Professional Documents
Culture Documents
For the purposes of protection under the First Amendment, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit (May 13, 1997), decided the Orange County N.Y.
Department of Probation could not force Robert Warner, an atheist, to attend
religion-based alcoholic treatment programs against the dictates of his own
beliefs.
"The district court agreed with Mr. Warner's argument that these meetings involved
a substantial religious element. Participants were told to "believe that a Power
greater than ourselves could restore us," and that they must "turn our will and
our lives over to the care of God as we understand him." In addition, the "Step"
program ordered those participating to "Admit to God ... the exact nature of our
wrongs," be "entirely ready to have God remove all these defects ... (and) ask Him
to remove our shortcomings," and to seek "through prayer and meditation to improve
our conscious contact with God, as we (understand) Him. The meetings were also
punctuated with frequent prayers of a Christian nature."
Four months into the program Mr. Warner complained that, as an Atheist, he found
the meetings objectionable due to their religious nature. It was then that his
probation officer determined that Warner lacked sufficient commitment to the idea
of learning the techniques of remaining sober, even though he apparently had not
been found in violation of his probation orders to remain sober!
What court got wrong, Dillahunty said, is that "Atheism is, among other things, a
school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance
of a supreme being, and a code of ethics."
The Court in this case recognized that unless the prison system had prevented all
gatherings of religion, preventing a group of atheists to gather was a violation
of the Establishment Clause.
"Tthey didn't declare that atheism was a religion, they declared that atheism was
afforded equal protection with religions under the Establishment Clause." [italics
added]
How did the court come to this conclusion? The Supreme Court and Circuit Courts
use the "Lemon" test, Lemon v. Kurtzman, a three-pronged test concerning the
secular nature of government laws and regulations. http://www.atheist-
community.org/library/articles/read.php?id=742
Jefferson also said some other things concerning religion which I wish modern
Americans would take heed of:
1. "I inquire after no man's [religion,] and trouble none with mine."
2. "I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a
right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others."
3. "I have considered [religion] as a matter between every man and his Maker in
which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle."
mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com
http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/