The Critical Need for Humanist Inclusion

What is Humanism?

According to our partners at the American Humanist Association, “Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good.”

While there is no one accepted Humanist dogma, there have been three Humanist Manifestos which outline what the movement believes in any given historical moment. Humanists argue that human beings are able to govern and organize themselves ethically without the guiding influence of a divine force. Like other belief systems, there is a wide diversity among members over what constitutes its core beliefs and not everyone agrees on a single definition.

‍How is the right to practice Humanism protected under the First Amendment?

For our purposes, it’s crucial to acknowledge that some Humanists consider it a religion while others do not. However, as repeatedly made clear by the Supreme Court and lower federal courts, the First Amendment protects not only traditional theistic systems but also comprehensive, non-theistic worldviews with religious freedom protections. This means that Humanism qualifies as a religion from a legal perspective because it fulfills the functional criteria that courts use to determine what counts as “religion” for purposes of constitutional and civil rights protections.

As made clear in a number of Supreme Court cases, including Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), United States v. Seeger (1965), as well as others, Humanism meets this standard because it provides a coherent set of ethical commitments, a vision of human purpose, and a framework for interpreting the world. Humanist communities also often organize themselves in ways analogous to traditional religious groups by providing ceremonies and life-cycle rituals and creating institutions that serve parallel roles to congregations or fellowships.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another. Interfaith Alliance affirms that Humanism must be treated as a religion to ensure theistic and non-theistic belief systems receive equal protection under the law.

‍What are some threats to Humanist inclusion?

In October 2024, a secular humanist group called the Center for Free Inquiry (CFI) filed a lawsuit in Texas challenging the state law that only official religious figures are able to solemnize weddings. Since CFI does not consider their Humanist practice a religion, they challenged the Texas law to allow their institutional representatives to officiate weddings. In response to the case McCutchan v Nicholson, the Texas judge originally ruled that CFI cannot be considered a religion because they do not believe in God.

While granting a victory to the State of Texas on the basis of a technicality (CFI did not have standing), this ruling also contradicted nearly six decades of legal precedent clarifying that non-theistic and atheistic beliefs can be religious expressions that require equal protection under the law. This decision risks undermining important religious freedom protections for other non-theistic religions, including Buddhists, Hindus, Reconstructionist Jews, and Unitarian Universalists, among many others.

The case is now being appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, a federal appellate court that hears appeals from the district courts in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, and is one of the most conservative courts in the country.

‍How is Interfaith Alliance responding?

In an amicus brief filed by the American Humanist Association and Interfaith Alliance, we weighed in for the narrow purpose of opposing the district court’s decision to not consider CFI a religion. It is our perspective that regardless of whether the organization CFI considers Humanism a religion, Humanists should be afforded equal religious freedom protections.

Critically: Because of how the district court concluded that CFI isn't a religious group because of their non-theism, they cast doubt on whether any non-theistic religions could be considered religious under the law. This directly threatens their ability to be afforded equal religious freedom protections.

We argue that Supreme Court precedent requires the inclusion of non-theistic religions within the scope of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses and that the district court’s decision would divest millions of Americans from these critical protections. The Supreme Court has adopted a functional definition of religion that centers on the role of the belief system in the life of the adherent, and non-theistic religions, including Humanism, meet this definition. To protect religious freedom for all, this ruling must be overturned.

‍What can we do about it?

For now, we must continue to affirm publicly and legally that Humanists and other non-theistic communities are entitled to full religious freedom protections. This includes supporting strong appellate advocacy, educating policymakers and the public about the constitutional basis for non-theistic religious inclusion, and reinforcing the principle that religious freedom applies equally to all belief systems. Interfaith Alliance will continue working with partners, monitoring the case closely, and mobilizing when necessary to ensure that no community is stripped of protections simply because their worldview does not affirm the existence of a deity.

‍