Atheist inmate refused authorization for atheism study group

[David E. Guinn]

Sorry, I meant technically in the sense that in popular discourse much has 
been made of the irony of the American Atheist Assoc. and American Humanists 
society have sought and obtained tax exempt status similar to the exemption 
provided traditional religious groups.  A point that atheists have made as a 
badge of equality.  But that doesn't provide legal grounds for equal 
treatment.


----- 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 5:39 PM
Subject: RE: Atheist inmate refused authorization for atheism study group


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.
>
_______________________________________________
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.