The issue of whether and in what sense secular humanism might be considered a religion, and what the implications of this would be, has become the subject of legal maneuvering and political debate in the United States. The first reference to "secular humanism" in a US legal context was in
1961, although church-state separation lawyer
Leo Pfeffer had referred to it in his 1958 book,
Creeds in Competition.
Hatch amendment The
Education for Economic Security Act of 1984 included a section, Section 20 U.S.C.A. 4059, which initially read: "Grants under this subchapter ['Magnet School Assistance'] may not be used for consultants, for transportation or for any activity which does not augment academic improvement." With no public notice, Senator
Orrin Hatch tacked onto the proposed exclusionary subsection the words "or for any course of instruction the substance of which is Secular Humanism". Implementation of this provision ran into practical problems because neither the Senator's staff, nor the Senate's
Committee on Labor and Human Resources, nor the
Department of Justice could propose a definition of what would constitute a "course of instruction the substance of which is Secular Humanism". So, this determination was left up to local school boards. The provision provoked a storm of controversy which within a year led Senator Hatch to propose, and Congress to pass, an amendment to delete from the statute all reference to secular humanism. While this episode did not dissuade fundamentalists from continuing to object to what they regarded as the "teaching of Secular Humanism", it did point out the vagueness of the claim.
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, a 1957 case in which an organization of humanists 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
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: In the 1987 case of
Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County a group of plaintiffs brought a case alleging that the school system was teaching the tenets of an anti-religious religion called "secular humanism" in violation of the Establishment Clause. The complainants asked that 44 different elementary through high school level textbooks (including books on home economics, social science and literature) be removed from the curriculum. Federal judge
William Brevard Hand ruled for the plaintiffs agreeing that the books promoted secular humanism, which he ruled to be a religion. The
Eleventh Circuit Court unanimously reversed him, with Judge Frank stating that Hand held a "misconception of the relationship between church and state mandated by the establishment clause," commenting also that the textbooks did not show "an attitude antagonistic to theistic belief. The message conveyed by these textbooks is one of neutrality: the textbooks neither endorse theistic religion as a system of belief, nor discredit it". ==Notable humanists==