U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: ATHEISM IS RELIGION

Alter2Ego

Alter2Ego

Verified User
Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. In spite of the many court rulings since 1961 that Atheism is Religion, atheists insist on fooling themselves by claiming they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by claiming Christians are mental midgets for believing in a "non-existent sky gawd."


Atheist religionists often refer to the Judeo-Christian Bible as a book of fairytales. At one website where I have debated, the Bible was referred to by atheists as the "BuyBull."


In most of my conversations with atheists at various websites, their usual accusation is that because of the belief in God, theists have committed all sorts of human rights violations in the name of "cultish religions." According to the many atheists I have debated at other websites, it is the belief in God that has caused people to commit the various atrocities common to sinful mankind. Remove religion--the atheists frequently argue--and the world will be a better place. This latter conclusion is mortally flawed for the following reasons:


1. Atheism is itself a religion.

2. Atheists have committed human rights violations en masse throughout history. For instance, Joseph Stalin--the atheist--ordered the deaths of between 40 million to 62 million people (at least 20 million of whom were everyday Soviet civilians). Compare that to the 9 million or so murdered by Adolph Hitler, the Roman Catholic, who merely claimed he was a Christian.

In reality, the problem is not the Bible or God. The problem is false religions that have failed to teach the masses Biblical truths. Blaming God for the crimes of people whose behavior he himself rejects is an attempt at passing the buck.

"See! This only I have found, that the true God made mankind upright, but THEY THEMSELVES have sought out many plans." (Ecclesiastes 7:29)


DISCUSSION POINTS:
1. Considering that atheists have themselves committed human rights violations under the banner of non-belief in a supernatural God or gods, why can one argue that "belief in god" is not the actual reason behind crimes against humanity?


2. Atheists routinely argue they do not belong to a religion. According to them, non-belief in God is proof positive that they are not religious. Do you agree with the atheists' position? Why so or why not?


3. Based upon numerous court rulings that Atheism is Religion, it is obvious that belief in a supernatural God or gods is not a requirement for being considered part of a religion. What arguments can you present along this line?
 
Last edited:
Alter2Ego said:
Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. In spite of the many court rulings since 1961 that Atheism is Religion, atheists insist on fooling themselves by claiming they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by claiming Christians are mental midgets for believing in a "non-existent sky gawd."
Click to expand...
Torcaso ruled the constitutional prohibition against requiring a religious test to hold office also applies to the states. Nowhere in Torasco can I find anything saying atheism is a religion. Freedom of religion allows each person to decide what their religion or lack of religion includes.
 
Flash said:
Torcaso ruled the constitutional prohibition against requiring a religious test to hold office also applies to the states. Nowhere in Torasco can I find anything saying atheism is a religion. Freedom of religion allows each person to decide what their religion or lack of religion includes.
Click to expand...
Flash:

No, that's not the only thing the ruling established. The ruling established that Atheism is religion, particularly at Footnote 11. Notice below some of the language used within the ruling that indicates that.

"Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public; but he was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. Claiming that this requirement violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, he sued in a state court to compel issuance of his commission; but relief was denied. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing without need for implementing legislation and requires declaration of a belief in God as a qualification for office. Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. Pp. 489-496."

[ Footnote 11 ] Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47."
supreme.justia.com

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Torcaso v. Watkins
supreme.justia.com supreme.justia.com
 
Alter2Ego said:
Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. In spite of the many court rulings since 1961 that Atheism is Religion, atheists insist on fooling themselves by claiming they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by claiming Christians are mental midgets for believing in a "non-existent sky gawd."


Atheist religionists often refer to the Judeo-Christian Bible as a book of fairytales. At one website where I have debated, the Bible was referred to by atheists as the "BuyBull."


In most of my conversations with atheists at various websites, their usual accusation is that because of the belief in God, theists have committed all sorts of human rights violations in the name of "cultish religions." According to the many atheists I have debated at other websites, it is the belief in God that has caused people to commit the various atrocities common to sinful mankind. Remove religion--the atheists frequently argue--and the world will be a better place. This latter conclusion is mortally flawed for the following reasons:


1. Atheism is itself a religion.

2. Atheists have committed human rights violations en masse throughout history. For instance, Joseph Stalin--the atheist--ordered the deaths of between 40 million to 62 million people (at least 20 million of whom were everyday Soviet civilians). Compare that to the 9 million or so murdered by Adolph Hitler, the Roman Catholic, who merely claimed he was a Christian.

In reality, the problem is not the Bible or God. The problem is false religions that have failed to teach the masses Biblical truths. Blaming God for the crimes of people whose behavior he himself rejects is an attempt at passing the buck.

"See! This only I have found, that the true God made mankind upright, but THEY THEMSELVES have sought out many plans." (Ecclesiastes 7:29)


DISCUSSION POINTS:
1. Considering that atheists have themselves committed human rights violations under the banner of non-belief in a supernatural God or gods, why can one argue that "belief in god" is not the actual reason behind crimes against humanity?


2. Atheists routinely argue they do not belong to a religion. According to them, non-belief in God is proof positive that they are not religious. Do you agree with the atheists' position? Why so or why not?


3. Based upon numerous court rulings that Atheism is Religion, it is obvious that belief in a supernatural God or gods is not a requirement for being considered part of a religion. What arguments can you present along this line?
Click to expand...
Great. I want our commandments posted in schools. I want Atheist Holiday celebration with school days off. Mostly, I want my fucking tax breaks.
 
Alter2Ego said:
Flash:

No, that's not the only thing the ruling established. The ruling established that Atheism is religion, particularly at Footnote 11. Notice below some of the language used within the ruling that indicates that.

"Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public; but he was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. Claiming that this requirement violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, he sued in a state court to compel issuance of his commission; but relief was denied. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing without need for implementing legislation and requires declaration of a belief in God as a qualification for office. Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. Pp. 489-496."

[ Footnote 11 ] Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47."
supreme.justia.com

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Torcaso v. Watkins
supreme.justia.com supreme.justia.com
Click to expand...
Isaiah has nothing to to do with the goyim

Jehovah the christer goyims name for God 🤪 :ROFLMAO:
 
Alter2Ego said:
Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. In spite of the many court rulings since 1961 that Atheism is Religion, atheists insist on fooling themselves by claiming they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by claiming Christians are mental midgets for believing in a "non-existent sky gawd."


Atheist religionists often refer to the Judeo-Christian Bible as a book of fairytales. At one website where I have debated, the Bible was referred to by atheists as the "BuyBull."


In most of my conversations with atheists at various websites, their usual accusation is that because of the belief in God, theists have committed all sorts of human rights violations in the name of "cultish religions." According to the many atheists I have debated at other websites, it is the belief in God that has caused people to commit the various atrocities common to sinful mankind. Remove religion--the atheists frequently argue--and the world will be a better place. This latter conclusion is mortally flawed for the following reasons:


1. Atheism is itself a religion.

2. Atheists have committed human rights violations en masse throughout history. For instance, Joseph Stalin--the atheist--ordered the deaths of between 40 million to 62 million people (at least 20 million of whom were everyday Soviet civilians). Compare that to the 9 million or so murdered by Adolph Hitler, the Roman Catholic, who merely claimed he was a Christian.

In reality, the problem is not the Bible or God. The problem is false religions that have failed to teach the masses Biblical truths. Blaming God for the crimes of people whose behavior he himself rejects is an attempt at passing the buck.

"See! This only I have found, that the true God made mankind upright, but THEY THEMSELVES have sought out many plans." (Ecclesiastes 7:29)


DISCUSSION POINTS:
1. Considering that atheists have themselves committed human rights violations under the banner of non-belief in a supernatural God or gods, why can one argue that "belief in god" is not the actual reason behind crimes against humanity?


2. Atheists routinely argue they do not belong to a religion. According to them, non-belief in God is proof positive that they are not religious. Do you agree with the atheists' position? Why so or why not?


3. Based upon numerous court rulings that Atheism is Religion, it is obvious that belief in a supernatural God or gods is not a requirement for being considered part of a religion. What arguments can you present along this line?
Click to expand...
This idiot is using a brief footnote (#11) in Torcaso v Watkins where Justice Black refers to other religions that do not teach a belief in God and he referenced “Secular Humanism”, not atheism.

So, this fuck is lying again.
 
Alter2Ego said:
Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case
Click to expand...
Nope. Torcaso v. Watkins reversed the Maryland apellate court ruling and established that any religious test for public office unconstitutionally invades one's freedom of belief and religion and therefore cannot be enforced.

Atheism, i.e. the lack of any theism, cannot be any theism. You probably should have looked into this before regurgitating what others told you to believe.

Alter2Ego said:
In spite of the many court rulings since 1961 that Atheism is Religion,
Click to expand...
There are no court cases establishing the lack of any religion as a religion.

Alter2Ego said:
atheists insist on fooling themselves by claiming they are not religious.
Click to expand...
I am an atheist. I am not religious. You haven't thought this through very well.

Alter2Ego said:
They attempt to take the higher ground by claiming Christians are mental midgets for believing in a "non-existent sky gawd."
Click to expand...
Nope. You don't get to speak for atheists.

Alter2Ego said:
Atheist religionists often refer to the Judeo-Christian Bible as a book of fairytales.
Click to expand...
You don't get to speak for atheists. I can speak for myself in saying that I refer to the Bible as a collection of stories/accounts.

Alter2Ego said:
At one website where I have debated, the Bible was referred to by atheists as the "BuyBull."
Click to expand...
You were gullible. The people who claimed to be atheists were probably not atheists. They were most likely profoundly religious Global Warming warmizombies or Climate lemmings. Unwitting and somewhat naive Christians take those claims of atheism on face value, rendering themselves impotent. If you had, instead, gone for the throat in attacking their Climate Change faith, you would have had a very different discussion result. Instead of being permanently on the defensive, you would have bitch-slapped them back to last Tuesday. Marxists of all sorts can't suffer such a scenario so they just claim to be atheists and let you render them invincible.

Alter2Ego said:
According to the many [claimed] atheists I have debated at other websites, it is the belief in God that has caused people to commit the various atrocities common to sinful mankind. Remove [the Christian] religion--the [claimed] atheists frequently argue--and the world will be a better place.
Click to expand...
Of course Marxists of all sorts are going to claim this, after dishonestly declaring themselves to be "atheists." Christianity is their top competition. They would have practically zero competition if they could rid the world of Christianity.

An actual atheist has no theism to be riled by your theism. Christians do not represent any sort of competition to atheists. If someone is actively attacking you for your faith, you should be able to tell immediately that said person is a deeply religious competitor.

I am an atheist. I am not your enemy. Attacking me will accomplish nothing. I can't attack you any less than the zero I am attacking you.

Alter2Ego said:
1. Atheism is itself a religion.
Click to expand...
Nope. This is a logical contradiction on your part. You aren't very proficient in formal logic.

Alter2Ego said:
2. Atheists have committed human rights violations en masse throughout history.
Click to expand...
This is a pivot. It is irrelevant and is stricken from the record.
 
Flash said:
Torcaso ruled the constitutional prohibition against requiring a religious test to hold office also applies to the states. Nowhere in Torasco can I find anything saying atheism is a religion. Freedom of religion allows each person to decide what their religion or lack of religion includes.
Click to expand...
You are correct. Torcaso never said that.
 
Alter2Ego said:
Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. In spite of the many court rulings since 1961 that Atheism is Religion, atheists insist on fooling themselves by claiming they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by claiming Christians are mental midgets for believing in a "non-existent sky gawd."


Atheist religionists often refer to the Judeo-Christian Bible as a book of fairytales. At one website where I have debated, the Bible was referred to by atheists as the "BuyBull."


In most of my conversations with atheists at various websites, their usual accusation is that because of the belief in God, theists have committed all sorts of human rights violations in the name of "cultish religions." According to the many atheists I have debated at other websites, it is the belief in God that has caused people to commit the various atrocities common to sinful mankind. Remove religion--the atheists frequently argue--and the world will be a better place. This latter conclusion is mortally flawed for the following reasons:


1. Atheism is itself a religion.

2. Atheists have committed human rights violations en masse throughout history. For instance, Joseph Stalin--the atheist--ordered the deaths of between 40 million to 62 million people (at least 20 million of whom were everyday Soviet civilians). Compare that to the 9 million or so murdered by Adolph Hitler, the Roman Catholic, who merely claimed he was a Christian.

In reality, the problem is not the Bible or God. The problem is false religions that have failed to teach the masses Biblical truths. Blaming God for the crimes of people whose behavior he himself rejects is an attempt at passing the buck.

"See! This only I have found, that the true God made mankind upright, but THEY THEMSELVES have sought out many plans." (Ecclesiastes 7:29)


DISCUSSION POINTS:
1. Considering that atheists have themselves committed human rights violations under the banner of non-belief in a supernatural God or gods, why can one argue that "belief in god" is not the actual reason behind crimes against humanity?


2. Atheists routinely argue they do not belong to a religion. According to them, non-belief in God is proof positive that they are not religious. Do you agree with the atheists' position? Why so or why not?


3. Based upon numerous court rulings that Atheism is Religion, it is obvious that belief in a supernatural God or gods is not a requirement for being considered part of a religion. What arguments can you present along this line?
Click to expand...
Atheism is NOT a religion...and the SCOTUS has never ruled that it is.

Atheism is, however, a "belief system'...just as most religions are belief systems.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Atheism is NOT a religion...and the SCOTUS has never ruled that it is.

Atheism is, however, a "belief system'...just as most religions are belief systems.
Click to expand...
Ross Dolan:

I quoted the portion of the court ruling where it clearly states:

"This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States."


Next you will be arguing that Secular Humanism has no connection to Atheism. Keep in mind that Footnote 11 of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling says Secular Humanism (which embraces atheism) is religion.

[ Footnote 11 ] Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47."
 
When there are atheist houses of worship getting property tax breaks, then your thesis might be valid.
 
Alter2Ego said:
Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. In spite of the many court rulings since 1961 that Atheism is Religion
Click to expand...
I just read about the case. What you claimed about it is false. Please cite something from that which says atheism is a religion.
The court said, no religious test can be made to hold public office.
 
Alter2Ego said:
Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. In spite of the many court rulings since 1961 that Atheism is Religion, atheists insist on fooling themselves by claiming they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by claiming Christians are mental midgets for believing in a "non-existent sky gawd."


Atheist religionists often refer to the Judeo-Christian Bible as a book of fairytales. At one website where I have debated, the Bible was referred to by atheists as the "BuyBull."


In most of my conversations with atheists at various websites, their usual accusation is that because of the belief in God, theists have committed all sorts of human rights violations in the name of "cultish religions." According to the many atheists I have debated at other websites, it is the belief in God that has caused people to commit the various atrocities common to sinful mankind. Remove religion--the atheists frequently argue--and the world will be a better place. This latter conclusion is mortally flawed for the following reasons:


1. Atheism is itself a religion.

2. Atheists have committed human rights violations en masse throughout history. For instance, Joseph Stalin--the atheist--ordered the deaths of between 40 million to 62 million people (at least 20 million of whom were everyday Soviet civilians). Compare that to the 9 million or so murdered by Adolph Hitler, the Roman Catholic, who merely claimed he was a Christian.

In reality, the problem is not the Bible or God. The problem is false religions that have failed to teach the masses Biblical truths. Blaming God for the crimes of people whose behavior he himself rejects is an attempt at passing the buck.

"See! This only I have found, that the true God made mankind upright, but THEY THEMSELVES have sought out many plans." (Ecclesiastes 7:29)


DISCUSSION POINTS:
1. Considering that atheists have themselves committed human rights violations under the banner of non-belief in a supernatural God or gods, why can one argue that "belief in god" is not the actual reason behind crimes against humanity?


2. Atheists routinely argue they do not belong to a religion. According to them, non-belief in God is proof positive that they are not religious. Do you agree with the atheists' position? Why so or why not?


3. Based upon numerous court rulings that Atheism is Religion, it is obvious that belief in a supernatural God or gods is not a requirement for being considered part of a religion. What arguments can you present along this line?
Click to expand...
We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion."

supreme.justia.com

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Torcaso v. Watkins
supreme.justia.com supreme.justia.com
 
Alter2Ego said:
Ross Dolan:

I quoted the portion of the court ruling where it clearly states:

"This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States."


Next you will be arguing that Secular Humanism has no connection to Atheism. Keep in mind that Footnote 11 of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling says Secular Humanism (which embraces atheism) is religion.

[ Footnote 11 ] Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47."
Click to expand...
Atheism IS NOT a religion.

It is, however, a set of beliefs (a belief system).

Do what you will with that.
 
Alter2Ego said:
Flash:

No, that's not the only thing the ruling established. The ruling established that Atheism is religion, particularly at Footnote 11. Notice below some of the language used within the ruling that indicates that.

"Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public; but he was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. Claiming that this requirement violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, he sued in a state court to compel issuance of his commission; but relief was denied. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing without need for implementing legislation and requires declaration of a belief in God as a qualification for office. Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. Pp. 489-496."

[ Footnote 11 ] Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47."
supreme.justia.com

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Torcaso v. Watkins
supreme.justia.com supreme.justia.com
Click to expand...
The case talks about secular humanism, not atheism.

I'm not sure what point you are making. The court (and U. S. Constitution) say no religious test can be used to qualify a person to hold public office Both support the establishment clause prohibition that government was to remain neutral in religious matters. That is consistent with the ruling that government cannot mandate the display of the 10 Commandments or other religious doctrine. Also, the LA case requires schools to to display a specific , state mandated, version of the Commandments.

The outcome of the case is the same. The state cannot require the person to hold any religious views (including atheism) to hold office in MD.
 
Flash said:
Torcaso ruled the constitutional prohibition against requiring a religious test to hold office also applies to the states. Nowhere in Torasco can I find anything saying atheism is a religion. Freedom of religion allows each person to decide what their religion or lack of religion includes.
Click to expand...
Agreed. @Alter2Ego is an extremist. IMO, all extremists are bad regardless of what they advocate since there is no way to reason with them. They take an extreme stance with their backs to the wall and refuse to consider anything except their beliefs.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Atheism IS NOT a religion.

It is, however, a set of beliefs (a belief system).

Do what you will with that.
Click to expand...
Ross Dolan:

Try telling that to the numerous courts where various atheists filed lawsuits to defend their religious rights, at which point, numerous courts agreed that Atheism is indeed religion. Take for example, atheist religionist James J. Kaufman in the case of KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY.

James J. Kaufman (the atheist) who was in prison, wanted to form an inmate atheist group and was denied. So he filed a lawsuit for his religious rights and lost at the superior court level. He then took the matter to the appeals court and won. The appeals court agreed with him that his religious rights were being denied. Why? Because Kaufman's atheism was of "central" importance in his life. Below is part of what is stated at Findlaw, at paragraphs 1, 4, and 5.

KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY (2005)​

United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit.​

James J. KAUFMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary R. McCAUGHTRY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.​

No. 04-1914.​

Decided: August 19, 2005​

Before BAUER, WOOD, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.​

James J. Kaufman, Jackson Correctional Institution, Black River Falls, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.​


Wisconsin inmate James Kaufman filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming as relevant here that prison officials violated his First Amendment rights.   He raises three unrelated issues.   Of the three, the one that has prompted the issuance of this opinion is his claim that the defendants infringed on his right to practice his religion when they refused to allow him to create an inmate group to study and discuss atheism.   Kaufman also argues that the defendants used an overly broad definition of “pornography” when they prevented him from receiving several publications containing sexual content and photographs of nude men and that they improperly opened outside of his presence several letters that he claimed were “legal” mail.   The district court dismissed the pornography claim at screening, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the other two.   On appeal, Kaufman contests the merits of those decisions, argues that he should have been allowed to amend his complaint to add another claim, and claims that he should have been permitted to conduct additional discovery.   We affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.

. . . . . .


A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths), see Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495  See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972).   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.   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 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.   An inmate retains the right to exercise his religious beliefs in prison. Tarpley v. Allen County, 312 F.3d 895, 898 (7th Cir.2002).  We address his claim under the Free Exercise Clause first.   & n. 11, 81 S.Ct. 1680, 6 L.Ed.2d 982 (1961);  Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197, 200-15 (3d Cir.1979) (Adams, J., concurring);  Theriault v. Silber, 547 F.2d 1279, 1281 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam), nor must it be a mainstream faith, see Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 714, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (1981);  Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1110 (7th Cir.2003).


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.  See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir.2003) (“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”).   We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion.  Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch. Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n. 5 (7th Cir.1994) (internal citation and quotation omitted);  see also Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 340, 90 S.Ct. 1792, 26 L.Ed.2d 308 (1970);  United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 184-88, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965).  Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, 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.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top