On 12/20/2011 11:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

"According to the ruling of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, decided
August 19, 2005, atheism is religion under the First Amendment. See
Kaufman v. McCaughtry, Case No. 03-C-027-C. Their ruling states:

"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."

Note that the circuit court does NOT say that it's "faith-based," just
that it "takes a position."


Many, I am sure, would be incensed by this decision, proclaiming atheism
an equal to many religions. But I would agree with the Court that atheism
could be considered a form of religion. My reasoning follows:

Gunner, you really should stay away from making claims based on court
rulings. And pay closer attention to which are Supreme Court
decisions, and which are just appeals court decisions.

The Supreme Court precedent they were working with does NOT require
"faith" to solve the case. It was based on Abe Fortas's famous words
in Epperson v. Arkansas (1968):

“The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion
and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”

Atheism is a "nonreligion" under Supreme Court rulings. As the 7th
Circuit Court of Appeals says, nonreligion has to be treated the same
as religion under the meaning of the 1st Amendment.



Hey, Ed, thanks for clearing that up. After hearing that atheism was a
religion, I kept thinking that if it is then where are my churches, my
book that tells me what to believe, my religious leaders, and who was
the founder.

Hawke

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:16:12 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 12/20/2011 11:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

"According to the ruling of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, decided
August 19, 2005, atheism is religion under the First Amendment. See
Kaufman v. McCaughtry, Case No. 03-C-027-C. Their ruling states:

"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."

Note that the circuit court does NOT say that it's "faith-based," just
that it "takes a position."


Many, I am sure, would be incensed by this decision, proclaiming atheism
an equal to many religions. But I would agree with the Court that atheism
could be considered a form of religion. My reasoning follows:

Gunner, you really should stay away from making claims based on court
rulings. And pay closer attention to which are Supreme Court
decisions, and which are just appeals court decisions.

The Supreme Court precedent they were working with does NOT require
"faith" to solve the case. It was based on Abe Fortas's famous words
in Epperson v. Arkansas (1968):

“The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion
and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”

Atheism is a "nonreligion" under Supreme Court rulings. As the 7th
Circuit Court of Appeals says, nonreligion has to be treated the same
as religion under the meaning of the 1st Amendment.



Hey, Ed, thanks for clearing that up. After hearing that atheism was a
religion, I kept thinking that if it is then where are my churches, my
book that tells me what to believe, my religious leaders, and who was
the founder.

Hawke

Well, that's what Kaufman was fighting for in the Seventh Circuit
cases that Ray and Gunner brought up. He is (or was) a prisoner in a
penetentiary, and he wanted the same access to materials, meeting
space, and so on that the religious groups got.

He was denied in some cases -- he brought several -- but the Seventh
Circuit eventually agreed, under the terms I described above, that a
"nonreligion," as atheism is defined by the Supreme Court, has to be
treated the same as a religion for First Amendment purposes.

The S.C. does NOT say atheism is a religion. Neither did the Seventh
Circuit, if those fools had bothered to read the whole case. They
simply said that, for First Amendment purposes, "nonreligion" is the
same as religion under the law -- but not by ordinary language
definition. The S.C. didn't comment on that beyond saying that it's a
"nonreligion."

Someone in this discussion brought up the term "legal fiction," and it
applies here. But I didn't want to confuse the issue with another
legal term that can be misconscrewed. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On 12/22/2011 11:25 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:16:12 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 12/20/2011 11:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

"According to the ruling of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, decided
August 19, 2005, atheism is religion under the First Amendment. See
Kaufman v. McCaughtry, Case No. 03-C-027-C. Their ruling states:

"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."

Note that the circuit court does NOT say that it's "faith-based," just
that it "takes a position."


Many, I am sure, would be incensed by this decision, proclaiming atheism
an equal to many religions. But I would agree with the Court that atheism
could be considered a form of religion. My reasoning follows:

Gunner, you really should stay away from making claims based on court
rulings. And pay closer attention to which are Supreme Court
decisions, and which are just appeals court decisions.

The Supreme Court precedent they were working with does NOT require
"faith" to solve the case. It was based on Abe Fortas's famous words
in Epperson v. Arkansas (1968):

“The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion
and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”

Atheism is a "nonreligion" under Supreme Court rulings. As the 7th
Circuit Court of Appeals says, nonreligion has to be treated the same
as religion under the meaning of the 1st Amendment.



Hey, Ed, thanks for clearing that up. After hearing that atheism was a
religion, I kept thinking that if it is then where are my churches, my
book that tells me what to believe, my religious leaders, and who was
the founder.

Hawke

Well, that's what Kaufman was fighting for in the Seventh Circuit
cases that Ray and Gunner brought up. He is (or was) a prisoner in a
penetentiary, and he wanted the same access to materials, meeting
space, and so on that the religious groups got.

He was denied in some cases -- he brought several -- but the Seventh
Circuit eventually agreed, under the terms I described above, that a
"nonreligion," as atheism is defined by the Supreme Court, has to be
treated the same as a religion for First Amendment purposes.

The S.C. does NOT say atheism is a religion. Neither did the Seventh
Circuit, if those fools had bothered to read the whole case. They
simply said that, for First Amendment purposes, "nonreligion" is the
same as religion under the law -- but not by ordinary language
definition. The S.C. didn't comment on that beyond saying that it's a
"nonreligion."

Someone in this discussion brought up the term "legal fiction," and it
applies here. But I didn't want to confuse the issue with another
legal term that can be misconscrewed. d8-)




In this case I have to feel a little sorry for Ray and Gummer. The ideas
put forth by the court can be confusing. "Legal fictions", "nonreligion"
being treated the same as a religion, but then calling it "not a
religion", can be confusing especially to people without any legal
training or much education. To me this is a good example of how ordinary
people lacking education can misconstrue what they read or hear. Like I
said, it is a bit confusing and takes some brains to understand what the
court is saying. On the other hand, if you haven't really even read the
opinion it's pretty certain you are going to come to the wrong
conclusion. And even more so if you're looking high and low for
something you can use to attack your political enemies with.

Hawke