Court Rules Atheism a Religion
Modem Butterfly | 2005-08-19 21:18
http://www.earnedmedia.org/afab0819.htm
TUPELO, Miss., Aug. 19 /Christian Wire Service/ -- A federal court of appeals has ruled in favor of an inmate who claimed that Wisconsin prison officials violated his rights under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because they refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that prison officials erred because they “did not treat atheism as a ‘religion.’” The court said, “Atheism is [the inmate’s] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.”
Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, described the court’s ruling as “a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.”
“Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion,” stated Fahling.
The Supreme Court has said that a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the Court described “secular humanism” as a religion.
Fahling pointed to today’s ruling as “further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.”
“It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts’ is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited,” Fahling said
Bookmark/Search this post with:

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

printer friendly version
durkheim is dead | 2005-08-19 21:23 |
um..this is a good thing?
Although it seems to be a good thing for the inmate, who can now meet with the other four committed atheists in the prison to read Nietzsche, is anyone else bothered by the fact that no religion has now been defined as a religion. I mean, how far behind is the argument that evolution is an atheistic concept, and thus violates the establishment clause? Of course, I imagine Ayn Rand's atheistic views won't be subjected to such scrutiny.
durkheim is dead | 2005-08-20 21:45 | good point
That's a good point. Why is it that, apparently, the only ones in this particular prison who can form a study group are the religious? That makes no particular sense. It's not that religion is less radical - a Christian who can read should be offended at the conditions in prison. That whole turn the other cheek thing - pretty much the opposite of what the prison system is supposed to do. And it's not like an agnostic/atheist group would automatically support revolution - Ayn Rand was an atheist, and she was sort of a mouthpiece for the status quo. So, it seems to me that the very fact that you can only have a study group if you are doing so for religious purposes is the real bias here.
tng | 2005-08-20 22:04 |
I'd like to see this as an honest attempt
by the court to reinterpret the establishment clause in a modern light, to respect atheism which wasn't such a hot thing in the founders' days, even though most of the founders were about as close to atheists as possible in those times. Just look at how the
most vocal critic of Christianity was treated.
Anyway, I'd like to believe that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals went through these intellectual contortions to shoehorn atheism in the 1st Amendment. That's what I'd like to believe, but in reality I think it's just another case of ignorant and bigoted Americans.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
I don't see what's so obtuse about "make no law" though.
Moriarty | 2005-08-20 21:05 |
One step forward, two steps back?
This strikes me as a deeply counterproductive ruling. If prisoners need to have a religion to create a study group, than that is unconstitutional. The wrong way to tackle that is to have atheism declared a "religion". This sounds like a restriction in the prison rules that could have been easily overturned by a court without resorting to theological nonsense.
And may I just say what a pleasure it is to say that in the certain knowledge that a dozen people aren't going to set upon me yelping "but atheism IS a religion!".
Thanks TNG.
The Wheelman | 2005-09-24 11:03 |
Not guilty of thinking "outside the box" are they?
Prison officials would probably counter that "Because of Security Concerns" they need to ensure that the only groups allowed to meet inside are religious groups. They have bought the Bee-Ess from people like Chuck Colson that Jeebus is the ONLY way to keep from coming back to prison...Faith-Based Rehab, oh, BOY!
Never mind that the Hammerskins and Aryan Brotherhood meet down in the laundry or showers every day....
Round and Round it Goes...