From an article over at World Net Daily:

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.

The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

I can sympathize with the decision on a microscopic trees-for-the-forest level. Atheism is certainly a belief. I think it is as unfair to discriminate against atheistic study groups as it is to deny "fresh air breaks" to non smokers. (funny, that)

But a religion?

Perhaps I need to look the word up. Maybe I don't understand myself. I cannot be accused of being the most scrupulous practitioner of organized religion.

DICTIONARY.COM defines it thusly:

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

MERRIAM-WEBSTER offers this:

Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY

1 a : the state of a religious (a nun in her 20th year of religion) b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Is it just me, or is it ironic that an institution that we demand to be so secular... finds itself passing judgement on secular terms, using the most non-secular interpretation of the word?

My father says that this story is too absurd to even discuss, but it has an odor about it that just seems to Orwellian for me to not take notice.

This is simply one of those times where thought I agree with the logic of the argument, nevertheless something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Posted by Michael at August 20, 2005 11:43 AM