Atheist inmate refused authorization for atheism study group

[David E. Guinn]

True.  And the tax exemption that protects both religious institutions and 
the American Humanist and American Atheist societies is not technically 
confined to religions......

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>


Recall that only one Justice, Harlan, took the view that equal
treatment for atheist conscientious objectors was constitutionally
mandated; the plurality relied instead on a (tortured) interpretation of
the statute.

Eugene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
> David E. Guinn
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:41 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Atheist inmate refused authorization for atheism
> study group
>
> This doesn't make sense to me.  Assuming that the prison does
> allow meetings for religious groups, then under the selective
> services cases requiring equal protection for atheism or
> other beliefs equivalent to religion would seem to be required.
>
> As for protecting the publications--that does seem to follow
> the common bias that wants to treat the 1st Amend. as simply
> a free speech amendment--though I agree with you that it is
> incoherent in terms of this case.
>
> David
>
> David E. Guinn JD, PhD
>
> Recent Publications Available from SSRN at
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=199608
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>
> To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics"
> <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 4:28 PM
> Subject: Atheist inmate refused authorization for atheism study group
>
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> >From Kaufman v. Schneiter, 2007 WL 521218 (W.D. Wis. Feb. 15,
> 2007):
>
> "Petitioner is an atheist. He contends that prison officials
> have violated his rights under the free exercise clause and RLUIPA in
> three ways: (1) by refusing to authorize a study group for inmates who
> have described themselves as atheists, freethinkers, humanists and
> 'other' and those who have identified themselves to prison
> officials as
> having no religious preference; (2) by failing to provide petitioner
> with publications about atheism; and (3) by preventing him
> from ordering
> publications about atheism.
>
> "Petitioner has not stated a claim under the free exercise
> clause for one simple reason. He does not allege (nor is it
> possible to
> see how he could plausibly do so) that merely reading books about
> atheism or meeting in a study group with inmates of various
> philosophical bents constitutes the exercise of his religion, that is
> 'the observation of [ ] central religious belief[s] or practice[s]' of
> atheism. Civil Liberties for Urban Believers, 342 F.3d at 760.
> Therefore, petitioner must be denied leave to proceed on his
> claim that
> respondents Taylor, Hepp and Huibregtse violated his First Amendment
> free exercise rights by refusing to provide him with materials about
> atheism or to authorize a study groups for atheist, humanist and
> freethinking inmates and inmates with no or an 'other' religious
> preference....
>
> "In this case, petitioner is not challenging the prison's
> decision to deny atheists the opportunity to meet together to discuss
> their commonly held religious beliefs. Instead, petitioner
> alleges that
> he asked prison officials to authorize a group for inmates of
> differing
> religious and philosophical persuasions, including inmates with no
> religious preference at all, to meet together to discuss
> their differing
> ideas. Such an activity is more akin to a debate society
> meeting than to
> a group religious practice. Although petitioner might wish to
> share his
> atheist beliefs with others (just as a Christian inmate might wish to
> evangelize his fellow prisoners), prison officials do not violate
> inmates' free exercise rights when they refuse to permit gathering of
> inmates of different religious or philosophical persuasions for the
> purpose of facilitating inter-religious dialogue. By refusing to
> authorize a study group for inmates who designate themselves as
> atheists, humanists, freethinkers and "other" and inmates who have no
> religious preference, respondents Taylor and Hepp did not violated
> petitioner's rights under the free exercise clause or RLUIPA."
>
> On the other hand, from the same case:
>
> "[If] petitioner was unable to order books about atheism because
> of the facility's ban on publications ... [then] the actions of prison
> officials may have violated his rights under the free exercise clause
> and RLUIPA as well as the free speech clause of the First Amendment."
>
> Why would studying atheism together be unprotected by RLUIPA
> because it isn't "the observation of [ ] central religious
> belief[s] or
> practice[s]" of atheism, but ordering books about atheism be protected
> by it?  And why would a request for a study group for
> atheists/freethinkers/humanists/"other" and those "who have
> no religious
> preference" be treated as a request "to authorize a group for
> inmates of
> differing religious and philosophical persuasions" -- simply
> because the
> group doesn't just include self-described atheists but also others who
> sound pretty close to atheism but don't fit within that
> "denomination"?
>
> Eugene
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members
> can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password,
> see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives;
> and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> messages to others.
>
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
wrongly) forward the messages to others.