Why is it wrong to point out that the greatest minds in law (US Supreme Court) say that Atheism is a religion?

(((Adyghe!!)))

We can't help it if the justices are Christians. Hahahah!!

Good to see you again :D

Not all atheists are secular humanists. Some are far-right Objectivists out of the Ayn Rand school of thought. The Secular Humanist group to which I belong has Christian members, whom we welcome. A shared view of helping fellow humans is no impediment to membership. In other words, we have no religious/atheist test you must meet to join.

Abington vs. Schempp carries more weight. Torcaso v. Watkins was one of many cases fighting and leading to Abington vs. Schempp, which barely arrived on the Supreme Court's docket ahead of a similar, and stronger case out of Florida. Had the Florida case been heard, Christians would have been even angrier at the secular ruling. Be glad it was Abington vs. Schempp.

Atheism is not a religion.

An atheists is not by definition a secular humanist.

You distort the truth in your weak argument.

Although there may be similarities an atheist simply does not believe in the existence of any gods.

A secular humanist believes in a whole range of other things as well.

Many lawyers (including me), and many Americans, would doubt or dispute that occupancy a seat on the U. S. Supreme Court is any assurance that the occupant possesses one of the "greatest minds in American law."

To make a long and complicated story short[er] . . .

The U.S. federal courts have held "atheism" and "secular humanism" to be types of "religion" in specific cases in the context of First Amendment jurisprudence, and ONLY in that context, and the courts have done so IN ORDER TO PROVIDE AGGRIEVED CITIZENS with a remedy for instances of unconstitutional or unlawful religious-based discrmination AGAINST non-believers in traditional religions.

Various statutes and published court decisions have evolved all sorts of ad hoc, idiosyncratic "definitions" and "categorizations" that arguably do not make sense outside the arena of litigation and courtrooms. Black's Law Dictionary defines a "cat" as a "small four-footed domestic animal that catches mice." My father's Jack Russell Terriers were very good at catching and killing field mice. Did that make them "cats"? Of course not.

For a clearer idea of the narrow context in which the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts have defined "atheism" as a religion for specific First Amendment purposes, here is a good excerpt from the majority opinion in Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2005):

"But whether atheism is a "religion" for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a 'way of life,' even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 92 S. Ct. 1526 (1972). A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths), see Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, 6 L. Ed. 2d 982, 81 S. Ct. 1680 & n.11 (1961) ; Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197, 200-15 (3d Cir. 1979) (Adams, J., concurring); Theriault v. Silber, 547 F.2d 1279, 1281 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam), nor must it be a mainstream faith, see Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 714, 67 L. Ed. 2d 624, 101 S. Ct. 1425 (1981); Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1110 (7th Cir. 2003)."

"Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of "ultimate concern" that for her occupy a 'place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,' those beliefs represent her religion. Fleischfresser v. [*682] Dirs. of Sch. Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n.5 (7th Cir. 1994) (internal citation and quotation omitted); see also Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 340, 26 L. Ed. 2d 308, 90 S. Ct. 1792 (1970); United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 184-88, 13 L. Ed. 2d 733, 85 S. Ct. 850 (1965). We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir. 2003)."

[end of quotation]

Does an "atheist" (who may be a victim of religious-based discrimination and may be classified as having a "religion" for purposes of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment) REALLY have a "religion" in the real world? If "religion" is given a sensible and not a ridiculously broad defintion, of course not. In the real world, as distinct from the world of courtrooms and law libraries and trials, a person cannot have a "religion" unless he believes or pretends to believe in one or more "supernatural" or mystical beings, agents, or forces (such as deities) and believes that it is important to please or to obtain the approval or favor of those beings, agents, or forces.

Many Ethical Culture societies and Secular Humanist groups organize and conduct themselves in ways that make them barely distinguishable from "churches" as specifically defined by the U.S. Treasury Department for purposes of the exemption from federal income taxes as "religious organizations" under Code section 501(c)(3) [In my law practice I have worked extensively and occasionally lectured on nonprofit / charitable tax exemption issues. "Church" is scarcely used at all in the Internal Revenue Code (but has been defined by the IRS in regulations and other published guidance), and "religious organization" -- a category that IS used in 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) and the corresponding Treasury Regulations, is broader than "church."] I don't really care much one way or another about whether an Ethical Culture Society or particular Secular Humanist organization achieves its tax-exempt status as a religious organization or as some other type of nonprofit organization. The "religious" basis for exemption is not the only one available. As a taxpayer, I'd rather see fewer "religious organizations" qualify for tax-exempt status, particularly if they engage in significant political campaigning or lobbying or divert large sums of money into the custom-tailored pockets of their "reverend" leaders.

lol..here, read it, learn it, understand it

religion

NOUN:

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion

What's with the god worshipers and their constant need to label Atheists a religion, plz educate yourself, do you know how dumb you sound?

why stop at Atheists, why not call white people a religion, or math a religion, since Atheists and evolution is a religion

Secular humanism is a belief system of sorts, without a god.

So is buddhism.

That doesn't mean Atheism itself (condition of having no belief in gods) is a religion. Far from it.

They call it a religion for legal reasons. That doesn't make it an actual religion. It is just a way to make sure that some overzealous believers don't trample all over our rights.

.

Atheism is only an aspect of Secular Humanism. Atheism by itself isn't a religion.

Secular Humanism and Atheism are two different things.

Secular humanism, while atheistic, is not the embodiment of atheism.

Christianity is theistic, but are all theists Christians? No, of course not.

Atheism is a "belief" just like every other religion out there; pure and simple. If it works for you, that's just fine and dandy, but you shouldn't make other people change the way they believe; It's just plain wrong to change a person like this. They wouldn't be themselves if they did.