The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that inmates' religious liberties include allowing atheists to conduct study groups. So long as the atheists consider it a matter of religion and religious liberty, prison officials must respect their wishes as much as the wishes of Christians. The Christian Right is already spinning this and distorting it.

According to Kaufman v. McCaughtry (PDF document), this is the situation:

Kaufman’s argument that the prison officials violated his constitutional rights when they refused to give him permission to start a study group for atheist inmates at the prison. ... Kaufman submitted an official form titled “Request for New Religious Practice,” in which he asked to form an inmate group interested in humanism, atheism, and free speaking. The group would work “[t]o stimulate and promote Freedom of Thought and inquiry concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals and practices[, and to] educate and provide information concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices.”

The Christian Right has been saying that the court declared atheism to be a religion. Did they? Well, Kaufman, the defendant, argued very specifically that it wasn’t:

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. 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 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. A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths).

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. ... We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a 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.

Notice the scare quotes around the word religion. The court isn’t treating atheism like a real religion. Two things matter for the court: first, the seriousness with which Kaufman holds his beliefs (differentiating his proposed study group from a chess club) and, second, the fact that the government is prohibited from favoring religion over beliefs held with such seriousness.

The Court did not rule that atheism is a religion. Instead, the court ruled that, for First Amendment purposes, atheism is a religion for Kaufman. Those are two very significant qualifiers. It means that atheism isn’t inherently a religion. It means that atheism isn’t inherently a religion for Kaufman — it’s only a religion for Kaufman in this narrow context. It means that atheism isn’t a religion for First Amendment purposes for everyone — just for Kaufman (and presumably some other inmates) in the context of this case.

Why did the judges reach this decision? Although it seems strange, it’s the best option given what they had to work with. If you accept that religion shouldn’t be favored over non-religion, then in situations like this there are only two choices: remove the privileges being given to religion or ensure that the same privileges are available to non-religion. Should the court have prevented the prison from letting religious groups meet? Even if that were possible, it wouldn’t have been fair. If someone disagrees that religion shouldn’t be favored over non-religion, though, then that would undermine court decisions allowing non-religious pacifists to apply for “religious exemptions” to military duty, for example. It would even allow the government to give tax exemptions to religious groups, but not to non-religious groups.

The Christian Right, though, acts like the court said that atheism is a religion, full stop. Much of the confusion stems from a World Nut Daily article which radically distorts the facts and very pointedly doesn’t link to the original decision were people can read it for themselves. What’s interesting is that even WND quotes a Christian Right lawyer who thinks it wrong to declare atheism a religion:

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court’s ruling “a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.”

“Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion,” said Fahling.

It’s unfortunate that even Fahling, a lawyer, either can’t understand or can’t be fair about what the ruling actually says. It’s instructive, though, that he thinks it bad for atheism to be considered a religion. Many on the Christian Right seem to consider a good thing, tactically speaking, to act like atheism is a religion. There are obviously some fundamental disagreements here

Read More:

• Atheism 101
• What is Atheism?
• Who Are Atheists?
• Separation of Church and State 101
• Church and State News
• Secularism 101