Volokh, Eugene
Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:41:00 -0800
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" > > <religionlaw@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@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@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@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@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@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.