Is Atheism a Religion? Legally Speaking...?

Despite the persistent illogic of Atheism and Secularism - being based on Philosophical Materialism - Atheists claim to be the "rational alternative" to religion, not religion itself. The U.S.Courts do not agree. Legally, both Atheism and Secular Humanism have been declared to be religions, as is demonstrated in the following excerpt from Kaufman v. McCaughtry, a case where a federal prisoner wanted the religious right to form an Atheist group in his prison. I have posted this before, and it seems to be time for it again.

U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh District Circuit Court,
Chief Judge: Crabb
Circuit Judges: Bauer, Wood, Williams
Kaufman v. McCaughtry
Document 04-1914; Aug 19,2005.

Excerpts:

“The Supreme Court has said that a
religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct
from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by
philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. See Wiscon-
sin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16 (1972). A religion need
not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being
(or beings, for polytheistic faiths), see Torcaso v. Watkins,
367 U.S. 488, 495 & n.11 (1961); Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d
197, 200-15 (3d Cir. 1979) (Adams, J., concurring);
Theriault v. Silber, 547 F.2d 1279, 1281 (5th Cir. 1977) (per
curiam), nor must it be a mainstream faith, see Thomas v.
Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 714 (1981); Lindell v. McCallum,
352 F.3d 1107, 1110 (7th Cir. 2003).”

“Without venturing too far into the realm of the
philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a
person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ulti-
mate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that
filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,” those
beliefs represent her religion. Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch.
Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n.5 (7th Cir. 1994) (internal
citation and quotation omitted); see also Welsh v. United
States, 398 U.S. 333, 340 (1970); United States v. Seeger,
380 U.S. 163, 184-88 (1965). We have already indicated that
atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a
religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934
(7th Cir. 2003) (“If we think of religion as taking a posi-
tion on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”).

Id. at 52-53. In keeping with this idea, the Court has
adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes non-
theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones. Thus,
in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, it said that a state
cannot “pass laws or impose requirements which aid all
religions as against non-believers, and neither can [it] aid
those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as
against those religions founded on different beliefs.”

“Id. At 495. Indeed, Torcaso specifically included “Secular
Humanism” as an example of a religion. Id. at 495 n.11.”

[Emphasis added].

The unintended consequence of having "activist judiciaries" is that sometimes the extension of benefits can occlude the philosophical intents of the protagonists. While Atheists want to be considered something other than a religion, the courts have found otherwise. This occured in the attempt by the courts to secure a religion-like protection for the rights of Atheists.

Taken to its logical limit, the declaration of Secularism and Atheism to be religions should result in their elimination from public view in public places and forums. This has yet to be tested in the courts, yet in fairness to the religious aspect of these worldviews/beliefs it should be.

The Secularization of public institutions should be considered with the same scrutiny given to other religious inferences. But Secularization is more dangerous in its demand for exclusive access and control. By pretending to be a non-religion, these influences have already wrought havoc on the social structure and culture. When relativism dominates, then no single behavior structure can be considered absolute. No one can be criticised for having a happiness objective that is different from that of others. Civil rights become the right to do "whatever". The reduction of social norms to that of individual narcissism is only a natural outcome.