Prisoners' Inter-Religious Dialogue Is Not Religious Practice

A Wisconsin federal district court took a novel approach in denying a claim by an atheist prisoner that he should be permitted to form a study group for inmates who designate themselves as atheists, humanists, freethinkers and "other" and inmates who have no religious preference. In Kaufman v. Schneiter, (WD WI, Feb. 15, 2007), the court said:

petitioner is not challenging the prison’s decision to deny atheists the opportunity to meet together to discuss their commonly held religious beliefs. Instead, petitioner alleges that he asked prison officials to authorize a group for inmates of differing religious and philosophical persuasions, including inmates with no religious preference at all, to meet together to discuss their differing ideas. Such an activity is more akin to a debate society meeting than to a group religious practice. Although petitioner might wish to share his atheist beliefs with others (just as a Christian inmate might wish to evangelize his fellow prisoners), prison officials do not violate inmates' free exercise rights when they refuse to permit gathering of inmates of different religious or philosophical persuasions for the purpose of facilitating inter-religious dialogue.

However, the court did permit plaintiff to proceed with his claim that his rights under the First Amendment and RLUIPA were violated when prison officials refused to permit him to order literature about atheism.