[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I have a question. Earlier you said there was a Supreme Court case holding that atheism is a religion.

No, I didn't.

I said that there is a United States Appellate Court ruling, which (as the next-highest level) stands as United States Legal Precedent unless overturned by the USSC (as usual, however, the Appellate Court cites the USSC in its Decision).

Do you have a name for that case?

KAUFMAN v. MCCAUGHTRY

Decided August 19, 2005

"...The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky.v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 125 S.Ct. 2722(2005).... Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics. As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman’s religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise." (etc.)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Gotta go, gang. I'll be back.

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks. I'm reading now. If others want to read the opinion, it's here, a 13-page pdf file: here.

The Sup Ct case you say they rely on is here: McCREARY COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al., PETI- TIONERS v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF KENTUCKY et al..

[Ichneumon]

"Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics. As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman’s religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise."

Note the key phrase, "for purposes of the First Amendment claims".

I agree -- for purposes of First Amendment protection, atheism *should* be protected. Freedom "of" religion necessarily also includes freedom to practice no religion. Religious freedom includes the ability to opt out entirely, just as freedom of speech includes the right to choose to say nothing at all. But that doesn't magically make silence "speech". Nor is atheism "religion".

Nonetheless, this is still not the same as saying that for *all* purposes (beyond just First Amendment freedoms) atheism *is* itself a religion -- it's a *lack* of any.

As has often been said, "if atheism is religion, then 'albino' is a suntan", and "if atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby", and "If atheism is a religion, then 'bald' is a hair color".

Similarly, if *lack* of belief in something is a religion, then so is lack of belief in unicorns, and can I come to your non-unicorn worshipping church with you?

Atheism is not itself a religion. It is a rejection of religion.

[jude24]

I said that there is a United States Appellate Court ruling, which (as the next-highest level) stands as United States Legal Precedent unless overturned by the USSC

Actually, to get hyper-technical, a 7th Cir. ruling is binding precedent only in the 7th Cir. In my own circuit (the 2d), it might be pursuasive authority if the Court considers the arguments compelling, but it is nothing more.