Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladesman87
Kaufman vs. McCaughtry, was the decision that a prison could not deny an inmate's request to form an inmate group on the basis that they were atheist. The ruling was essentially that if Christian groups can form then so can atheists.
That is, the court made a specific ruling regard to the application of law and what kind of beliefs are protected or must be treated the same.
This is very, very different to thinking the court determined that atheism is a "religion" in common parlance. The US Supreme Court doesn't sit around answering philosophical questions. It decides upon issues of law and the interpretation thereof.
But if you want another reason then I'm not American and don't really care what their opinion is.
Bladesman87
You are ignoring the fact that James J. Kaufman (the atheist) filed the lawsuit for his religious rights and that 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 5 and 6.
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
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. 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). We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. 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."). 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.
The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005). 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." In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as "the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." Id. at *10 (internal quotations omitted). As the Court put it in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985):
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1467028.html
The point, according to numerous court rulings, is that one does not have to believe in a God or gods in order to belong to a religion. As long as the belief is of central importance in the person's life, it is considered RELIGION. Buddhism, for example is a religion in which there is no god.
Alter2Ego
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18