Atheist inmate refused authorization for atheism study group

[Volokh, Eugene]

	I'm not sure there's any "technically" to it -- isn't the tax
exemption for a wide range of nonprofits, including colleges, schools,
advocacy groups (so long as they don't engage in lobbying or
electioneering), and more? 

> -----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 2:53 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Atheist inmate refused authorization for atheism 
> study group
> 
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>