Atheist Prison Group Deserves Reconsideration

[rug]

Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Last Update: 8:57 AM PT
By ELIZABETH WARMERDAM

(CN) - A Wisconsin inmate's request to form an atheist study group deserves the same consideration afforded to a recognized "religious" group, the 7th Circuit ruled.

This is the second case in which inmate James Kaufman has attempted to compel the prison system to allow him to form and participate in an atheist group, the same way other inmates are allowed to create religious study groups.

In its 2005 ruling on Kaufman's first complaint, the Chicago-based federal appeals court said Kaufman's request to form an atheist group "must be treated as a request to form a 'religious' group rather than a nonreligious activity group. So understood, the Establishment Clauses [of the First Amendment] requires the prison to provide a 'legitimate secular reason' for allowing other religious groups, but prohibiting an atheist one."

That ruling found that religious beliefs do not need to involve worship of a supreme being to merit protection under the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/08/20/60450.htm

The Opinion:

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2013/D08-16/C:13-1009:J:Wood:aut:T:fnOp:N:1187823:S:0

[cbayer]

1. Interesting trend.

Will be interesting to follow as well. Will this solve some issues? Create issues?

[rug]

3. I'd say solve if this principle is consistently applied.

In Kaufman I, we explained that religious beliefs protected by the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses need not involve worship of a supreme being. 419 F.3d at 682 (citing McCreary Cnty., Ky. v. Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005). In Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), the Supreme Court left no room for doubt on this point:

&quot T)he Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual’s freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful, and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends … to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain."

Great phrase, "the disbeliever and the uncertain."

It looks like the courts are framing religious issues as conscience issues. If it is, I think it will go a long way to resolving these disputes in a clear fashion.

[cbayer]

4. Conscience issues - great concept.

It removes the conflict of calling disbelief a religion but affords it status. Solomonic, if you ask me.

[Dawson Leery]

2. kick

kick

[hrmjustin]

5. K&R!

[xfundy]

6. The notion of holding a group discussion is human.

It's kind of a necessary thing. Putting ideas out into a group, getting feedback, discussing or arguing over an idea, forming it, expanding it, growing it.

Finding common ground of belief is a given. Not believing in invisible men/women is not an insult or attack on those who believe in invisible friends, it's just being logical. If someone wants to claim the invisible friends are pissed off by being unbelieved-in, why should the people who don't believe in this suffer?

[cbayer]

7. Y'know, when you make the remark "believe in invisible friends",

that is insulting. It's belittling and dismissive, implying that those who see the world different than you are childish, or even worse, mentally impaired.

This is a positive story, imo. Why the need to use it to put down believers?