Court determining whether groups that boast of being ‘purely secular’ are actually ‘religious’

Do the Dallas Cowboys qualify as a “religious” organization in Texas? Or maybe the Sierra Club, Rotary International, Lions Club?

A fight is developing right now in federal court that could make that happen. That would be if a court ruling eliminates “any distinct meaning or limiting principle” to the definition of religion, and religious.

That ultimately could include “any individual who claimed a moral right to engage in certain behavior.”

The present court fight is over claims by the Center for Inquiry in Texas and one of its officers, Eric McCutchan, that theirs is a “nonreligious, philosophical institution with a secular mission.” Yet they are demanding the right to perform weddings, which under state law are allowed for leaders of religious organizations and judges.

The CFI and McCutchan have brought a case against Tarrant County Clerk Mary Louise Nicholson and District Attorney Phil Sorrells.

The district court found CFI was not a “religious organization” for the purposes of the Texas Family Code, and Becket, long an advocate for religious rights whose officials have represented literally every faith present in the United States, said that is what the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should confirm.

Becket is arguing on behalf of neither side in the fight, but said the historic definition of religion and religious need to be endorsed.

“Under any conceivable definition of ‘religious organization,’ CFI is not one,” Becket argues in a friend-of-the court filing. “By its own account, CFI is ‘a purely secular organization’ ‘dedicated to fostering a secular society grounded in reason, science, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values.'”

It confirms its mission is to “advocate for secular humanism,” which it defines as “a nonreligious worldview rooted in science, philosophical naturalism (rather than supernatural ism), and humanist ethics.”

Becket explains, “Because CFI expressly disclaims being ‘religious,’ the court need go no further. It is, admittedly, a nonreligious, philosophical institution with a secular mission.”

The filing explains that longstanding precedent includes that to be a religious organization, a belief or acknowledgement of a higher power be present.

That’s not the case with CFI.

“Thus, as a matter of both common sense and historical necessity, the task of defining ‘religious organization’ here is a simple one. CFI freely admits, and its mission and activities confirm, that it is not religious. And history confirms that CFI’s rejection of any transcendent authority or truth makes it nonreligious under the First Amendment and Texas law. The court should thus affirm the district court’s conclusion that interpreting ‘religion’ and ‘religious’ to cover CFI ‘ignores history and tradition,’ ‘distorts [those terms’] plain meaning,’ and ‘risks setting a dangerous precedent’ that would adversely affect longstanding protections for religious accommodations in a wide variety of settings,” the filing argues.

Becket explained, “Although Texas law permits only officers of religious organizations and judges to officiate weddings, the humanist group (which is anti-religious) wants to have its celebrants recognized in the same way as religious clergy.”

“Some people treat football like a religion, but that doesn’t mean Dallas Cowboys fans get constitutional protections as if they were churches or synagogues,” said Amanda Salz, Becket counsel. “Our Constitution draws a firm line: religion is one thing, and personal beliefs, no matter how strongly held, are another. We’re asking the court to keep that line clear.”

Becket said the case “is about ensuring that the word ‘religion’ keeps its historic, traditional, and constitutional meaning.”