Editing Secular humanism (section)

===Case law===

====''Torcaso v. Watkins''====
The phrase "secular humanism" became prominent after it was used in the [[United States Supreme Court]] case ''[[Torcaso v. Watkins]].'' In the 1961 decision, Justice [[Hugo Black]] commented in a footnote, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the [[existence of God]] are [[Buddhism]], [[Taoism]], [[Ethical Culture]], Secular Humanism, and others."

====''Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda''====
The footnote in ''Torcaso v. Watkins'' referenced ''[[Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda]]'',<ref>[http://online.ceb.com/CalCases/CA2/153CA2d673.htm ''Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda''], 153 Cal.App.2d 673, 315 P.2d 394 (1957).</ref> a 1957 case in which an organization of humanists<ref name="Kalka v Hawk">[http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/98-5485a.txt ''Ben Kalka v Kathleen Hawk, et al.''] (US D.C. Appeals No. 98-5485, 2000)</ref> sought a tax exemption on the ground that they used their property "solely and exclusively for religious worship." Despite the group's [[non-theistic]] beliefs, the court determined that the activities of the ''Fellowship of Humanity'', which included weekly Sunday meetings, were analogous to the activities of [[theistic]] churches and thus entitled to an exemption. The ''Fellowship of Humanity'' case itself referred to ''[[Humanism]]'' but did not mention the term ''secular humanism''. Nonetheless, this case was cited by Justice Black to justify the inclusion of secular humanism in the list of religions in his note. Presumably Justice Black added the word ''secular'' to emphasize the non-theistic nature of the ''Fellowship of Humanity'' and distinguish their brand of humanism from that associated with, for example, [[Christian humanism]].

====''Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia''====
Another case alluded to in the ''Torcaso v. Watkins'' footnote, and said by some to have established secular humanism as a religion under the law, is the 1957 tax case of ''[[s:Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia|Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia]]'', 249 F.2d 127 (D.C. Cir. 1957). The ''Washington Ethical Society'' functions much like a church, but regards itself as a non-theistic religious institution, honoring the importance of ethical living without mandating a belief in a [[supernatural]] origin for ethics. The case involved denial of the Society's application for tax exemption as a religious organization. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court's ruling, defined the Society as a religious organization, and granted its tax exemption. The Society terms its practice [[Ethical Culture]]. Though Ethical Culture is based on a humanist philosophy, it is regarded by some as a type of religious humanism. Hence, it would seem most accurate to say that this case affirmed that a religion need not be [[theistic]] to qualify as a religion under the law, rather than asserting that it established generic secular humanism as a religion.

In the cases of both the ''Fellowship of Humanity'' and the ''Washington Ethical Society,'' the court decisions turned not so much on the particular beliefs of practitioners as on the function and form of the practice being similar to the function and form of the practices in other religious institutions.

====''Peloza v. Capistrano School District''====
The implication in Justice Black's footnote that secular humanism is a religion has been seized upon by religious opponents of the teaching of [[evolution]], who have made the argument that teaching evolution amounts to teaching a religious idea. The claim that secular humanism could be considered a religion for legal purposes was examined by the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] in ''[[Peloza v. Capistrano School District]]'', 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994), ''cert. denied'', 515 U.S. 1173 (1995). In this case, a science teacher argued that, by requiring him to teach evolution, his school district was forcing him to teach the "religion" of secular humanism. The Court responded, "We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or Secular Humanism are 'religions' for [[Establishment Clause]] purposes." The Supreme Court refused to review the case.

The decision in a subsequent case, ''Kalka v. Hawk et al.'', offered this commentary:<ref name="Kalka v Hawk"/>
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>