Washington Ethical Society V. District Of Columbia Article Index for
Washington 		Shopping
Ethical 		Website Links For
Washington 		 

Information About

Washington Ethical Society V. District Of Columbia
  CATEGORIES ABOUT WASHINGTON ETHICAL SOCIETY V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
   
united states court of appeals cases
   
1957 in law
   
APPAREL
BABY
BEAUTY
BOOKS
CAR TOYS
CELL PHONES
DVD'S
ELECTRONICS
GOURMET FOOD
GROCERIES
HEALTH & PERSONAL
HOME & GARDEN
JEWELRY
MUSIC
MUSIC INSTRUMENTS
OFFICE PRODUCTS
SOFTWARE
SPORTING GOODS
TOOLS & HARDWARE
TOYS
VIDEO GAMES
SHOPPING HOME
MORE SHOPPING...




SIGNIFICANCE


Along with Fellowship Of Humanity V. County Of Alameda , this was one of the earliest cases establishing the right in the U.S. of Nontheistic institutions that function like churches to be treated similarly to Theistic religious institutions under the law.

This case is sometimes cited by Christian Fundamentalists as establishing Secular Humanism as a religion under the law. That characterization of the case is questionable:
  • The Society practices '' Ethical Culture '', the philosophy of a movement founded in 1876, predating the modern Humanist movement. While ''Ethical Culture'' is, broadly speaking, a Humanist philosophy, it has its own distinct character. As practiced by the ''Washington Ethical Society'', it is in some respects more aligned with Religious Humanism than with Secular Humanism .

  • The court decision did not address the question of whether the ideas of ''Ethical Culture'' were inherently religious; it merely determined that the ''Washington Ethical Society'' functioned like a church and so was entitled to similar protections.



RATIONALE FOR DECISION


The decision was written by Justice Warren Burger , predating his appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court . The decision stated:

:The sole issue raised is whether petitioner falls within the definition of a "church" or a "religious society" . . . . The taxing authority urges denial of the tax exemption asserting petitioner is not a religious society or church and that it does not use its buildings for religious worship since "religious" and "worship" require a belief in and teaching of a Supreme Being who controls the universe. The position of the tax Court, in denying tax exemption, was that belief in and teaching of the existence of a Divinity is essential to qualify under the statute. . . . To construe exemptions so strictly that unorthodox or minority forms of worship would be denied the exemption benefits granted to those conforming to the majority beliefs might well raise constitutional issues . . . . The question before us now is not broadly whether petitioner is in an ecclesiastical sense a religious society or a church, but narrowly whether under this particular statute it is qualified for tax exemption. . . . We hold on this record and under the controlling statutory language petitioner qualifies as "a religious corporation or society" . . . .


REFERENCES