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.
