District Court Rules That Secular Humanism, for Establishment Clause Purposes, is a Religion

[rug]

November 3, 2014
by Rachel Ford

Last Thursday, Federal District Judge Ancer Haggerty ruled on American Humanist Association v. United States. The case was brought by prisoner Jason Michael Holden, in conjunction with the American Humanist Association, because, as ThinkProgress reports, Holden “wanted Humanism… recognized as a religion so that his prison would allow for the creation of a Humanist study group.”

Two years after he entered prison, Holden requested that his religious designation in the prison system be “Humanist.” But he was told that, since that wasn’t an option, he could just check the box marked “atheist.” He did… but that meant giving up a few of the privileges afforded to religious inmates. According to the lawsuit,

Inmates who are members of FCI-recognized religions receive the following rights and benefits: (1) “proscription days” for religious holidays; (2) at least one hour of classroom/study time a week; (3) at least one hour of worship time each week; (4) the ability to congregate with other members of the religious group.

…

Humanist inmates cannot meet in study groups in the same way inmates who are members of FCI-recognized religions can meet.

Humanist inmates at FCI Sheridan have no venue for meetings.

Atheist inmates at FCI Sheridan have no venue for meetings.

Inmates are not allowed to assemble in groups of more than four at recreation.

FCI-recognized religious inmates are permitted to meet in groups of more than four to discuss their religious beliefs with each other during a designated time period.

Simply put, if you said you were religious, you got a number of perks not afforded to non-religious groups. But since the Federal Bureau of Prisons didn’t give Humanist inmates that option, they were left without a “religion” that accurately described them — as well as the perks they would otherwise be granted.

While officials relented after Holden and the AHA brought suit, they argued in court that denying Holden’s request was not a violation of his rights, as (among other contentions) “plaintiffs have failed to show that Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes.”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/11/03/in-a-major-victory-district-court-rules-that-secular-humanism-for-establishment-clause-purposes-is-a-religion/

https://www.dropbox.com/s/eue6symdl2hisl8/245271872-American-Humansits-v-US.pdf

[Fumesucker]

1. That's some serious pretzel logic..

In order to get religious privileges the non religious have to become a religion.

Jesus laughed until He wept.

[cbayer]

2. Although it's not going to sit well with some, I think it's the right decision.

We may have to rewrite some of our laws to be more inclusive. I don't think the founding fathers would have agreed that those without religion should be denied certain rights or perks.

[okasha]

3. That's good.

But everyone could have avoided all the tap-dancing just by making those perks available to all inmates with with good-behavior status. I guess that's just too sensible for the bureaucracy, though.