|
''Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda'' was a 1957 California Courts of Appeal case in the Fellowship of Humanity, an organization of humanists, sought a tax exemption from Alameda County, California on the ground that they used their property "solely and exclusively for religious worship." Despite the group's nontheistic 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. ==Significance== Along with ''Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia'', this was one of the earliest cases establishing the right in the U.S. of nontheistic institutions that function like traditional theistic religious institutions to be treated similarly to theistic religious institutions under the law. This case was cited by Justice Hugo Black in the decision for ''Torcaso v. Watkins'', in an obiter dictum listing "secular humanism" as being among "religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God." 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. Black's statement was somewhat misleading in that ''Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda'' did not address the question of whether the secular humanist ideas of the Fellowship of Humanity were religious; it merely determined that Fellowship of Humanity functioned like a church and so was entitled to similar protections. Subsequent cases such as ''Peloza v. Capistrano School District'' have clarified that "neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are 'religions' for Establishment Clause purposes." Unlike the question of tax exemption, Establishment Clause issues rest on whether or not ideas themselves are primarily religious. The decision for a subsequent case, ''Kalka v. Hawk'' et al., offered this commentary: :The Court's statement in ''Torcaso'' does not stand for the proposition that humanism, no matter in what form and no matter how practiced, amounts to a religion under the First Amendment. The Court offered no test for determining what system of beliefs qualified as a "religion" under the First Amendment. The most one may read into the ''Torcaso'' footnote is the idea that a particular non-theistic group calling itself the "Fellowship of Humanity" qualified as a religious organization under California law. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|