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@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.
