In what case did the SCOTUS rule Atheism as religion?

Similar questions: case SCOTUS rule Atheism religion.

In Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), Justice Black of the US Supreme Court wrote the following footnote... "...Among the 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..." Many consider the inclusion of ethical culture and secular humanism as religions equivalent to the assertion that atheism is a religion. I suggest you read the following article, especially the highlighted part at the end.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) Supreme Court Decisions on Religious Liberty Background Information In the early 1960s, Roy Torcaso was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the position of Notary Public. When the time came for him to actually assume his duties, he was denied his commission and had his appointment rescinded because he refused to declare his belief in God.

Article 37 of Maryland's Declaration of Rights stated: No religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God. Torcaso filed suit in state court because he felt the test unfairly penalized him for not believing in God. Court Decision In a unanimous decision in 1961, the Supreme Court reuled that Maryland's religious test violated Torcaso's religious freedom.In his majority opinion, Justice Black stated that the need to protect people from taking religious test oaths was what led to the creation of Article 37 of the Constitution: No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

This was soon followed by the First Amendment which further guaranteeed basic religious liberties: We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. " Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs. The state tried to argue that they did not actually force anyone to profess a particular religious belief because no one was compelled to hold a public office - such positions are entirely voluntary.

The Court responded that no citizen should be asked to sacrifice constitutional liberties simply to hold a public office. Significance This decision prohibited the government from using religious faith as one of the criteria for assuming public office. The Court rejected the argument that holding such jobs is a privilege that can be restricted to people of some prescribed religious belief.

One of the reasons this case is important is some of the dicta which were attached to the final opinion. The term dicta is a plural and shortening of "obiter dictum," or "said in passing." Such statements are personal opinions of the justice - they are not necessary to the final result and have no legal force.

In a dictum footnote attached to this opinion, Justice Black wrote: Among the 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. This is frequently cited by people on the religious right as that the Supreme Court has declared Secular Humanism to be a religion, but such people are simply unaware of the fact that dicta have no legal force. Ignoring this uncomfortable fact, however, allows them to argue that any hint of Secular Humanism in schools is a violation of the separation of church and state - an ironic argument, since they would be happy to dispense with separation anyway.

Source: http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_TorcasoWatkins.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Supreme Court TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) 367 U.S. 488 ... " Footnote 11 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. See Washington Ethical Society v.

District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App.D.C.371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal.App.2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id. , at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed.

Revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47." TORCASO v. WATKINS, CLERK.

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.No.373. Argued April 24, 1961. Decided June 19, 1961. Sources: http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_TorcasoWatkins.htm ; http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=367&invol=488 .

2 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, where the court ruled that secular humanism is a religion. The court didn't come right out and say atheism is a religion, but this case has been used by other federal courts as precedent for considering atheism as a religion.

1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, where the court ruled that secular humanism is a religion. The court didn't come right out and say atheism is a religion, but this case has been used by other federal courts as precedent for considering atheism as a religion.

3 It is not accurate to say that they ruled that secular humanism is a religion since it was only mentioned in a footnote. Do they have meetings? Dogma?

Membership rolls? This user has been banned from Askville.

3 It is not accurate to say that they ruled that secular humanism is a religion since it was only mentioned in a footnote. Do they have meetings? Dogma?

Membership rolls? .

It is not accurate to say that they ruled that secular humanism is a religion since it was only mentioned in a footnote. Do they have meetings? Dogma?

Membership rolls?

Maximum20Characters replied to post #3: 4 No and its an oxymoron. Secular means "Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. " Humanism is a philosphy, not a religion: "A system of thought that rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth."I would assume I would fall into the identification of a secular humanist; its a set of values and a personal philosphy of life.

There is not theistic connection. It's ridiculous and a bias towards non-believers. If the opposition gets to claim a non-believer is a person of faith, they think they won some kind of brownie points.

No and its an oxymoron. Secular means "Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. " Humanism is a philosphy, not a religion: "A system of thought that rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth."I would assume I would fall into the identification of a secular humanist; its a set of values and a personal philosphy of life.

There is not theistic connection. It's ridiculous and a bias towards non-believers. If the opposition gets to claim a non-believer is a person of faith, they think they won some kind of brownie points.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.