Wasn't this in a footnote? And, correct me if I am wrong, don't footnotes lack legal standing?
In my opinion, even if you do not believe that Torasco v. Watkins provides the necessary legal weight, given your posted definitions and the Secular Humanism website that I cited, you would have to agree that Secular Humanism meets the definition of religion.
You would have to also agree that the beliefs of the Secular Humanists sound an awful lot like many evo posters from Darwin Central...And their beliefs go way beyond science (into faith and religion).