups . . . as a ‘finding’
that any secular or science-based activity is, in fact, religion.” According to
the article, “This assertion is based on a reference to court cases where
organized groups of self-identified humanists, or ethicists, meeting on a
regular basis to share and celebrate their beliefs, have been granted
religious-based tax exemptions.” Those exemptions were decided in Washington
Ethical Society v. District of Columbia and Fellowship of Humanity v. County of
Alameda, both of which involved organized groups of non-theists seeking tax
exemptions—exemptions like those already given to churches.
In the former case, “The court decision did not address the
question of whether the ideas of Ethical Culture were inherently religious; it
merely determined that the Washington Ethical Society functioned like a church
and so was entitled to similar protections.” In the latter case, the court
determined that tax exemptions for churches must be justified in terms of
non-religious aspects. The decision reads, “Direct tax subsidies of any church
. . . are undoubtedly prohibited by the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution . . . [so] a logical and legal justification of such provisions
must be found.”
Their justification for tax-exempting churches was that “it
is sound public policy to encourage, by tax exemption as well as by direct
subsidy, private undertakings in the fields that are properly within the realm
of governmental responsibility. Thus, welfare, charitable and private
educational grants and subsidies are valid. All churches that warrant the exemption
perform some of these tasks. Therefore, churches can be indirectly subsidized
for the performance of these tasks. . . . [and] if the state can
constitutionally subsidize those functions of religious groups which are not
related to ‘religion’ in its narrow sense, then it must subsidize those
nontheistic groups which perform the same functions.”
A pursuant decision in Kalka v. Hawk also commented on the
Torcaso footnote: “The Court's statement in Torcaso does not stand for the
proposition that humanism, no matter in what form and no matter how practiced,
amounts to a religion under the First Amendment. The Court offered no test for
determining what system of beliefs qualified as a ‘religion’ under the First
Amendment. The most one may read into the Torcaso footnote is the idea that a
particular non-theistic group calling itself the ‘Fellowship of Humanity’
qualified as a religious organization under California law."
So where does that leave us? Before asking that question, I
think we should clarify what distinction we’re trying to make, and why that
distinction matters.
In the past, I have stated, “Everyone has a worldview. Not
everyone has a religion. (That is, unless you water down the definition of
‘religion’ to become almost meaningless.)”
I based that on Merriam-Webster’s definition of religion:
1st definition: “the service and worship of God or the
supernatural.”
4th definition: “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs
held to with ardor and faith.”
The 4th definition is the “watered-down” definition of
religion that I mentioned. It’s worth noting that the related word “religious”
does not have a corresponding 4th definition, even though it has corresponding
definitions 1-3, including, “relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an
acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.”
So, I hope we can agree that the primary definition of
“religion” involves the supernatural, and that secular belief systems count as
“religions” only in the loosest terms.
The next question is why that distinction matters. Even if
you manage to prove that my worldview can be called a “religion,” what does that
accomplish? Why are you so eager to bring my worldview into parity with a
religion? I’ve encountered such arguments from religious people many times, and
I can only assume that it’s an attempt to drag my perspective down to the same
level of legitimacy.
This must be a common problem because it’s been addressed by
high-profile figures like Bill Maher. He said, “When it comes to religion,
we're not two sides of the same coin, and you don't get to put your unreason up
on the same shelf with my reason. Your stuff has to go over there, on the shelf
with Zeus and Thor and the Kraken, with the stuff that is not evidence-based,
stuff that religious people never change their mind about, no matter what
happens.”
Regardless of how you choose to label my worldview, it is
not based on a holy book, and it does not include unshakeable beliefs that
transcend observable reality. In every important way, it is not a religion.
As the saying goes...
"If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color."
