In Prison, Atheism Is a Religion and Gets the Same Protections

 

James Kaufman is one vigilant atheist. In 2005, he tried to compel the Wisconsin prison he was housed in to treat atheism as a religion so that he could form a religious group. Though the court found that atheism should be treated as a religion, they denied his claim because he failed to show the state created a substantial burden on his ability to practice atheism.

Four years later, and in a different prison, Kaufman again tried to form an atheist religious group. The warden either unaware of, or disregarding the Seventh Circuit's opinion in Kaufman 1, denied his request because atheism doesn't recognize a higher power or divinity.

Though the trial court did not overlook Kaufman 1, the district court held that the state had a legitimate interested for prohibiting the atheist group, namely that "it would be impractical to spend limited resources to create a study group for only two members." On appeal, the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded.

Free Exercise in Prison

The Seventh Circuit reiterated its position in Kaufman 1, where it stated that "the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses need not involve worship of a supreme being." Instead, it relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Wallace v. Jaffree that noted that "the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends ... to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain."

Umbrella Religious Groups

Here, the Seventh Circuit had to determine whether the prison proved a legitimate interest in discriminating between Kaufman's proposed atheist group, and the existing seven recognized religious umbrella groups in the Wisconsin prison (Native American, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Pagan, Islam, and Eastern Religions). The state argued that only two people (including Kaufman) had an interest in atheism. The Seventh Circuit did not agree.

The very nature of determining a prisoner's religion depends on what box he checks when they are admitted -- there is no box for Atheism. Atheism is generally an "Other" category and is written in. The prison characterizes all "other" choices that don't fall within one of the seven recognized umbrella groups as "No Preference." Therefore, the state cannot claim with certainty that only two people expressed an interest in atheism.

Kaufman showed that in general atheists constitute between seven and 14% of the population. He further noted that the percentages of inmates that claimed affiliations such as "Jewish" or "Pagan" were very small -- much smaller than the 11% of inmates claiming no preference.

Clarity

The Seventh Circuit noted that the only way to know how many prisoners are atheist is to conduct a survey, or to simply add a box for "Atheist" in the religious preference form. With more and more prisoners making claims of Atheism, it may be in the prison system's best interest to update their forms to reflect current case law. Having redundant cases litigating the same issues over and over doesn't help anyone, and is a massive waste of tax dollars.

Views: 63

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Easton Le on August 27, 2013 at 8:44am

I would have to support Kaufman on his approach to this matter. Judging from the treatment atheism gets in the real world I can only imagine the kind of persecution he and the other inmate receives from both inmates and the warden. It may be the only legal way he can protect his right to assemble other like-minded people. He can either argue for a new form of assembly or use an existing legal construct and I think it is far easier for him to use what already exists. Clearly the Seventh Circuit also understands this and has worded the law to accommodate these situations.

Comment by James J. Kaufman on August 26, 2013 at 1:51pm

Nobody ever said the United States legal system was logical or consistent.  The Court still ruled that, while it WOULD be a violation of the First Amendment to prohibit prisoners who are Christian, Muslim, Pagan, etc., to meet in groups or have emblems, it is NOT a violation to prevent Atheists the same.  This came down without any explanation or justification at all; the Court avoided that whole issue.

Comment by Michael Penn on August 26, 2013 at 1:41pm

I see. This is akin to using postal regulations to identify and prosecute those who have child porn on their PC. It all sounds good but won't wash in the end.

Comment by James J. Kaufman on August 26, 2013 at 1:37pm

I do need to clarify on the issue of Atheism as "religion."  The original Court of Appeals ruling on this issue, Kaufman v. McCaughtry,  back in 2005, specifically stated that for limited purposes, Atheism is considered a "religion" only for First Amendment legal purposes, because it involves (or takes a position on) issues such as the existence of deities, afterlife, blah blah blah. I know it sounds kind of offensive to label Atheism a "religion," but the Court has to fit the decision to the existing framework in our country, and that was the only way to do it.

Comment by Michael Penn on August 26, 2013 at 1:07pm

Yes. Atheism is a religion just like being bald is a hair style.

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service