Well, I have mixed feelings about this one. According to ThinkProgress, which considers this a “major win” for atheists, a federal court in Oregon has ruled that secular humanism is a religion. The decision came in the case of a federal prisoner, Jason Holden, who wanted the right to have a secular humanism study group in his prison, similar to other religious study groups. This case gave him that right.

Federal Judge Ancer L. Haggerty ruled, in the case of American Humanist Association v. United States (his decision in full is here), that secular humanism is a “nontheistic religion” that is entitled to First Amendment Protection. There are other issues as well—and you can see them if you want to wade through the long decision—but this is the gist:

This y ear, the Seventh Circuit laid it out even more cle arly, when making accommodations in prisons, states must treat atheism a s favorably as theistic religion, and th at, [ w ]hat is true of atheism is equally true of humanism, and as true in daily life as in prison. Although this decision was issued after the alleged violations occurred, the court does not find the Seventh Circuit’s opinion to be revelatory or a departure from existing doctri ne. Rather, the court simply summarized the law as i t is commonly understood. Thus, the court find s that the right was clearly established. . .

and

The court finds that Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes. . .

What I don’t like about the decision (bad stuff first) is that it gives ammunition to those theists who argue that atheism, humanism, or any other non-theistic movement is “religious”, so “we’re just as bad as they are.” (Religious people should be very careful in making these tu quoque arguments, since they implicitly denigrate religion!) Secular humanism is not a religion, at least if you take the definition given in my go-to source, the Oxford English Dictionary:

Religion. Action or conduct indicating belief in, obedience to, and reverence for a god, gods, or similar superhuman power; the performance of religious rites or observances.

We have no gods.

But, in the main, I think this is a good decision, for it helps level the playing field between belief and nonbelief. For example, it means that secular humanist “preachers” should be have their housing allowances declared tax-free, as is the case now for “regular” preachers. (Of course, the right thing to do is eliminate such exemptions for everyone, something the Freedom from Religion Foundation is trying to do.) But by eroding the unwarranted preference for and authority of traditional theistic religions, I suppose the decision is a good one, and I agree with Greg Epstein:

“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.”

h/t: Barry