Court rules atheism a religion

WorldNetDaily ^

[Lexinom]

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

"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," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.

[El Gato]

If athiesm is a religion, does the banning of Christian and Jewish symbols (such as Nativity displays, the Menorah, and the Ten Commandments) from public places constitute an unconstitutional endorsement by the State of athiesm as a religion.

Only if they ban Buddas and Crescents and various and sundry "graven images" as well.

[Vive ut Vivas]

I'm not sure why religious people have such a hard time comprehending the idea that a person can just be non-religious. I just can't wrap my head around it.

[JCEccles]

IF Atheism is a religion; Then dying of thirst is a big drink of water. And starvation is three big meals a day.

Rather, atheism is the strict avoidance of certain fluids; the strict denial of certain foods.

If religion required belief in a supreme being, then Buddhism could not be categorized as a religion. As it is, atheism is every bit as much a religion as Buddhism.

In direct violation of the First Amendment, atheism has been established by the Supreme Court as the official state religion of the United States of America.

[LiteKeeper]

Thanks for your post. I knew it was Torcaso, I just didn't have the time to look up the quotation you posted.

[JCEccles]

I'm not sure why religious people have such a hard time comprehending the idea that a person can just be non-religious.

I can't understand why non-believers have such a hard time comprehending that their non-belief is very bit as much a religion as any theistic belief. They have a self-righteous zeal on the point that would put many theistic believers to shame.

If only my faith in God could only match the self-confident insistence of an atheist's adamant denial of God. But I am weak, and not nearly so perfect in my faith as even an average atheist is in his.

[LiteKeeper]

Check out the Humanist Manifesto.

"Humanism is a philosophy, worldview, or life stance based on naturalism - the conviction that the universe or nature is all that exists or is real."
Humanism link

[bobdsmith]

But I don't think most atheists deny God exists.

A-theist means without theistic belief. Someone can lack theistic belief without actually making any positive claim. I lack a belief in Santa, although I don't make the positive claim that Santa doesn't exist (I would have to be omniscient to do that).

[Lexinom]

No, but certain other positive teachings - certain unprovable theories taught as fact and funded by all, regardless of creed - are.

[Vive ut Vivas]

You just don't get it. We're not "denying God" any more than we're denying Zeus - to us, it's silly and irrelevant. There's no self-righteous zeal.

[Lexinom]

Evolution is a corollary of atheism. Someone once opined that Darwinian evolution made atheism intellectually respectable. Humanism is another logical corollary: Since there is no God in their minds, man (or Man, if you prefer) is the highest beign, and therefore God.

There really is no such thing as atheism. Atheism is merely a way to enthrone Man in place of God. It is a desperate attempt, bolstered by pseudo-intellectual proof, to justify licentious living without fear of divine retribution. And, since they believe in no God, and therefore in no divine retribution for acts such as lying, why should one who believes thus be trusted in the first place?

No. Atheism is a belief system - a religion, in other words. There is NO REASON it should escape (in a legal context) subjection to the same restrictions that apply to other religions.

[Lexinom]

Atheism is a belief system accepted on faith - a religion, in other words. Neither Isaac Asimov nor Gordon Stein - two great twentieth-century atheists - claimed they could disprove God's existence. By failing to do so they admit their worldview is held by faith, just as every other worldview.

[Racehorse]

With all the various kinds of interests expressed in this thread, I'm surprised we've not posted a link to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion.  You may review it at Kaufman v. McCaughtry

Why was atheism accepted by this court as a religion for 1st Amendment purposes?

The following excerpt from the opinion leads to:  "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."

Kaufman argues that the defendants’ refusal to allow him to create the study group violated his rights under both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. We note that Kaufman relies only on the First Amendment and at this stage of the litigation has not tried to take advantage of the added protections of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

We address his claim under the Free Exercise Clause first. An inmate retains the right to exercise his religious beliefs in prison. [. . .] The problem here was that the prison officials did not treat atheism as a “religion,” perhaps in keeping with Kaufman’s own insistence that it is the antithesis of religion. But whether atheism is a “religion” for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. [. . .] A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths) [. . .] nor must it be a mainstream faith [. . .]

[. . .] we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion. [. . .] We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. [. . .] (“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”) Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs are deeply and sincerely held.

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). The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.” In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”

Id. at *10 (internal quotations omitted). As the Court put it in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985):

At one time it was thought that this right [referring to the right to choose one’s own creed] merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.

[. . .]. In keeping with this idea, the Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes nontheistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones. Thus, in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, it said that a state cannot “pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can [it] aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.” Id. at 495. Indeed, Torcaso specifically included “Secular Humanism” as an example of a religion. Id. at 495 n.11.

It is also noteworthy that the administrative code governing Wisconsin prisons states that one factor the warden is prohibited from considering in deciding whether an inmate’s request to form a new religious group should be granted is “the absence from the beliefs of a concept of a supreme being.” See Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 309.61(d)(3), cited in Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 2004 WL 257133, at *9. 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.

[Lexinom]

Everyone has a God - whether it's pleasure, wealth, self-fulfillment, sex, a political party, Allah, Vishnu, or Jehovah. Think about it: There really is no such thing as a non-religious person. For each individual, it comes down to what makes him "tick".

Corollaries of Atheism codify lexis and praxis in a form very similar to such codifications in other religions. I've linked a couple of these earlier (Humanist Manifestos I and II). If you think about it, there are numerous practical outworkings of the belief there is no God that serve to designate atheism as a religion. A religion needn't have a God with the attributes of invisible, incomprensible, omniponent, omnipresent, etc. to be recognized as such. The God can be man.

[Vive ut Vivas]

But that's not religion, unless I'm mistaken about what the term 'religion' means. Religion and philosophy are not synonymous, although one can be derived from the other. You can have a philosophy - your general outlook on life, i.e., I'm going to do ABC and not XYZ - but it is not, in any understanding I have of the word, a religion.

[Seeing More Clearly Now]

The word "religion" means something that binds a person or a group - the Latin is "religio" and it has nothing to do with God - though it, of course, could. It has only to do with a set of beliefs and practices to which a person adheres.

This decision of the court is right on the money. Atheism definitely qualifies as a religion.

[Lexinom]

Here is a definition I have, from dictionary.com:

---

5 entries found for Religion.

re·li·gion    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (r-ljn)
n.

1. 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
   2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Idiom:
get religion Informal

1. To become religious or devout.
2. To resolve to end one's immoral behavior.

---

It seems to me (and apparently many others) silly that atheism should escape the same restrictions appled to other worldviews on a technicality, namely that it (practically if not explicitly) holds up man rather than God as the supreme being. It is a positive worldview, not the antithesis of the presence of a worldview.

The interchanging of the terms "religion" and "worldview" is deliberate.

[Seeing More Clearly Now]

Religion - The word has nothing to do with God.

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/11Phl/WrldV/religio.htm

[Lexinom]

The root meaning is very important, as the courts are clearly more concerned more with "religion" than with "philosophy".

[Lexinom]

Nah, it's a religion, with a set of beliefs and practice arising therefrom - all based on faith. A "deligion", or the antithesis of religion, would be oblivion or unconciousness.

[ThePythonicCow]

Thanks for the Humanism link - I'm no humanist, sorry.

I've searched for years for a name for my odd beliefs. No luck so far. Guess I'll have to write my own book, and call it "Cowism". Not even my mother would buy a copy I'm afraid. She's a devote Catholic nun.

Nah - forget the book. It all seems perfectly obvious to me. I have no idea why no other human has figured it out (tongue in cheek). I've given up explaining it. All the words I could use already have too many meanings, depending on who is hearing them.

And besides, it would be no way to run a country. Traditional religions such as Christianity do a much better job than I can fathom, instilling the responsible moral behaviour required of citizens to keep a republic such as this healthy.