Replies

what causes you to believe with such enthusiastic certainty that the full panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals will rehear the case?

Mainly because it's so incredibly off the mark. The precedents cited don't really support the court's argument and actually *contradict* rather than support in some spots. For example, the court says:

[W]hether 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. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16 (1972).

Well of course religion is distinct from a "way of life" because, as SCOTUS said in the cited case, religion is much more than a way of life:

[W]e must be careful to determine whether the Amish religious faith and their mode of life are, as they claim, inseparable and interdependent. A way of life, however virtuous and admirable, may not be interposed as a barrier to reasonable state regulation of education if it is based on purely secular considerations; to have the protection of the Religion Clauses, the claims must be rooted in religious belief. Although a determination of what is a "religious" belief or practice entitled to constitutional protection may present a most delicate question, the very concept of ordered liberty precludes allowing every person to make his own standards on matters of conduct in which society as a whole has important interests. Thus, if the Amish asserted their claims because of their subjective evaluation and rejection of the contemporary secular values accepted by the majority, much as Thoreau rejected the social values of his time and isolated himself at Walden Pond, their claims would not rest on a religious basis. Thoreau's choice was philosophical and personal rather than religious, and such belief does not rise to the demands of the Religion Clauses.

The court's citing of that passage just doesn't make sense. It certainly doesn't support the court's argument. Like Thoreau, this prisoner's purported beliefs aren't based on religion; they're philosophical and personal, at most. More likely he just concocted a bunch of B.S. in an attempt to get some extra prison playtime.

Elsewhere in the opinion, the court makes reference to other irrelevant cases. For example, there's a job discrimination case involving a person who was fired for having no religion. And another case where some public official wasn't allowed to be sworn into office because he wouldn't go along with some religious creed. I mean, this stuff is nowhere close to being relevant to the matter at hand. The entire decision is just grasping at straws. IMHO

It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made "separation of church and state" a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.

“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices...”
[Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).]
See also: Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).

Mainly because it's so incredibly off the mark. The precedents cited don't really support the court's argument and actually *contradict* rather than support in some spots. [. . .] this prisoner's purported beliefs aren't based on religion; they're philosophical and personal, at most.

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.