If a religious social service provider takes government money, it must play by the government's rules. This is one reason why libertarians have always questioned the wisdom of these subsidies. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Meanwhile, I would strongly oppose any government finding that private religious institutions who do not take government money must also play by the government's rules. The government may well certify pork for healthfulness, but it cannot and should not compel a kosher eatery to do the same. An identical principle applies here.

Your point about the strings which come with government money are well taken. However, at what point does it become religious discrimination to insist that a religious organization act against its convictions to be eligible for the same funding as a secular organization?

I think there needs to be a compelling governmental interest to overrule a religious organization's right to honor its own convictions. For instance, given that there are many secular adoption organizations available to gay couples who wish to adopt, the Catholic adoption charities in Boston should not have been forced to choose to either serve gay couples or close up shop.

at what point does it become religious discrimination to insist that a religious organization act against its convictions to be eligible for the same funding as a secular organization?

This is to me an unhelpful question. Suppose that we had a fully Christian government, one where all subsidy recipients had to conform to Christian morals (no birth control, no abortion, gay families need not apply, etc).

Now suppose that a secular humanist group wanted to get government money to offer social services as they saw fit. At what point would they be discriminated against?

The question is exactly the same as the previous one; together, both point at the same underlying problem, which is that government has supplanted private charity unacceptably. So long as the government offers charitable subsidies, there will be unending conflicts about who gets to spend what, and for what, and on whom.

Discrimination, you ask? It's built into the system itself.

I find it both intriguing and honest (whether intentionally or not) that your hypothetical uses "a secular humanist group" as the entity in the current position of religious groups, since many people (if not most) who would identify with secular humanism don't realize that it describes itself as a religion..... ;)

Point being, that if so, promoting those tenets of secular humanism is not only sponsoring a government religion but forcing it down the throats of those who disagree with its principles, not unlike the way in which the Church of England was forced down the throats of the early pilgrims to this country.

I think that Jason is pretty much on the money here, except that he and I would disagree about whether it's basically a good thing to have the government funding all sorts of services. And it's not really about religion though, is it? Any group with whatever values or goals it might have, whether it is religious or not, must nonetheless yield to the government's policies when participating in a government program.

I've never quite understood the situation with the Boston Catholic adoption thing -- could the agency have chosen to opt out of all government programs, and then continued to operate a no-gays-allowed adoption agency? Or was the ruling simply that no adoption program could operate without allowing in gay couples? If someone has a useful non-partisan link to share on this question, I'd appreciate it.

Different question: if a 'whites only' religious group wanted to operate a 'whites only' adoption service, without any government participation or support, should their racist religious beliefs trump the state's interest in not having racial discrimination as part of any extant adoption process? If not, then how is this different from the case in question?

The question is exactly the same as the previous one; together, both point at the same underlying problem, which is that government has supplanted private charity unacceptably.

I agree with that completely. Charity is much more effective and efficient when managed by private groups (secular as well as religious) than when managed by the government through tax dollars.

phil, my understanding is that Catholic Charities were not allowed to continue their adoption work even if they were completely privately funded. From this Weekly Standard article (featured on CBSNews.com):

To operate in Massachusetts, an adoption agency must be licensed by the state. And to get a license, an agency must pledge to obey state laws barring discrimination — including the decade-old ban on orientation discrimination. With the legalization of gay marriage in the state, discrimination against same-sex couples would be outlawed, too.

Therefore, it's not an issue of public funding (though I personally think they should be eligible for funding), but of state regulations.

I find it both intriguing and honest (whether intentionally or not) that your hypothetical uses "a secular humanist group" as the entity in the current position of religious groups, since many people (if not most) who would identify with secular humanism don't realize that it describes itself as a religion...

Read again. I take no position on whether secular humanism is a religion. (Further, I don't consider myself a secular humanist; I am a religious unbeliever, but I am a neo-Aristotelian in my ethics.)

Whatever they are, secular humanists offer a useful example, both because they are distasteful to conservatives and because their beliefs are solely a matter of private conscience.

The same cannot be said for the workings of a proper government, which are not questions of private conscience, but of public order and of the civic regulation of force. A proper government protects life, liberty, and property. It makes no claims about whether God exists or what we must or must not do as a result. A proper government neither prays, nor tells anyone else that they cannot pray.

[What] if a 'whites only' religious group wanted to operate a 'whites only' adoption service...

There would be no demand for this, as no parents are ever forced to take a child they do not voluntarily select. Sadly, any adoption service will tell you that there is more demand for white babies than black ones.

Meanwhile, I do know of a Jewish adoption service that connects biological mothers with adoptive families who pledge to raise the child as a Jew. I don't have a problem with this, but I can imagine others who might object.

To operate in Massachusetts, an adoption agency must be licensed by the state. And to get a license, an agency must pledge to obey state laws barring discrimination...

I would happily offer Catholic Charities an exemption. Better that everyone know how they feel from the outset; it's not as if I'd want to deal with a group like that in the first place. Yech.

since many people (if not most) who would identify with secular humanism don't realize that it describes itself as a religion..... ;)

Secular humanism doesn't "describe itself as a religion." It describes itself as secular.

greg

Sadly, any adoption service will tell you that there is more demand for white babies than black ones.

But I don't think this is necessarily racist. Presumably, most prospective parents would prefer to adopt a child of their own ethnicity. Since there are many more white people in America than black people, the demand for white babies is higher.

It may just not be an illuminating thought-experiment, but fwiw: I was imagining an agency that would only handle white babies. Racism on both the supply and demand side, as it were. I, for one, would have no problem under such circumstances with the government saying: no, we won't allow you to be an adoption provider.

(I agree with Eric, also, that a same-race preference for one's own adoption is not the same as racism.)

Here's something to consider: if you don't want religious adoption agencies to be bound by secular rules, how do you ensure they're caring safely and effectively for the children they place?

No, preferring a child of your own race is not racist. We've grappled with this issue ourselves, and I agree entirely.

But you're ignoring the other side of the equation: If both whites and blacks produce adoptable children in the same proportions -- and demand them in the same proportions -- then it won't matter a bit if whites are the majority. The demand and supply will be in equilibrium in both cases.

The reality, though, is that white babies almost always get adopted, while black babies have a much harder time. This may be because relatively more black women are putting children up for adoption, but I think it's naive to discount racism as a factor as well, even if that racism is not on the part of the adoptive parents.

Think of it this way: If you could ensure that your child would never be the victim of racism, wouldn't you do it? Adoptive parents can, by adopting a white baby. Sad that things have to be this way, but I'm sure that it happens.

Jason may be on to something. How else to explain the white mania for adopting Chinese babies? And the process is tortuous. I know, because friends did it.

Jody said: if you don't want religious adoption agencies to be bound by secular rules, how do you ensure they're caring safely and effectively for the children they place?

I'm certainly not arguing against any oversight of religious adoption agencies. They absolutely should be held accountable for ensuring the safety and well-being of the children they place. Whether or not they choose to place children with gay couples has no bearing on that (in fact, religious adoption agencies probably believe--as I do--that having same-sex parents is a less than ideal situation for a child).

Jason wrote: The reality, though, is that white babies almost always get adopted, while black babies have a much harder time.

From what I've read and heard and from my personal knowledge, it is highly unlikely that any adoptable black infants are languishing in foster care because no one wants to adopt them. It's far more likely that "the system" is keeping them from being adopted--e.g. they have relatives claiming custody rights--until they are older and less desirable (parents want to adopt infants or toddlers, not elementary school kids).

For instance, read this Jane Galt post.

We are white parents who adopted an 8-y-o black child who had been beaten and abandoned by both parents in the 1980s. The greatest obstacle we faced was the racism of the mid-20s black female social worker assigned to our case. I don't know if it is still the case but at the time I was informed she was following a policy prescribed by a professional association of black social workers.

"Secular humanism doesn't "describe itself as a religion." It describes itself as secular."

Hm. The Encyclopedia of Religion describes religion in the following way:

"In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."
(Winston King, Encyclopedia of Religion, p 7693)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

This is from the Humanist Manifesto II (1973):

“We affirm a set of common principles that can serve as a basis for united action -- positive principles relevant to the present human condition. They are a design for a secular society on a planetary scale…. We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life. Human life has meaning because we create and develop our futures. Happiness and the creative realization of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment, are continuous themes of humanism. We strive for the good life, here and now. The goal is to pursue life's enrichment despite debasing forces of vulgarization, commercialization, and dehumanization.”
http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html

And from Humanist Manifesto III (2003):

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.
http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm

Explain to me again how secular humanism does not define itself as a religion? A rose by any other name.....

"It's far more likely that "the system" is keeping them from being adopted."

That, and the concerns that if white parents adopt a black child, the white parents will never be able to raise the child to be a true "black" child - the basis for the claim appears to be that because of their race, white parents are not capable of raising a black child with all of the cultural and historical and other nuances fundamental to their heritage.

"Racist" may be too strong of a word to apply to the use of race selection in adopting a child (though the accuracy of the use of the term would depend on the definition of racism that is used), and it is certainly possible for someone who is not "a racist" to practice race selection in adopting a child, but in a way, this kind of racial discrimination is no different from any other kind. The intent of the person who discriminates and the impact of the discrimination may vary from context to context, but what all racial discrimination has in common is that it is the treatment of some people differently from others for reasons that do not make any sense. In considering this issue, I cannot think of a valid reason to prefer a child of one's own race to a child of another race.

Karl;
As an adoptive parent, you will one day explain the child's adoption. If you want the time and situation to be of your coosing, you will have to adopt a baby of like race.

Explain to me again how secular humanism does not define itself as a religion? A rose by any other name

Because, like science, adherence to the tenets of Secular Humanism does not require faith or dogma (and, in fact, rejects them).

It really can't be more clear than that.

secular: denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis

greg

Except you haven't addressed the implications of the definition that "Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture." Nothing in that definition depends on any faith, dogma or acceptance of any type of divinity.

Unless you're trying to assert that everything is a religion, that religiosity cannot be escaped or disclaimed, I fail to see the utility of quoting an overly catholic definition of what religion is as proof that "secular humanism" calls itself a religion.

Because it manifestly doesn't. That's what the modifier "secular" is there for, in front of the word "humanism." There might be forms of humanism that contain elements of faith, dogma, and irrationality (the tryptych signatures of religion), but secular humanism ain't one of those forms.

greg

First off: I apologize for participating in a threadjack.

Anyway, for what may be the first time ever, I agree with Greg. By the definition you've given, lc1, practically anything is religion. Now, you may believe that practically anything is religion, and we can have a debate about that. That's fine.

But you can't just pull a definition out of nowhere and then expect people to accept it as (forgive the expression) gospel truth. I can say that I define religion as "boiled noodles tossed in a sauce consisting of tomatoes, onions, garlic, basil, and olive oil" - and by that definition, I had religion for dinner last night.

If that's a bit too far-fetched for you, how about these definitions of religion (all from dictionary.com):

"Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."

"A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader."

"A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny."

Or, if you want secular humanism to fall under religion's umbrella, then you could use this one:

"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

Point being: it's all in how you define stuff... And like Greg, I think your definition of religion is ill-suited for the discussion at hand.

Nick, I prefer my religion with lots of grated cheese, personally. ;-)

Nick's whole post was solid, but I want to emphasize something from the very end of it: you have to first settle what matters for the conversation you're looking to have, and then you can figure out what relevant notion of "religion" should be in play. If we're talking about the way in which everyone has some large-scale way of organizing their lives, then, sure, a very broad definition of religion might be fine. If we're talking about more epistemological matters and the importance of faith, then a more restrictive definition would be appropriate. And if we're talking about matters of constitutional protection, that would impose a different set of what is or isn't to be considered part of "religion". And so on. Different conversations about different questions require different concepts. It's an easy thing to get confused about -- which is why it's important to self-consciously monitor for the possibility that one's current locutions are not well-fitted to one's current interlocutions.

By the way, did lawyerchik1 bother to read the quotes she took from the Humanist Manifesto?

From her very broad definition of religion:

"A push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life."

From the Humanist Manifesto which she quotes:

"We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest."

So religion is the push for "ultimacy" and "transcendence" from which norms are derived, which is a deductive process, while secular humanism advocates an inductive process of outlining moral doctrines from experience? What part of secular doesn't lawyerchik1 understand? Clearly what lawyerchik1 meant by religion was any belief whatsoever. If that's the case, call it what it is: belief. Yes, we can agree that belief is universal - mental processes seem to rely on them. It is the basis of belief that is called into question in the debate between religion and secularism.

For what it's worth, the broadest legitimate definition of religion that I can think of would be something like: "Any set of beliefs based on claims about the nature or origin of the universe which cannot be verified or disproven through empirical observations."

Under that definition, atheism is a religion (though not really an organized one) because it denies the existence of the supernatural (a claim which cannot be proven true). Secular humanism is not necessarily a religion by the descriptions I've read in this thread. Though it does come very close to the denial of anything transcendent or supernatural, it is not quite atheism--although many humanists may also in fact be atheists.

"...the utility of quoting an overly catholic definition of what religion is..."

Not trying to threadjack, but the utility is that if you don't define your terms, conversations tend to lose their meaning, which is (IMO) what happens in discussions about what is or is not promoting religion. Seems to be fine as long as the religion is not an "official" one that might offend someone.

The point, and I do have one, is that when you discuss humanism and try to wriggle out of the "endorsement of state sponsored religion" problem by redefining your belief system as secular, you've engaged in a semantic slight of hand that results in your religion being promoted, endorsed and supported by the government, which flies in the face of the 1st amendment.

To the extent that same-sex marriage is being sponsored most vociferously by those who hold to the tenets of humanism and is strongly opposed by those holding to traditional Biblical interpretation (NOT going to get into the interpretation debate again here), there is a fundamental (pun intended) religious liberty question because of the enforcement of one belief system's tenets over and directly opposed to another's.

As far as "pull[ing] a definition out of nowhere", I pulled the definition from wikipedia.org, principally because 1) there would be objection to any definition that came from any "conservative" source, and 2) the differences between each successive version of the Humanist Manifesto seem deliberately calculated to avoid being identified as a religion for the express purpose of gaining and maintaining a stranglehold on the courts and local government systems.

Again in the context of the discussion that started on whether there would be a collision between advocating same-sex marriage and religious liberty, the referenced article raises very good questions about what to expect in the event that the same-sex marriage proponents are successful.

And in response to the question: "did lawyerchik1 bother to read the quotes she took from the Humanist Manifesto?", the answer is yes, I not only read them, I specifically included those quotes for a specific reason.

To avoid getting this discussion even further off the beaten path than it's already travelled, if anyone wants to continue the discussion, please email me.

Maybe I can go two for two and get Nick to double-tag me in agreement. Maybe I dream too much. Anyways...

atheism is a religion (though not really an organized one) because it denies the existence of the supernatural

Atheism, like secular humanism, also isn't a religion. That's what the "A" modifier in front of "theism" is all about -- without a belief in God.

Now some individuals might dogmatically deny the existence of the supernatural even in front of empirical evidence to the contrary. But, while those individuals might be exibiting religiosity, they're not atheists -- even if they call themselves that.

Now, absent empirical evidence to the contrary, one can believe that the supernatural does not exist just as one can believe that the earth's core is not made of cute fluffy white bunnies -- and holding such beliefs do not instantly make one "religious."

Again, regligion requires dogma and irrationality (I don't mean the latter in a perjorative way, BTW), it means looking at something and aggressively denying what is seen.

greg

Here's a question, though, Greg: was there any such thing as "religion" before there was any defined concept of God?

"Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."

I hate to say it, but this sounds like a whole lot of doubletalk to me. I haven't the faintest idea what the "depth dimensions of experience" are. It sounds L. Ron Hubbard-ish, something to be put on the shelf next to "beingness" and "enturbulation."

Now, certain formal organizations of secular humanists have indeed petitioned the courts that they should be treated as religious groups -- and, at times, the courts have agreed. I don't by any means think that this is the last word on the subject, however, as there are many different definitions of religion.

By a sociological model, one that studies how people organize into groups for furthering ethical purposes or specific ways of life, perhaps these -- but only these -- secular humanists are a religion. This is an imperfect definition of religion, however, one that doesn't cover all religions, and that excludes many things one might term religious.

But if one takes religion to be the belief in a revealed truth or a transcendent order of being, then secular humanists seem a poor example indeed. (But this, too, is a poor definition of religion. Many of the American founders would have described themselves as religious rationalists: People who were rationally convinced of the truth of a purely natural religion.)

But the real purpose of this entire line of argument, though, is to establish a moral equivalence between a secular STATE and a religious STATE, so that the latter, by popular vote, may win out.

Yet this is a false dichotomy; the state that subjects religion to a benign neglect is NOT a weapon of secularist control. (Nor, arguably, is a religious state the most healthy environment for the sincere worship of the Almighty.)

It's not a matter of my-religion-versus-yours in the public square; neither the findings of my conscience, nor yours, nor anyone else's should get any official approval, except insofar as we agree on how to protect our physical safety and property here on earth.

It's a valid point, Jason, because the definition of religion is very important in discussing the impact of approving same-sex marriage. Establishing workable definitions of important terms has to be an essential aspect of the discussion.

Since we started this discussion, I've seen religion defined as man’s "psychological reaction" to "the universe of life in which he finds himself." Within that definition, "psychological reaction" is defined as "the intellectual, emotional, sensual, and spiritual experience of the psyche or conscious faculty."

The definitions go on to say that when that philosophy of thought becomes intertwined with emotions of loyalty, sacrifice, devotion and allegiance, it is then religion.

Even though many discussions deal with theistic religions in the context of religious liberty in the United States, there are still non-theistic religions, as well as those systems of belief, purpose, ethics and morality that would fit within the above definition.

Because the New York Times article referenced the Becket Fund’s discussions, I went to the Becket Fund itself and read the papers. I found myself most aligned with the Reid paper, although I was a little disappointed that Professor Reid shied away from the logical conclusion he spent 71 pages preparing.

The more alarming note was this one:

"Professor Eugene Volokh, a noted libertarian scholar and advocate of same-sex marriage, writes:

The gay rights movement has long involved three related goals. One has to do with liberty from government repression – freedom from sodomy prosecutions, from police harassment, and the like. A second has to do with equal treatment by
the government: The movement to recognize same-sex marriages is the most prominent recent example. A third has to do with de-legitimizing and legally punishing private behavior that discriminates against or condemns homosexuals.8
Other gay advocates put the matter more bluntly describing their objective as wanting to "discredit[] and force[] to the margin"9 religious practices that honor traditional marriage.

8 Eugene Volokh, Same-Sex Marriage and Slippery Slopes, 33 Hofstra L. Rev. 1155,
1178 (2005).
9 Larry W. Yackle, Parading Ourselves: Freedom of Speech at the Feast of St. Patrick, 73
B.U. L. Rev. 791, 792 (1993)."

I say "alarming" because as I read these writings, I noticed that they now voice what appears to be an underlying agenda of the same-sex marriage movement: "de-legitimizing and legally *punishing* *private* behavior that discriminates against or condemns homosexuals." [Emphasis added]. As the writer also noted, there are those who "more bluntly" would '"discredit[] and force[] to the margin" religious practices that honor traditional marriage.'

These objectives runs smack into the free exercise clause of the first amendment, not to mention free speech. It isn't just the impending clash between the same-sex marriage movement and religious liberty; it's the ultimate agenda of those promulgating the same-sex marriage movement.

The recognition of a marriage is not a private affair, it is public. Protecting the natural rights of two people in a state of marriage is the whole purpose of marriage law - why should those protections be denied to same-sex relationships? Because your religion forbids same-sex relationships? That hardly seems in keeping with the core purposes of government or any sane interpretation of the Constitution. Government protects the free exercise of religion except when that religion breaks the law or demands an infringement upon natural rights. For the state to offer its recognition and protection of same-sex couples is not to "punish" private behavior unless that behavior actively seeks to infringe upon the rights of the married couple.

"The recognition of a marriage is not a private affair, it is public." As is, indeed, fulfilling the state's role in serving as a temporary guardian of children up for adoption and helping them to be placed in more permanent homes.

I hate to comment again when phil's already brought it back around so neatly, but anyway:

Greg, you're two for two. Nice. :)

Gregory wrote:

Atheism, like secular humanism, also isn't a religion. That's what the "A" modifier in front of "theism" is all about -- without a belief in God.

In fact, atheism by its most exact definition goes beyond simply not believing in God--it is the doctrine that there is no God. (Dictionary.com) What you're describing is more like agnosticism, or "weak atheism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism).

Again, regligion requires dogma and irrationality (I don't mean the latter in a perjorative way, BTW), it means looking at something and aggressively denying what is seen.

Yeah, nothing perjorative about that!

Actually, I'd say it is atheism which looks at the world around us (our planet and the universe around it) and must aggressively deny that there was a Designer who put it all together. Wasn't it Francis Crick who said that an evolutionary biologist must always strive to keep in mind that the living systems he is observing weren't designed, but evolved?

Whether or not atheism should or should be classified as a religion is exactly the sort of question that I was suggesting, following Nick, simply has to be referred to a larger conversational context. In some such contexts, a "no god = no religion" principle might hold; in others, what might be most relevant is that there is no atheist doctrine, practices, places of unworship, etc., and thus it will not count as a religion; in still other contexts, that atheism is a view on this most ultimate of questions should qualify it as a religious belief. But you first have to decide what you're talking about. With questions like these, appealing to dictionaries, encyclopedias, wikis, etc. is futile without first settling on what you're trying to talk about.

Smart guy that Crick; here's another quote:

"The age of the earth is now established beyond any reasonable doubt as very great, yet in the United States millions of Fundamentalists still stoutly defend the naive view that it is relatively short, an opinion deduced from reading the Christian Bible too literally. They also usually deny that animals and plants have evolved and changed radically over such long periods, although this is equally well established. This gives one little confidence that what they have to say about the process of natural selection is likely to be unbiased, since their views are predetermined by a slavish adherence to religious dogmas." ("The Astonishing Hypothesis")

Atheism-as-religion doesn't pass the Grandmother test: as a means of getting around through the bullshit layers of painstaking wordsmithing that so often passes for ideological discourse, ask your grandmother, or anyone not up to his heels in the culture wars - someone who knows what plain English words mean - whether an atheist can be described as religious, and see what you're told.

It is supremely lame to pretend that atheism is a religion. You'd think that religious people would appreciate this fact of mind.

The question "Are atheists religious?" is simply not the same as the question "Is atheism a kind of religion?" I'd wager a nontrivial amount of money that a decent portion -- at least a third, say -- of the 'grandmother' population would assent to the latter question.

Frankly, I don't care what anyone's grandmother has to say about it. I know lots of Christians who say that they're not religious, they have a relationship with Jesus Christ. Obviously, they're using a different definition than most people would use.

Let's make this as simple as possible. Is it a religious proposition to say "There is no God"? The answer is clearly yes. Therefore, atheism is a religious belief, according to the definition I posted above: "Any set of beliefs based on claims about the nature or origin of the universe which cannot be verified or disproven through empirical observations."

Please note that I am not attempting to say that Policy X supports atheism and is therefore unconstitutional. I'm just trying to get people to be honest--you can be nonreligious if you don't subscribe to any particular set of beliefs in the supernatural, but when you state definitively that there is nothing beyond the observable physical world you are making a statement based in part on faith.

according to the definition I posted above: "Any set of beliefs based on claims about the nature or origin of the universe which cannot be verified or disproven through empirical observations."

Er, yes... and we could very, very easily gin up definitions of "religion" on which atheism wouldn't count as a religion. That there is some definition of the term out there that falls the way you want it to fall -- when no one is disputing the existence of such definitions -- goes exactly no distance towards settling things.

I would add, btw, that it strikes me as a pretty lousy definition in its own terms, as it is making an awful hodgepodge of metaphysical and epistemic conditions. Note that it would, e.g., define Christianity out of the religion business should Christ actually manifestly return! Indeed, all sorts of religions make perfectly testable claims, and they are no less religions for that; they are just (at least most of them) wrong.