Post by Cloud Hobbit
It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts’ is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited,” Fahling said.
Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/#LJgIDm3IyXCk7qSV.99
You know full well that atheism is not a religion.
This bilge again.
Tandy posted the same thing in October, 2016.
Is he like the old TV networks, giving us "summer reruns?"
I answered it, so:
The ruling is here:
Note the date:
United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit.
James J. KAUFMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary R. McCAUGHTRY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Decided: August 19, 2005
Arty Joe isn't giving us news, but history.
People who aren't prisoners are allowed to join explicitly
atheist organizations, or religious ones - Unitarian Universalists,
Ethical Culture Society - which do not require belief in a deity.
In his pleading, Kaufman specifically mentioned "humanism."
While at Waupun, 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.”
See Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 2004 WL 257133, *4 (W.D.Wis. Feb.9, 2004).
Kaufman also submitted a list of atheist groups and literature. The
officials concluded that Kaufman's request was not motivated by
“religious” beliefs. Accordingly, rather than evaluating the
proposal under the state's relatively more flexible policy for new
religious groups, see Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 309.61, they considered
it under the procedure for forming a new inmate activity group, see
Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 309.365. Applying the latter standard, they
denied the request, stating that they were not forming new activity
groups at that time.
Further down, the court explains it is only considering atheism as
a religion in a "...specialized sense....."
But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible
of litigation, the 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.
Indeed, Torcaso specifically included “Secular Humanism”
as an example of a religion. Id. at 495 n. 11, 81 S.Ct. 1680.
The humanists, secular or otherwise, have their own organization:
It is plain that, inmates who wanted to set up a bible study group,
perhaps supported by one of the chaplains serving the prison, or
a group studying another faith, would have privileges atheist
inmates would not have access to, unless they faked interest in
studying some religion.
For the record, IANAL. I was never even a naval officer tasked
with legal duties by his CO when no lawyer was available.
I do know how to use a search engine, and citing the name of the
case, and the opinion is extremely easy in this day and age.
Wikipedia has an article on the Torcaso case, which mooted any
state laws requiring a religious test for office.
He reposted April 23, also.
Does he really think regulars on the group have no memory,
and no ability to do an archive search?
What a maroon!