Looooong over-due ~ but here we go with word usage again: the word "religion" to me denotes a belief in God or gods, so I can understand why some Humanists are "chafing" at Humanism being declared a "religion", even tho I tend to agree with Greg Epstein's comments below ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Federal Court Delivers Big Win For Atheists’ Rights
by Jack Jenkins Posted on November 3, 2014 at 9:59 am Updated: November 3, 2014 at 10:11 am

An federal district court in Oregon has declared Secular Humanism a religion, paving the way for the non-theistic community to obtain the same legal rights as groups such as Christianity.

On Thursday, October 30, Senior District Judge Ancer Haggerty issued a ruling on American Humanist Association v. United States, a case that was brought by the American Humanist Association (AHA) and Jason Holden, a federal prisoner. Holden pushed for the lawsuit because he wanted Humanism — which the AHA defines as “an ethical and life-affirming philosophy free of belief in any gods and other supernatural forces” — recognized as a religion so that his prison would allow for the creation of a Humanist study group. Haggerty sided with the plaintiffs in his decision, citing existing legal precedent and arguing that denying Humanists the same rights as groups such as Christianity would be a violation of the Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution, which declares that Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

“The court finds that Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes,” the ruling read.

The decision highlights the unusual position of the Humanist community, which has tried for years to obtain the same legal rights as more traditional religious groups while simultaneously rebuking the existence of a god or gods. But while some Humanists may chafe at being called a “religion,” others feel that the larger pursuit of equal rights trumps legal classifications.

“I really don’t care if Humanism is called a religion or not,” Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University and author of Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe, told ThinkProgress. “But if you’re going to give special rights to religions, then you have to give them to Humanism as well, and I think that’s what this case was about.”

Humanism has grown — at least in terms of organization — rapidly over the past few years, with members establishing official Humanist chaplaincies at Harvard University, American University, Columbia University, and Rutgers University. Atheists — one of the many titles for a diversity of nonreligious Americans, which includes Humanists — have also successfully fought for the right to offer invocations at government meetings: Kelly McCauley, a member of the North Alabama Freethought Association, opened a City Council meeting in Huntsville, Alabama in September with an invocation that did not mention God but extolled the virtues of “Wisdom, Courage, Justice, and Moderation.”

“Nonreligious people are just one of the large groups in American society today,” Epstein said. “Increasingly, we need to be recognized not just for our non-belief, but also as a community, and this decision affirms that.”

Despite these successes, the movement to obtain legal rights for Humanists has also encountered stiff resistance. Atheists and Humanists are disproportionately underrepresented in Congress, for instance, and the American Humanist Association is currently in a lengthy battle with the U.S. military to establish formal Humanist chaplains for nonreligious soldiers. In June, the U.S. Navy rejected the application of Jason Heap for a commission as a chaplain.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/03/3587801/district-court-declares-secular-humanism-a-religion/

"Religion" doesn't necessarily include a god or gods.

True oskar:

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Or here, definition 1.2

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... h/religion

I found several articles that say it is hard to really define religion. It's a word with broad definitions. That may not have always been so. I imagine dictionaries of the past would only have included "God" or "gods" in all of its definitions.

Absent deity of some kind there's no difference between "religion" and "philosophy". Next thing you know there'll be a group of Milton Friedmanists demanding tax exemption status for their country clubs. Not sure this is a good precedent.

Why not?
Are religions so vulnerable that they need protections?
The real question, though, is why should they be tax-exempt in the first place?

What Oskar said!

theoretically, to keep them out of politics.

That certainly worked out well, eh?

Does that mean that Jabby's Non-Church can get tax free donations?

Only if it's part of the RNC (Rightie Nuttery Congregation).

I appreciate that the result may be more rights for atheists. However, I believe it is all a misreading of the establishment clause that has brought us here. "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means just that- no law establishing religion,- not that the law will establish that humanism is a religion that is equal to other religions and deserving of establishment. It means no establishment of ANY religion.

"Establish" and "recognize" aren't the same thing.

Recognition of a particular brand of faith as the official religion of the nation was the definition of "establishment of religion", when those amendments were written. England did have an official church, which was referred to in England as "The Established Church". It was supported by the English populace via taxation, and frowned upon any competition from folks with other religious ideas. That's what the famous Plymouth Rock people and the Quakers and the Baptists and Methodists and Roger Williams Catholics were trying to get away from when they came here, and what the Constitution writers were trying to avoid. Hence their choice of the word "establishment".

So if the government were going to establish Milton Friedmanism it would be making it the official state religion. Depending on the outcome of tomorrow's election, who knows? It may be the defacto state religion anyway.

Well, some would be pushing for Ayn Randianism.

Its official slogan is "Render nothing unto Caesar".

Its still got a bit of theological work to go ....