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.

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

This is the same as you telling me companies are people because US courts have ruled that they are. Okay, but they aren't people like you and me.

I don't think anyone's going to dispute either what the court ruled. I don't think anyone cares whether Kaufman considers their beliefs around atheism to be "religious" or not. None of that is in contention.

What's in contention is this equivocation you're pulling to say that because in some specific legal context in some specific part of the world that someone's atheism can be considered their "religion" that therefore all atheism is a kind of religion. That doesn't follow at all.

So I'll repeat what I said in another post:
To me, atheism is a single proposition. I believe the proposition "A God exists" is false (some people will define atheism differently, of course). That's atheism to me. Is that what your religion is to you? Is it reducible to some single proposition like that? Or is it some broader, much more important thing to you? Does it not have historical claims, allegory, poetry, ritual, redemption, all that other stuff?

I don't think your religion is that small to you. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe your religion is that tiny.

Bladesman87:

You are not disputing? Really? Then why are you up in this thread insisting that atheism is not religion--despite numerous court rulings that says it is?

By the way, Kaufman was not the only atheist that filed lawsuits over his atheist religious rights being violated. Numerous others have done it, and many of them won their lawsuits.


Alter2Ego


________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

Bladesman87:

I'm not the one "pulling to say" anything. Atheists have used their Religion to conscientiously object to war, just like people within theist religions have been doing.

In United States v. Seeger (1965), Daniel A. Seeger (the Atheist), used his Atheist Religion to conscientiously object to war.
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment...tates-v-seeger

Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

I just explained that to you. It's equivocating. I'm not bound to the various legal definitions of the US Supreme Court. I don't nor have I ever lived in America. And, even if I did, it would still be equivocation.

The question that you refuse to answer, however, is still whether your religion is as small as my atheism? Is it really the case that your entire religion is reducible the the proposition "God exists"? Because my atheism is nothing more than "No God exists", and I suspect your religion means something much more to you. You're diminishing it with this dishonesty.