Up until yesterday, I had been totally unaware that there was a case adjudicated in 2005 in Wisconsin, Kaufman v. McCaughtry. This case involved an Atheist inmate who filed a grievance as a result of being denied to form a study group for Atheists in his prison on the grounds that his First Amendment rights were thwarted by denial to form the group by the prison authorities. In order to understand how this was adjudicated, we need to know exactly what  the First Amendment regarding religion says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
 This amendment has two clauses. The first clause is referred to as the establishment clause, as you see the word establishment used in the first clause of the sentence that creates the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the US. The second clause is referred to as the free exercise clause, as you see the phrase free exercise noted in the second clause. This is the law that judges use to determine cases where freedom of religion is an issue. They interpret the law according to the evidence of the case that is under consideration. Whatever they decide sets precedence, a rule of thumb, so to speak, or a preceding condition of judgment that determines the way subsequent or following cases will be interpreted.
When this atheist plaintiff’s case was presented to the lower court, it was thrown out of court because the prisoner was asking to form a group that was not based on religious beliefs, but was considered by prison officials to be a request to form a non-religious group that was considered to be an activity group. At the time of his request, the prison authorities, defendants in the case, said that no other activity groups were permitted to be formed at that time, so the denial of his request by the prison officials was considered legitimate. The plaintiff himself did not see his atheism as any more than really just an opposition to religion so there had been no violation of either his right to establish the group or to exercise any religious belief.
The atheist was still not satisfied, so he appealed the case. When the case was brought before the higher court, it was further considered, that although the prison officials did not deem atheism a religion, perhaps it should have been considered a religion because it was a group that was "religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being." The case, therefore, was finally judged by the State Supreme Court as not being in violation of free exercise because the atheist would still be able to practice his atheism whether or not he was allowed to form the group, however, his right to establishment of that group that was religious in nature was denied, and thus a violation of his First Amendment rights. This case sets precedence that atheism is considered a religion by the United States Supreme Court.
 This ruling raises a lot of issues and some questions. One of the questions that immediately comes to mind is that if the Supreme Court has declared Atheism to be a religion, then why are atheistic philosophies like Darwinism, whether taught in science class or not, still an atheist philosophy, allowed to be propagated in schools without also the creationist aspect of religion also allowed in the curriculum? It seems to me that atheists are being allowed to establish and practice their religion in their secularist and humanist curriculum in our public schools without allowing either the establishment or free exercise of any other religion but their own. They seem to be able to do this because they claim theirs isn’t a religion, but the Supreme Court has declared that it is. What’s wrong with this picture?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 176
I don't put much stock in the sopreme courts understanding of the Constitution since it seems to think that corperations are persons.
Oh, okay.
(Lord, please send me a person with an IQ above 80, if that's not too much to ask.)
(about the only one)
Simply put, as long as it does not interfere with other religions, why should it matter? The First Amendment says it quite simply.
Theism is God based. A-theism is against or in opposition to God and not God based. As an example, children are taught the theory, not a scientific law like gravity, but a theory of the beginnings or genesis of life. This theory is based on the non-existence of a God which is an Atheistic theory. If a theory that is based on the religion of an atheist, the non-existence of God, is taught in schools, then other theistic theories need also to be explored or atheistic thought is the only religion that is inadvertently being propagated and allowed to exist in our schools. That is the only point I was making. Now I have questions about how this might be presented, and only a constitutional attorney would know whether or not there might be situations when it could be presented and how it might make a case.
Atheism is a poor substitute for a belief in God. It also does not appeal to many despite a "level playing field" That's why so many atheists seem to be acting in a fad not serious and it shows as they age.
Just because I have no problem with them as a rule does not mean I think they are right or even close. Its just I feel one has the right to make decisions for one's self and though atheism is a poor one, its their right to pick it.
There it is. You go your way and I'll go mine. Just because I respect your right to believe as you will does not mean I have to agree with it.
Of course, there are many intelligent people who can and do discuss this topic rationally. My guess is they followed a comment here, not knowing the "author" of the post (when did Gather stop listing that?) and realized this would not be a good place to try and add anything rational.
Therefor, evolution is religious in it's everyday acceptance.
Religious people will probably always say that things like that that go against their religion are also religion. And the Supreme Court is all religious people.
But to not mention God (any God) and instead teach the processes that life studies (science) reveals thus far is to live life, AS IF, there is no God. That's intolerable to some.
They'd rather have the debate. That way they'd at least get to mention there God, and the related stories in the public school format.
If the atheistic or Godless theory exists in some schools without also allowing the God based and Biblical perspective to exist in those schools, and Atheism and Judaism, and Christianity are all ruled as religions by the Constitution or laws thereof, then both theories need to be taught if any parents of those children who are not atheists have a problem that it is not allowed.
This post was particuiarly meant to be of interest for Christian and Jewish parents of children attending public schools. I really did not expect that it wouid get such attention from people who are not of that population, but this is Gather so I should have known that the post itself and the specific contents of it would not even be addressed. This post is not about atheists and not about Christians. It's about a landmark judicial decision that was ruled upon by the Supreme Court and the implications of that ruling, none of which have been addressed by anyone but me.
Math doesn't mention any gods, either. Atheist math shouldn't be taught in public schools.
I suppose I would argue that Darwinism stands alone from any religious thought/dogma(?), whether that religion has a God in it or not....? Best I can do for now... ;-)
As I just said above to Dorothy, because this ruling declared Atheism to be a religion, if we are to look at the theory of evolution as being the theory explaining the genesis of life without God, that being Atheistic, then there are also those of us with another religion who have a theistic explanation of the genesis of life, and for one religion's belief to exist in the teachings of that genesis to the exclusion of another, then it might be an issue. One more time, only a constitutional attorney would be able to determine how this might be interpreted by a judge.
Anyway, I'm sure what you want I can't give... not an ounce of lawyer in me.
Take care.
After reading a few of yours, she was in stitches, turned to me, and barely able to articulate through her laughter asked, "Can you just hear her saying, IlliNOISE?" We laughed as if we were being relentlessly tickled, so as Vinod suggested below, thank you.
If that was a question that you had, why didn't you include a question mark at the end of your title? You've made a claim that the Supreme Court of the United States has declared atheism to be a religion. But Kaufman wasn't a Supreme Court case. So what's the case where the U.S. Supreme Court said that atheism was a religion?
What was the name of the U.S. Supreme Court case that declared that atheism was a religion?
No, it's not the U.S. Supreme Court nor is it the supreme court of a U.S. state. It's a federal appeals court.
"In the first sentence of the article, you will note the name of the case in the blue hyperlink."
Uh huh. Noted. And I also note that Kaufman v. McCaughtry isn't a U.S. Supreme Court case.
Yeah, I know what Kaufman says. And now, hopefully, you do too. Congratulations. I would've thought reading it before you wrote the article might've been more helpful, but hey, better late than never, right?
One step forward, two steps back.
As Kristi points out, saying that atheism is equivalent to a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment isn't the same thing as saying that atheism is a religion.
And if you read McCreary County, you'll see that what the Supreme Court actually said was "First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion."
And if you read it carefully, you might notice that the statement isn't a precedent-setting one. They're quoting an earlier decision, Epperson v. Arkansas.
Oh, and as a little side-note, you might also notice that in McCreary County, the Court explains that "The dissent identifies God as the God of monotheism, all of whose three principal strains (Jewish, Christian, and Muslim) acknowledge the religious importance of the Ten Commandments." That might be something you want to keep in mind, with regard to your statements in Marilyn M.'s "Judeo-Christian Nation" discussion such as "God and Allah are not the same God." and "Last time I knew they [Muslims] aren't subscribers to the Ten Commandments..."
Anyway, back to Epperson. With regard to their statement about the importance of government neutrality between "religion and nonreligion", they reference a whole bunch of decisions, going all the way back to Everson v. Board of Ed in 1947. I think the key statement (as it relates to this discussion) would be:In none of these cases do I see the SCOTUS saying that atheism is a relgion. If you see it and I'm missing it, can you please point it out?
Okay, so the precedent was set by Black in the Epperson v. Arkansas case, but it doesn't change a thing. In that case, Justice Black had to say that atheism is equivalent to a religion because a religion implies a belief in God, and atheism is an unbelief in God. If he said atheism is a religion then that would imply that atheim is a belief in God. Instead, he said that it is equivalent to a belief in God, and if we come ahead to this Kaufman v. McCaughtry case we clearly see how this interpretation was not adhered to in the lower court and was dismissed. The atheist, Kaufman, had made a request for this group to form although he insisted that his atheism was not a religion. It was an unconstitutional decision that it was thrown out of the lower court because according to the First Amendment, "...A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being." This is what is meant by atheism being equilvalent to a religion.
It is for this reason, that Kaufman appealed his case. The lower court merely had seen his request as a request to form any prison activity group, and since they were not forming groups at this time, they dismissed his request as being no more than a request to form a prison gardening club.
The reason I love this case so much is because it is a sort of comedy of errors that he even won the case. It is indicative of the socially deviant mind. He had the nerve to wish to be protected under the First Amendment, and his case was presented as violation of both establishment and exercises clauses of the freedom of religion when he vehemently denied his atheism to be a religion. He wants it both ways as all social deviants do. In this instance, he wanted to say that he had the right to protection of the First Amendment while being free also to be unencumbered by any implication that he is also bound by any rules of a religion because his isn't a religion, but only equivalent to a religion. And now I clearly see how this case was presented as a freedom of religion issue rather than based on any other aspect of the First Amendment freedoms.
So now the case gets appealed in the federal district appellate court of WI (the highest ruling court in that district, supreme in its ruling and the Supreme Court of that district, of course not the US Supreme Court) (and it's not entirely clear to me whether or not he has Counsel or he's representing himself, but I suppose that makes no difference for now, but does appear he is representing himself) and he's still contending that his Constitutional rights to establishment and exercise of freedom of religion have been violated.
"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' "
"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 permit him to meet with other atheist inmates to study and discuss their beliefs [non-beliefs or beliefs not to do with a Supreme Being as being equivalent to beliefs in a Supreme Being] violates the Free Exercise Clause.“ It is in this way that his non-beliefs are considered his religion.
There are also penal prison codes that may have had some influence on this decision. (Note to self)
He also wanted to file an amendment after the case was decided because he wanted to wear some medal or emblem that symbolized his religion, the very religion that he said he didn't have. This guy should be locked up forever. Of course, it was too late to file that claim. (indicates more that he was representing himself)
"Atheism is Kaufman’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 Establishment Clause also prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another without a legitimate secular reason." (Note for me to find out what is deemed legitimate secular reason)
It was specifically denied that this was an infringement of his free exercise because he could stil practice his religion without forming any group.
But to the point of your article: I agree that atheism is not a religion, and that if the case was judged as a freedom of religion case, because at the time only religious clubs were allowed, then the decision should have been that the atheist club was not of the protected class.
It would be nice if the atheist club were allowed, but then it would probably be even nicer if book clubs, or a chess club, or music/art clubs were allowed--that's the angle the plaintiff should be going for. (Freedom of association, I guess, which the Supreme Court has ruled is an essential part of the freedom of speech.)
" . . . if the case was judged as a freedom of religion case, because at the time only religious clubs were allowed, then the decision should have been that the atheist club was not of the protected class."
There's a catch to this question, I feel, that ought to be pondered a bit more carefully. If the group did not discuss God (even though in a negative sense) to some substantial extent, it could not be considered an atheist group. Talking about football, or cars, politics, etc., etc., may not involve God, but that in itself does not mean they are atheist discussions.
The term 'atheist', specifically indicates the discussions would revolve around God (even though in the negative), to some substantial extent, I feel, and therefor the Justices were faced with the problem of denying the right of one group to meet in discussions pertaining to God, and allow others to do so, based on the content of the discussions. That would, to my mind, constitute religious discrimination.
If this logic were not basically correct, that the discussions would pertain to God in some way in general, and it was merely that folks were not going to speak positively about Him (Her/It/They, etc ; ) then a group that wished to meet for chats about football, could simply ask for an atheist meeting group, and once in the huddle, talk pigskin ; )
So, I think it is a religious discussion . . . and for a somewhat similar set of reasons, I consider atheism a religion, in a very inclusive, essentially functional sense of the word. The law (and the Justices) must see things from an essentially functional perspective, for law is about limiting things that actually occur, in the world.
(I would not include agnostics, in such a blanket fashion, since one can not-believe in God, without any referencing to God. (Obviously, some agnostics are far more . . . active, in their not believing, and would be religious, in this broader functional sense)
"one could also argue that the function of an atheist group is in its essence different from the function of a religious group."
Well, I suppose one could . . but with Whom, I wonder? ; )
there am I in the midst of them
Therefore, since natural selection is the dominant paradigm of biology, there is every reason to teach it in the public schools.
Please don't bother. Of course if you should set it up I probably couldn't resist the impulse to comment. :-)
As I gave it more thought today, I would also not want to seem like a snake oil saleswoman to you and lure you in to something for which you would have buyer's remorse. Even though I think the issues you presented are excellent and could even be a focal point, we would still have to start with an agreed upon given for the premise of this exploration. That is that the fact remains that this case was decided in favor of the plaintiff based on the court's ruling that defendant's denial to allow him to create his atheist discussion group was in violation of the First Amendment establishment clause of freedom of religion, and in order to make this a valid rule of law, the court saw fit to declare atheism a religion. The hows and whys are valid arguments, as well as are the points you presented, but the facts in bold would have to be agreed upon, otherwise it would have the potential of becoming just a hodgepodge of random musings, I fear, and that would work as a law of diminishing returns for me because it does take some planning to find this group, get it out of the archives, dust it off and review its rules of engagement, just for starters.
If you decide that it is really worth all that effort on your behalf I will be happy to participate. Not only that I would be happy to take either side in the debate. :-)
It could be a debate (or may wind up that way anyway) or it could be an examination of some possible consequences of such a ruling.
It all depends on how you want to deal with the topic. There are lots of possibilities I have not mentioned.
You are doing all the hard work. I think we should explore what you find most interesting. You deserve to have as much pleasure as possible from the comments.
In the meantime, I'll check out the group and perhaps create a post to see whether others want to have a one on one going simultaneously like we did last time before going public with the summations and opening up the discussion to the community. If anyone else is interested, they may also have input in consideration of the debate or exploration format, and other ideas too.
The thing I would like to ask you to do for me if you would, please, is check to see whether or not you can still post to that group. I do not think you can. You don't have to create a new post or actually edit an old one, but just go to any post you currently have and hit edit. Scroll down to Who Can View This Post, and click. Your list of groups to which you can post will display. Find the alphabetical listing of the group which probably won't be there. Don't continue the process, but merely close the page and your post will not have been edited or show a new updated date. Thank you.
If you cannot see it, it's not a problem, but I'll just create a new group with the same idea. It would help to know for sure whether you can still post to this or not, though.
I did as you suggested to discover the group still listed as one of my groups but I was not given the choice to post to that group in the edit of an old post of mine.
Yes, John, I remember you set that up shortly after I set mine up. We did use if for two articles, didn't we? That format is a little different from mine. I set up three different one one one artilces. Would you be willing to set it up a little differently? It's kind of tedious at the beginning.
I will send an invitation to you, Larry. Please join the new group. John, I will also send you an inviation if you wish to take part in this one on one discussion. We need to pair you off with someone. Perhaps Aniko might be interested?
This case was decided in favor of the plaintiff based on the court's ruling that defendant's denial to allow him to create his atheist discussion group was in violation of the First Amendment establishment clause of freedom of religion. Atheism is equivalent to a religion because an Atheist's unbelief in a Supreme Being has been deemed by the US Supreme Court in a previous case to be equivalent to the belief in a Supreme Being by a Theist.
I had to change my permissions to accept "mature" material. Is that what you intended when you created the group? I really don't want material that requires that I be at least 18. (I am still just 9 years old at heart.)
I added some suggestions for topics to the group. I also noticed that some of the other suggestions "assumed facts not in evidence" which, in and of themselves, might constitute topics for future discussions. One could research the points for or against the validity of those "facts."
Well, yes, they very much purposefully did because as I either said in that post or the one that explains the rules of engagement, there might be research needed to delve into these topics of conversation. They involve social, political, and psychological aspects that would need to be validated. I just threw those ideas out as conversation starters, but where they go from there will depend on the two people who decide what topic they'd like to focus on and how much they're willing to invest in tme for evidence that would support any claims they
are making.
"It's that formal organization that makes the difference."...between religion and formal organization ....atheism and "formal atheism"? Not at all.
Religion is not necessarily a formal organization but in the cases that this is true...that organization could be compared to that of a business or more accurately..an industry. At any rate...even if atheism is promoted (becomes organized) to the level of actually becoming a business..it can never, by definition, be accurately referred to as a religion any more than not collecting stamps can be considered to be a hobby.
"Formal" does not require bureaucracy. Sets of norms regarding behavior expected are all that are required. Hunting and gathering societies have religion (usually without a Supreme Being belief) without having bureaucracy. The belief sets regarding that religion are formal, recognized, and obeyed without a separate organization of persons to practice those religious forms. The Shaman for a group will be just another member of the "clan" who happens to perform those tasks as well.
In short, the "organization" does not refer to people but to norms.
Atheism...without a belief, lacking a belief in a god or gods....not believing that there is/are no god/gods.
I am an atheist and I do not believe that a supreme being exists...but I have no way to know (prove) for certain...it would therefore be a logical fallacy for me to claim hat there IS no god....I do not know.
But those (most) who believe that a god exists claim that the god in which they belief does exist...that their god is real. This is a positive claim and must be supported as such unless the one making the claim is willing to offer the existence of a god as an OPINION.
Atheists can be represented as being a group, but never as a religion. The term "atheism" (without belief in the existence of gods or any supernatural entity.... from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god) contradicts the definition of "religion" (a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny...which is admittedly rather general definition but one which illustrates a relationship with a power beyond the natural).
It is not logically sound to offer that another's beliefs are wrong by using the argument of assuming that the alternative which you favor is correct. I can't state that the believers are wrong because I do not agree with them and so I make no claim (offer no belief) that a god does not exist. I lack a belief that a god exists....meaning that I do not share the opinions of the believers.
Technically, any person who does not believe (lacks a belief) in the existence of a supreme being is an atheist....including for example, those who have not been offered the possibility that a god exists. So this question presents itself..."how can one profess to believe something does not exist if that person has not considered the possibility of that existence?"
Given your definition as presented I completely agree with you.
Some who call themselves atheists use the term otherwise indicating a faith that there is no god. It is for those people that I think the term "religion" might apply (depending on ones definition of "religion" of course).