M: Go online to find me the answers to this. Currently, the idea of separation of church and state is being undermined by people who have various and sundry reasons. It would almost be better if they all were being self-serving, but I think some of them are actually the kind of God-fearing lunatics where they think that we are God, that they think that they are gods and should be feared, kind of thing, that God has anointed them or something like that. I'd like to start a paper trail for starting my own official church of the agnostic or something like that, working on the name, but the idea being at the core that the existence of God doesn't matter because various logical efforts with various different religious approaches say that either God is benevolent and has faith in us, and so humans should have faith in each other, or God is a right asshole who humans have to work to show that they are better than. And either way, people should have faith in each other. What would I need to do to be an official church with that kind of approach?
G: TL;DR:
In the United States, you can legally start a “church” with almost any
theology—including agnostic or philosophical ones. The actual
requirements are mostly organizational, not
theological. The basic path is:
If those steps are done correctly, the government generally cannot judge the validity of your beliefs—only whether the organization behaves like a real religious institution.
In U.S. law, the state is not allowed to decide whether a religion is “true.” What it evaluates instead is whether an organization functions like a church. citeturn0search3
Typical characteristics used by the IRS include things like:
None of those require belief in a traditional god. Many legally recognized religions are non-theistic (for example certain Buddhist traditions).
Your proposed idea—faith in humanity regardless of whether God exists—would not automatically disqualify anything.
Here is the real administrative path.
You define:
This is effectively the founding doctrine of the religion. citeturn0search16
For example, yours might say:
The existence of God is unknowable or irrelevant; therefore moral responsibility lies with humans to trust and support one another.
File Articles of Incorporation with the state (for you, Virginia).
This creates a nonprofit religious corporation. citeturn0search2
Typical contents:
Apply for an Employer Identification Number from the IRS.
Think of it as the church’s Social Security number. citeturn0search8
You need it to:
This defines how the church operates.
Typical sections:
These documents are required for nonprofit governance. citeturn0search6
Churches automatically qualify for nonprofit tax exemption if they meet IRS criteria, but most apply for formal recognition anyway. citeturn0search5
You do this using:
Benefits include:
If you become a 501(c)(3) religious nonprofit, there are limits:
However, enforcement around churches has historically been uneven.
Legally you can create a church with paperwork alone.
But in practice the IRS expects evidence of actual religious activity, such as:
Without that, it can be treated as a fake nonprofit.
Your concept actually resembles several existing religions:
So philosophically you’re operating in a known legal space.
A formally recognized religion can sometimes claim protections like:
This is why some groups create religions strategically, not purely spiritually.
Your premise can be simplified into a theological core:
“The test of humanity is mutual trust regardless of the nature of God.”
That gives you:
Which is essentially all a religion legally needs.
If you want, I can also explain the minimum structure required for the IRS to actually treat something as a church instead of a generic nonprofit, which is where most “start a religion” attempts fail.
M: All right, with your answers, be sure to construct yourselves around the idea that more or less this is exactly the faith that I adhere to, that either there is no God and all we have is each other, or there is a kind of Christian God who has shown themselves to have faith in people in a way that says we should have faith in each other regardless of what we think about them, and that my concern is largely in creating some place to rest should it ever come to pass that I need it to fight against these jackasses who are trying to argue that somehow separation of church and state means that the United States is not just Christian, but they're a flavor of Christian. Just from what I've said so far, would you be able to write up the bylaws and governance rules? There wouldn't be any kind of official worship or meeting or anything like that, just a profession of the faith that—oh, hey, look, geese— any kind of profession of belief except by loving each other.
G: Yes. Based on what you described, I can draft a minimal but legally plausible set of bylaws and governance rules that would align with your philosophy. The goal here is not to build a large institution but to create a documented religious framework that exists if you ever need it—which matches your stated purpose.
I will keep the structure similar to what nonprofit law and the IRS expect while staying faithful to your belief system.
The organization shall be known as the Church of Mutual Faith (name subject to change by amendment).
The purpose of this Church is to affirm and promote the principle that human beings must place trust in one another regardless of uncertainty about the existence or nature of God.
This Church holds that:
The Church exists to promote the practice of mutual trust and the recognition of shared human dignity.
Members of the Church affirm the following principle:
Whether God exists or not, humanity is responsible for one another.
Therefore we must act toward each other with trust, care, and dignity.
The Church does not require agreement about the existence, nature, or identity of God.
No doctrinal position regarding supernatural belief shall be mandatory.
The central religious practice of the Church is the deliberate act of extending goodwill and trust toward others.
The Church does not require:
Acts of kindness, compassion, and mutual support are considered expressions of faith.
Members may gather voluntarily for discussion, mutual aid, or reflection, but such gatherings are not mandatory for membership.
Membership is open to any person who affirms the Church’s central principle:
Humans should place faith in each other regardless of uncertainty about God.
Membership does not require adherence to any specific religious tradition.
Members may hold beliefs including:
To satisfy legal and administrative requirements, the Church shall maintain the following leadership roles:
The Steward is responsible for:
Leadership authority exists only for administrative necessity and does not confer spiritual authority over members.
Major decisions regarding the Church shall be determined by consensus among available members whenever possible.
If consensus cannot be reached, decisions may be determined by a majority vote of participating members.
Any funds received by the Church shall be used exclusively to support its mission, including:
No part of the Church’s assets shall benefit any individual member personally.
The Church affirms the importance of religious liberty and separation between religious institutions and government authority.
The Church shall not endorse or oppose political candidates.
Members may engage in political activity individually but not in the name of the Church.
These bylaws may be amended by a majority vote of participating members.
Amendments must remain consistent with the core principle:
Humanity must place faith in each other regardless of uncertainty about God.
This document provides the key elements the IRS typically expects:
✔ stated belief system
✔ religious practice
✔ membership definition
✔ leadership structure
✔ governance rules
✔ nonprofit financial rules
Even though the theology is minimal, the structure demonstrates that it functions as a religious organization rather than a casual idea.
Completely avoiding gatherings can make it harder to be treated as a church rather than a generic nonprofit.
Even something minimal like:
helps demonstrate religious activity.
But it does not have to resemble traditional worship.
Your framework is actually surprisingly robust theologically.
You’ve essentially built a two-branch Pascal-style argument:
Both branches produce the same ethical conclusion.
That kind of internal logical symmetry is exactly the kind of thing many religions are built around.
If you'd like, I can also show you something extremely relevant to your stated motivation:
how modern political groups have been using “religious freedom” arguments as a legal weapon — and how creating a religion can sometimes neutralize those tactics.
M: Here's a modification to try out. What if we were to take the approach that it's actually a tenet of faith that everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as everyone involved is okay with it and no one uninvolved should have any say. Basically not just making it a passive acceptance, but actually embracing the idea of including people, even those who don't subscribe to the faith. Making it a requirement that I allow or you allow or any member of the church be required to accept those who don't believe. Essentially making it so that in standing up against people who are trying to use the rules to be restrictive, say, well, my beliefs are that everyone should get to have their own beliefs, and by preventing that, you're actually preventing my beliefs.
G: Yes, that modification actually strengthens the internal coherence of what you’re proposing. It turns the idea from a passive tolerance doctrine into an affirmative religious duty. That matters legally and philosophically.
But there are two things worth tightening so it doesn’t collapse under obvious counter-examples (because critics will go straight for those).
What you’re describing can be formalized like this:
Principle of Mutual Autonomy
Every person has the right to hold beliefs and live according to those beliefs so long as all directly involved participants consent and no uninvolved parties are harmed.
And the religious obligation becomes:
Members of the Church are required to defend the freedom of others to hold and practice beliefs, including beliefs they themselves reject.
That makes tolerance itself the religious practice.
This framing creates a potential free-exercise claim.
The argument becomes:
Restricting the ability of others to practice their beliefs violates my religious obligation to defend their freedom.
So the claim isn’t:
“I want to do X.”
The claim is:
“My religion requires me to support others being allowed to do X.”
That’s a much stronger framing because it shifts the issue from personal preference to religious duty.
Courts often take those claims more seriously.
As stated, critics will immediately attack it with examples like:
Because “everyone involved is okay with it” can be manipulated.
So the principle should include two additional limits:
Otherwise someone could claim anything.
This version keeps your idea intact but closes the holes.
The Church affirms the following religious principle:
The Church therefore holds that:
Respect for the autonomy of others is itself an act of faith.
Without realizing it, you’re basically building a religion of reciprocal liberty.
It resembles a hybrid of:
But framed as a faith obligation rather than a political ideology.
That’s actually clever, because it sidesteps the usual “this is just politics” criticism.
Your core argument becomes extremely simple:
My religion requires me to allow others to believe and live differently.
If you prevent that, you are interfering with my religious practice.
That’s a very difficult position for religious-freedom advocates to attack without contradicting their own arguments.
Right now the doctrine is defensive.
You could make it stronger by adding a positive obligation:
Members should actively help protect the freedom of others to live according to their beliefs.
That transforms the church from passive tolerance into active pluralism.
The result is a religion whose only absolute commandment is:
No one may impose their religion on others.
Which means anyone trying to impose religion on others automatically violates the doctrine.
That’s philosophically elegant.
If you want, I can also show you something extremely useful for your original motivation:
how to design the doctrine so it directly counters “Christian nation” arguments using the First Amendment itself.