Motivation

While I have written several posts providing justification of Humanism as a religion, even while it disavows supernaturalism, I haven't provided much in the way of motivation.  In other words, even if the philosophical, social and/or legal arguments for such a congregation being regarded as a religious community can hold up, why would such a body want to be regarded as a religious organization?

There are a variety of advantages inherent in status as an explicitly religious organization.  We might as well get this one out of the way first.  Money.  More specifically, taxes.  Religious organizations get the benefit of operating without having to pay income tax on the revenue they generate.  Most such communities operate on a small budget or on a budget in which expenses to service the community are quite close in proportion to revenue generated.  I won't deny that there is potential for abuse, but then, it is up to the congregation to demand governance and accounting such that they are aware of how much money is flowing through the organization and how it is being employed.  Fund-raising, accounting and administrative functions are vital for the effective operation of any organization.  But, it would deeply sadden me to see a temple calling itself Humanist that erects ostentatious, palatial halls and has paid ministers driving luxury vehicles. Of course, the churches, synagogues, temples and even telecommunications-based ministries that are currently recognized as religious and are not obligated to pay any tax on their income run the gamut.  Some are attended to by clerics who live Spartan existences having literally taken an oath of poverty.  Others enjoy all the epicurean pleasures imaginable. But, whatever one's intention, no taxes means more capital to apply toward the temple's goals.

The temple would only be one part of the tax issue, of course.  The contributions to the temple, as long as it is recognized as such by the state, constitute a tax-deductible donation to charity.  This means that congregants (or others who provide financial support for the temple) will pay a bit less in tax to the state because of their donations to the temple.  This makes the fund-raising for the religious community a positive-sum game.  Rather than the temple accepting X dollars for a given project from the congregation and that congregation then having X less as their aggregate, disposable income; the temple can collect X, but the congregation will be out somewhat less than X, since their contributions will not count as taxable income.  Whether our money is better off in the hands of citizens and churches or in the coffers of the government is a question to be answered by your political views, but that is the basic outline.

Another incentive for an explicitly religious organization is protection against discrimination.  While civility protects freedom of conscience and keeps people from savaging others for philosophical differences, some authorities can be pedantic about wording.  Since atheism or utilitarianism are philosophical stances, not religious ones, one may be discriminated against for employment, child custody or in a variety of other ways.  Thus, truthfully claiming that these are facets of belief that are present in one's religion may go far in protecting a Humanist from reprehensible, but possibly legal, prejudice.

Ceremonial recognition for clerics is also an important legal aspect.  There are areas into which access is denied for most people, for example prisoners of the state may only communicate with their attorney(s) and patients in Intensive Care Units may only be visited by immediate family.  However, in both these cases, specific exemptions are made for ordained religious personnel.  As it stands, should a Humanist be imprisoned or gravely ill, no matter how devoted to Reason and Ethics he may be or how much comfort or good counsel he might receive from a mentor in the Community of Reason, this person would not be admitted to see him.

Nor are those the only consequences of the special access of clerics.  When serving in the capacity of a spiritual or ethical adviser, clerics are virtually immune to subpoenas from the state.  They enjoy confidentiality similar to that of spousal privilege.  This is legally more secure than the secrecy of medical or financial records, as those can be opened by court orders.  The "sanctity of the confessional" has been repeatedly upheld by courts.  Humanist friends, mentors, advisers or philosophers can claim no such privilege.  However, if the organization is structured as religious and the advisor has previously been ordained, such protection would apply.

Such official recognition of the authority of clergy can touch other places in law and society as well.  The gravity and solemnity surrounding major life events  are often presided over by clergy who are recognized by the religious community as being appropriate commentators on the philosophical, ethical and emotional ramifications of births, maturity, deaths and marriage.  But, as significant as the first three can be, the last also constitutes a legal contract.  It would be reasonable for the state to hold a monopoly on presiding over the marital contract, while leaving the religious sacrament to be handled as each faith wishes (many nations do this and it seems to function quite well).  However, the United States has chosen to recognize religious marriages conducted by ordained ministers as validly forming a binding legal marriage contract.  I see no problem with this, as marriage has long been a religious sacrament as well as legal contract, however if the privilege is to be extended to one sect, it must be extended to all.  If you don't consider yourself as belonging to a religious sect, you'd better be a judge.  But, many people don't want to be married by a judge.  The transition from an independent adult to the center and/or progenitor of a family is a profound personal and social event.  They don't want a bureaucrat from the state to preside over it and they certainly don't want an advocate for a disparate faith to do so. 

Another opportunity for service is in ministering to people in jobs exposing them to extraordinary levels of stress.  Police, firefighters and members of the armed forces stand as a bulwark, protecting safe, prosperous, free society from crime, war and chaos.  As such, many rightly take great pride in their work and believe in their mission.  Even so, they often witness first hand the worst in society and the cruel random destruction of the world we live in.  It is entirely appropriate to have medical and psychological resources available to these workers, but such care is not always what they need.  Sometimes they need to share their experiences or concerns with someone who has an understanding of what it is that they face.  Chaplains often fill that role and are often ministers who currently serve or have once served in the force they council.  There are those who criticize tax dollars paying such personnel, but I support their mission.  Unfortunately non-theistic personnel are often not comfortable confiding in theistic clerics.  Sadly, this issue was recently addressed at the national level and our legislators specifically denied Humanists entry into the Chaplain Corps.

There is the analogy, often jokingly made, in the Community of Reason that organizing atheists is like herding cats.  Indeed, the characteristic independence and indifference to outside approval demonstrated by felines are typically regarded as virtues there, while conformity and obedience are more often prized by the more traditional faiths.  But, I hope that I have conveyed that there is much to be gained by working together.  We should not shun those systems, mechanisms and models that work, simply because we disagree with the ideologies or philosophies of those who have previously used them. 

Churches and Taxation
IRS Information about 501(c)3s
Humanists Refused Admission to Chaplain Corps
Seal of the Confessional
Seal of the Confessional(2)