You can argue whether secular humanism or atheism are religions but clearly they are religious views even if not organized religions. If it helps if I say that the progressives and lefty governments are supporting a particular religious view rather than a religion then that is fine. The underlying issues in that case are irrelevant to the point I am making.
As I thought, you didn't, and won't, find it. Because of course secular humanism lacks an essential component of all religions. Perhaps you should rely more on google and less on pulling stuff out of your ass.
The time I have to discuss this is less than your full days committed to googling in an attempt to gain knowledge on some subject, any subject, in life. But to be brief and then leave it there, whether something is a religion or not in legal or constitutional scenarios depends on the context. ie. whether, for example, an organization or view is a religion within the meaning of the Establishment Clause versus within the meaning of various statutes that refer to religion but also set forth other criteria for program or authorization purposes. As always, your approach is to google and try to become an expert based on something that comes up in a search. This is how your government clerk mind works. You look for the little guidance manual. In the real world it is more complicated than that but you lack the academic skills and understanding to realize that. Meanwhile: Humanism is a Religion? Why Even “Anti-religion” Humanists Should Celebrate The court finds that Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes,” the decision read. It also ruled that humanism should be treated as “religion” for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits religious discrimination. One of the first things I realized when I got involved in secular activism years ago was the importance that we humanists and atheists place on language. We are analytical by nature and take words seriously—and most of us believe that’s a good thing, even if it sometimes leads to unexpected problems. In one of my first talks to a humanist group almost a decade ago I got a bit sloppy, using the common phrase “cross your fingers” to make a point, only to see the room erupt into turmoil. Suffice it to say I haven’t committed that sin–oops, mistake–again. As such, I understand that a large portion of the secular community rejects not only the notion of theism, but the larger concept of religion itself. In fact, I consider myself part of this group, as I would never self-identify as “religious.” Nevertheless, there are those within the humanist community who, though as godless as they come, consider humanism to be their religion. And while we could easily spend hours debating which approach is right, most of us realize that, at the end of the day, it’s simply a matter of personal preference. Funny thing is, having circulated in the secular movement for a decade, I can tell you that beyond the semantics, there are very few differences between those humanists who embrace the term “religion” and those who reject it (and let’s not forget the third group, which is probably the largest: those who are indifferent to the term). These are all people who strive to be good without a god-belief. The “anti-religion” crowd, however, sometimes gets upset when it sees humanism or atheism being called a religion in an official way, as sometimes happens in legal proceedings. This is not hard to understand, since these people are embracing an identity—humanist or atheist—only to see a court associate that identity with a concept—religion—that they wholeheartedly reject. This is exactly what happened this week when the American Humanist Association won an important motion in the case of American Humanist Association v. United States, where we represent a federal inmate who was not allowed to form a humanist group, even though groups for Christians, Muslims, Rastafarians, and others were allowed. In denying the government’s motion to dismiss, the court accepted our argument that humanism should be treated like those religions. “The court finds that Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes,” the decision read. It also ruled that humanism should be treated as “religion” for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits religious discrimination.
As for Franklin Graham being a vet, think it was mentioned once or twice, he is a vet as much as Chumpie is one. And oh BTW he never said speech floating around internet for 8 years attributed to him in OP.
Yup he "remembers" as a an 11 year old Castro ..... Does he remember as a 10 year old bought and paid for rightwingnut Fulgencio Batista? Extremes either direction are no good. But as always right points left, left points right. Neither seeing their own.
This was decision on a motion to dismiss centered, among other things, on the question of whether the Establishment clause should apply. But sadly for your screwball side, the same court also noted the, "the Ninth Circuit has definitively held in Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist., that "...Humanism is not a religion for Establishment Clause purposes. 37 F.3d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1994)." Yet the plaintiffs survived the motion to dismiss because "...Moreover, in lvfcCrewy County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., the Supreme Court said that "the touchstone of the Establishment Clause was the "principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005). Thus the Court added, whether Humanism is a religion or a nonreligion, the Establishment Clause applies." Thus avoiding conflict with the Ninth Circuit's holding that "...Humanism is NOT a Religion for Establishment Clause Purposes. So, indeed,_Once again the Court fails to establish that Secular Humanism is a religion. Instead it simply said it is a religion [in this particuloar instance] for the purposes of the Establishment clause because the touchstone of the Establishment Clause [is] the "principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality ... between religion and nonreligion." The 'nonreligion" is in this instance being "secular humanism." So feel free to keep digging a deeper hole. The only definitive find so far is just the opposite of what you believe. Circuit Court Judges are generally not stupid enough to recognize Secular Humanism as a religion other than to treat it as a religion for the purposes of mandating government neutrality between religion and non-religion under the First Amendment. That's precisely what they did here. (hint: were you to review 19th century rulings you'd have a better chance of turning something up that that would bolster your ridiculous statement.)
Heh, did you even read those cases and what you quoted. I don't need any help in making my point but I guess - as always- you were so excited after googling something up that you just went ahead posted them. Idiot. Can't make this shiite up. Peizo trying to do virtual law school because his mamma won't let him go to school because of the big bad covid.
Now that your argument has run out of substance you resort to ad hominem attacks, and ascribe to your correspondent your own faults. Why?