Posted on 08/20/2005 12:11:11 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
It is a Neo-pagan one for most of them.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Atheists don't share a belief system, a moral code...
By definition, they should not have one at all...
There is no such thing as an ecumenical atheist!
Christ.
There isn't one of those either - Marie Curie won the Nobel Prize in Physics, not "science". They also give one out for chemistry. The real problem, though, is that George Wald never, ever said anything remotely like that quote.
Yeah, but whose version of Christ? Protestent Christ? Catholic Christ or a non sectarian Christ?
Uh, yeah. Socrates and Rush Limbaugh. Like twins they are.
Certainly that's the view of most people.
One can accept anything without evidence or proof simply because one wants to. Believing or accepting something on faith does not a religion make.
Atheism, strictly speaking, is not a religion regardless of the "faith" it requires. But... I clearly understand why it could be deemed a religion and indeed some of its cousins are religions... humanism, anti-theism, etc... -jw
That's pretty much my personal view of prisoner Kaufman's claim.
I've not been able to find any SCOTUS opinion which defines religion. All there seems to be are rather murky tests (but again, no clear definitions) for what is claimed as a genuinely held religious belief.
If you're right about the contradictions and the lack of relevancy , then I suppose the State might petition for an en banc rehearing based on (a)(1) below. Is that how you see it?
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35:
RULE 35. En Banc Determination
(a) When Hearing or Rehearing En Banc May Be Ordered. A majority of the circuit judges who are in regular active service may order that an appeal or other proceeding be heard or reheard by the court of appeals en banc. An en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered unless:
(1) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court's decisions; or
(2) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.
(b) Petition for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc. A party may petition for a hearing or rehearing en banc.
(1) The petition must begin with a statement that either:
(A) the panel decision conflicts with a decision of the United States Supreme Court or of the court to which the petition is addressed (with citation to the conflicting case or cases) and consideration by the full court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the court's decisions; or
(B) the proceeding involves one or more questions of exceptional importance, each of which must be concisely stated; for example, a petition may assert that a proceeding presents a question of exceptional importance if it involves an issue on which the panel decision conflicts with the authoritative decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue.
There is only one Christ.
There's only one Christ, but just remember, that one Christ is claimed to give his approval on only one religion according to many religions.
Word. A building block for handling those of Newdow's ilk.
Thanks very much for posting that excerpt.
The court is letting him cross the first hurdle before tripping him on the next one.
I'd say the odds for granting a petition for cert or for rehearing en banc would be about the same, with neither being likely.
He did not approve ANY religion nor did he found one. He fufilled scripture and calls us to a relationship with the father through him. In him there is one Church, the Church of the saints. You may know it as having many names but it is still one bride.
It certainly does. Atheism is not a religion. Courts make errors like this all the time, you know.
Just tell that to one of those "One true" churches like the Christian Scientists.
Actually, Newdow was making the argument that "atheism is a religion." He even referred to himself as a "reverend". He probably would applaud this ruling.
A promising angle on things!
Newdow was stymied then, and an atheist prisoner was stymied here. I doubt he'd applaud.
Yes, Newdow was stymied, but the courts decided in favor of the atheist prisoner in this case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.