yes the reason the add for first amendment is because 1A comes with restrictions on the full scope of the definition. Ignorance is bliss which you cant be since you have been educated on the facts literally for years and still cherry pick dismissing out of hand anything that does not match your evangelism. This has been proven to you many times, why do you persist? 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. [....as your religion] The Court has adopted a broad definition of "religion" that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones. Thus, in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 81 S.Ct. 1680, 6 L.Ed.2d 982, it said that a state cannot "pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can [it] aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs." Id. at 495, 81 S.Ct. 1680. Indeed, Torcaso specifically included "Secular Humanism" as an example of a religion. Id. at 495 n. 11, 81 S.Ct. 1680. Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics. As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman's religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise. Atheism is Kaufman's religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being. It is undisputed that other religious groups are permitted to meet at Kaufman's prison, and the defendants have advanced no secular reason why the security concerns they cited as a reason to deny his request for an atheist group do not apply equally to gatherings of Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or Wiccan inmates. The defendants argue that all they are doing is accommodating religious groups as a whole, as they are required to do under RLUIPA. See Cutter, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020; Charles, 348 F.3d at 610-11. But the defendants have not answered Kaufman's argument [Hmm...not answering the argument, now theres a very familiar tune!!!] that by accommodating some religious views, but not his, they are promoting the favored ones. Because the defendants failed even to articulate — much less support with evidence — a secular reason why a meeting of atheist inmates would pose a greater security risk than meetings of inmates of other faiths, their rejection of Kaufman's request cannot survive the first part of the Lemon test. See Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13, 91 S.Ct. 2105; Books, 235 F.3d at 301. We therefore vacate the grant of summary judgment in the defendants' favor on Kaufman's claim under the Establishment Clause and remand for further proceedings. [Emphasis Added!] https://casetext.com/case/kaufman-v-mccaughtry-12 Seems you need to read the case a little closer rahl since it unequivocally states that atheism is just another run of the mill religion. So you gonna trot out your webster now despite the fact that in addition to several 'real' atheists, that is the atheists that outright and properly claim to 'disbelieve' have corrected and informed that neither webster nor the courts say or support what you claim? .
yes, thank you for showing that none of the courts you referenced, at any time, declared atheism to be a religion. They concluded atheists are entitled to first amendment protections. We knew this already, because you've had numerous threads on this where you have had your silly claims completely demolished. And as it was with the very first thread you started on this moronic topic, atheism remains by definition, not a religion.
"Atheism is Kaufman's religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being." any time clearly atheism is only a religion if its kaufmans.
English seems to be difficult for you. No court, at any time, has ever ruled atheism to be a religion. All the courts ruled was that atheists are entitled for 1st amendment protections.
Only recognized religions qualify for those protections, just like baseball is a sport regardless if you play it or not..
Nope, as the ruling pointed out. So again, the facts remain, no court, at any time, has ever ruled atheism to be a religion. They ruled atheists are entitled to first amendment protections.
"They ruled atheists are entitled to first amendment protections." If its not because its a religion then what basis did the court use for the decision? Freedom of speech maybe?
the freedom to be without religion. the 1st amendment protects an individuals right to freely exercise their religion, or to be free from religion.
False, no such amendment or law exists, please cite the amendment to which you refer? true, you have the right to exercise your atheist religion.
first amendment as you are perfectly aware, atheism by definition is not a religion. Just like not playing baseball isn't a sport.
not the american first amendment. but you know that is false the courts ruled atheism is a religion just like baseball is a sport whether you play it or not. "Atheism is Kaufman's religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being."
Yes, the US first amendment. no court, at any time, including the one you are citing, has ever ruled atheism is a religion. They ruled atheists are entitled to first amendment protections.
But that would be a lie, it neither says or implies any such thing. 1a Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "Atheism is Kaufman's religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being." I have already told you that a court looks at the substance, and rules on the substance. Kaufman denied that atheism was a religion and the court called bullshit and said yes it is. Im not sure what your problem is why extremely basic english is so difficult for you?
because you have no idea how constitutional law works. no court, at any time, including the one you are citing, has ever ruled atheism is a religion. They ruled atheists are entitled to first amendment protections
false So if the court rules that Christianity is joe blows religion therefore joe blow has the constitutional right to exercise his religion then iyo its really not a religion and the court did not rule Christianity is a religion? Seriously? For real? Are we back to the special snowflake rule book?
I did, you are in denial again. Atheism is Kaufman's religion Court created legal definition of religion, atheism Although a judicially generated legal definition of atheism may not be easily forthcoming, the Seventh Circuit — like other courts — has at least proffered a definition of religion that includes atheism. According to the Kaufman court, “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.” dont project your blind denialism on me
the court is not ruling atheism is a religion, it ruled atheists have first amendment protections. No court, at any time, has ever ruled atheism to be a religion. trolling
Because atheism is a religion, that qualifies as a religion, so they have constitutional protection as a religion! The court cannot affirm a religious right without a religion LMAO Yes why do you continue when it's perfectly clear that atheism is a religion?
trolling. you are well aware that atheism, by definition, is not a religion. They didn't. They ruled atheists have 1st amendment protections. trolling. you are well aware that atheism, by definition, is not a religion.
They said atheism is religion, if not religion how did he get the court to rule in his favor? Explain to us how your claim is rational after the court stated that atheism is a religion. Yeh you scream troll every time you are put on the spot and cant defend yourself.
no court, at any time, has ever ruled atheism is a religion. no, I point out when you are trolling. your premise was refuted in the very first thread you made the claim. Atheism remains, by definition, not a religion.
