Changes

In the 1961 U.S Supreme Court case of [[Torcaso v. Watkins]] Justice Hugo Black commented in a footnote, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others."<ref>[http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/367/488.html Torcaso v. Watkins]</ref>

In the 1961 U.S Supreme Court case of [[Torcaso v. Watkins]] Justice Hugo Black commented in a footnote, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others."<ref>[http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/367/488.html Torcaso v. Watkins]</ref>

Casey Luskin wrote about the Supreme Court of the United States:  

Casey Luskin wrote about the U.S. Supreme Court:  

{{Cquote|In 2005, the Supreme Court reiterated its view that religion should not be defined narrowly, and the Seventh Circuit likewise observed that “the Court has adopted a broad definition of ‘religion’ that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones.” The Seventh Circuit went on to note that “[t]he Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a ‘religion’ for purposes of the [[First Amendment]] on numerous occasions[.] . . .” Earlier, the Seventh Circuit had observed that “[i]f we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.” Thus, atheism can be a religion for the purpose of constitutional analyses. Now getting courts to enforce this is another matter.<ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/for_first_amend1/#sthash.TT9wqQeQ.dpuf Forr First Amendment Purposes, Is Atheism a Religion?] by Casey Luskin</ref>}}

{{Cquote|In 2005, the Supreme Court reiterated its view that religion should not be defined narrowly, and the Seventh Circuit likewise observed that “the Court has adopted a broad definition of ‘religion’ that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones.” The Seventh Circuit went on to note that “[t]he Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a ‘religion’ for purposes of the [[First Amendment]] on numerous occasions[.] . . .” Earlier, the Seventh Circuit had observed that “[i]f we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.” Thus, atheism can be a religion for the purpose of constitutional analyses. Now getting courts to enforce this is another matter.<ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/for_first_amend1/#sthash.TT9wqQeQ.dpuf Forr First Amendment Purposes, Is Atheism a Religion?] by Casey Luskin</ref>}}