It’s like when Michael Newdow said that atheism was his “religion.” I supported him in his fight to get the words “under God” out of the pledge, but don’t like him calling atheism a religion!

david, you said that the ruling upholds prior law that holds “[that non-theistic "belief" or philosophic systems were, for purposes of the law, "religious" in nature]“. so i would interpret that to mean that atheists being non-religious is equivalent to protection afforded those who are religious. so they aren’t really calling it a religion, just that it is related to reliogion by its nature.

Say I’m a prisoner and I want to start an emotional intelligence support group for inmates — a group that would help men better understand and control their emotions. Discussions and exercises would be based on psychological literature.

It’s not a religion, nor is it anything that will be classed with religion, at least not without another Supreme Court ruling.

I’m not allowed to run a group that helps men be more emotionally secure with themselves and others, but the fundamentalist Christian in the next cell block can run a group that denigrates homosexuals, demeans women, dismisses other religions and supports conservative Republican dogma. In short, the fundies are permitted to recruit Neanderthals.

The result is correct. A rose by any other name….

Finally, what does it matter – we know it is not a religion.

I barely associate with you folks – and prisoners have few rights left to them.

How many of us would permit dangerous convicted felons of the Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart and Ann Coulter ilk to join Chuckles Colson’s “Prison Ministry”? None would be my guess. They do their harm by having an audiance.

We’d throw them into solitary and tell them to talk to the other three in there with them *the holy trinity* and F**K their free expression BS.

So, right result – wrong nomenclature. Who gives a shit?

For that matter, Madlyn Murray O’Hare made law by obtaining the tax status of religious organizations for her operation.

Hmm, perhaps it is time to put in a grant request for some of that tax revenue earmarked for “faith-based” projects?

Who is going to stand on nomenclature when we could take tax dollars away from the theists and apply it to something worthwhile – like food and medicine for needy people?

OK now, speak up all of you who would turn down free money earmarked for theists!

No, for the sake of clarity, and to avoid confusion we should not call atheism a religion.

I understand it is tempting, because as more and more citizens become atheists the name gets more clout associated with it.

JP hits upon an interesting point. The reason religion is given special consideration in law is because all laws are created by humans. Religion claims to supercede human intelligence. Since no human can demostratively disprove a religous belief, deference is given in favor of the follower. As atheists, we don’t put forth any claim beyond human intelligence. Therefore, it is considered within the jurisdiction of the law to deny a “emotional intelligence support group” as JP suggests.

What the prisoner should have done, possibly, is make up a new religion – maybe named after himself, like Bobism. I can’t see how the law could be interpreted to prevent him from doing this.