Do you really define religion as a belief system that ostracizes those who disagree with it? Because I don’t think Catholicism ostracizes those who disagree with it. Maybe some people in the Church do, but I don’t think they’re following Church teaching when they do. Wouldn’t your definition exclude the Catholic Church, supposing everyone followed its teachings?
I define religion as the attitude a person shows toward God. I take this definition from my understanding of the word’s history: it is my understanding that religion used to be a synonym for piety, the modern usage of which more closely aligns with the definition I just gave. A pious person shows a humble attitude toward God, and that is what I think a religious person does.
There can be religions without any gods. As far as the answer to “what is a religion” that’s going to depend on the purpose for which you are asking. What constitutes a religion to an anthropologist might not constitute a religion for tax exemption purposes.
Are you talking about the ruling a month ago that describes secular humanism as a religion? I’d like to point out that secular humanism and atheism are not synonymous. If this is the case let’s take a look at one description of it.
Here it is being used for the purpose of legal classification. The motivation behind the case was to get some of the same special treatment that others within the religious classifications have.
Yes.
What is the problem in logic?
Yes.
The two can be mixed together. One isn’t necessarily distinct from another.
Religions don’t necessarily have an ultimate authority. I think you may be trying to get other standpoints to fit Catholicism here. Different religions may be structured differently.
THE 1st AMENDMENT WAS ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT RELIGIOUS RIGHTS.
Establishing? No. Recognizing, yes.
Only for the purpose of having access to some of the same benefits as other religious groups. Outside of the government granted privileges the people interviewed in the article don’t care.
The one’s I encountered seem to be unreligious.
Took a look at it. As far as I can tell they are trying to allow people to follow their convictions to some limited and unspecified degree.
Did the Secular Humanists seek recognition as a religion? Then what is their definition of religion if most of them are atheist/agnostic?
Are a united group, no. Though not every one that identifies as “secular humanist” is necessarily a part of the same group (just as people that call themselves “Christian” are not necessarily part of the same group).
American Humanist has the following in their Manifesto
There’s more to read. But the above might give you an idea of what they consider a religion. See a complete listing here: americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I
Yet all Christians believe in God. They have that in common. so far as I can tell secular humanists have in common that they don’t worship God, and don’t believe such a being exists.
That description is a little more general and is inclusive of people that are not necessarily secular humanist. They tend to be non-religious and also believe that humans must face the ethical consequences of their decisions and encourage people to analyze their viewpoints and decisions (among other attributes).
No. Ideology, philosophy, religion, and world view are all concepts that can have overlap with each other. They are not necessarily cleanly partitioned away from each other.Isn’t there supposed to be a difference between a philosophy and a religion?
Perhaps this thread might benefit from some artistic encouragement. 
They are not cleanly partitioned, but there ought to be some basis for partitioning them, otherwise the terms could be used interchangeably, which they usually are not.
Secularism isn’t humanism. The word “secular” before humanism identifies a branch of humanism.
Right…just like Catholicism isn’t Christianity.
There were, of course, earlier pockets of Protestantism that Paul had to combat.
Someone can be a secularist without being a humanist.
The Catholic/protestant dichotomy of Christianity isn’t dependent on whether or not Christ actually existed or what interpretations of the bible may have been his actual intention. Not that any of this is relevant secularism not being the same as humanism.