Friday, December 04, 2009

Court Says White Supremacist Movement Is Not A "Religion"

In Conner v. Tilton, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111892 (ND CA, Dec. 2, 2009), in a decision unusually detailed in its analysis for a case brought by a prisoner pro se, a California federal district court held that the White supremacist Creativity Movement is not a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment or RLUIPA. In the case, an inmate sought the right to practice various aspects of his purported religion in Pelican Bay State Prison. In deciding the case, the court relied on the definition of "religion" articulated by the 3rd Circuit in Africa v. Pennsylvania:
First, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature; it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching. Third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs.
Applying that to Creativity, the court found that Creativity does not deal with fundamental and ultimate questions. Rather, its focus is on "a pragmatic philosophy that Creators must act to ensure the survival and promote the dominance of certain members of society." It is not comprehensive. "[T]he essence of Creativity is confined to 'one question or one moral teaching' which, again, can be summed up by Creativity's Golden Rule: 'What is good for the White Race is the highest virtue; what is bad for the White Race is the ultimate sin.'" Finally, "while plaintiff has presented evidence that shows Creativity has formal and external characteristics that might be considered similar to those associated with more traditional religions, their sole purpose is to support what the Court already has found to be a secular belief system."

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

What if the religion were a legitimate faith (say, like ISLAM) founded by a religious leader in the Middle East and that religion taught as part of the religion that some races or ethnic groups are inferior?

By the way did you know that ISLAM teaches that Jews are descended from PIGS? Yes it does. And ISLAM is still able to get IRS tax deduction. What is wrong with Obama?

Doesn't the first amendment protect all faiths equally and require equal tax treatment for all religions?

Kagehi said...

Tis the season for racism, hate, madness, and delusional wars on things that don't exist/don't matter, by both sides.. Sorry, but I agree, this doesn't rise to the level of religion, Islam has quite a bit more too it that white supremacy, which, at best, might opt to latch itself onto someone else's religion, like most of them do, and then claim they are the ones that got it *right*. Here we have a rational decision, 2-3 posts up we have some moron removing pagan trees and the pagan Santa Claus, because these things are not "secular enough", never mind a fair number of secular wackos who, like every year, are running around whining about there being too many Santa Clauses, and not enough mangers and crosses. Will seem one please hit all these fools with a clue stick and stop all the incessant idiocy over trivialities, instead of addressing *real* offenses, usually by people with favorite phrases like, "We always have a priest open our **state** meetings. We tried to find a Jew, but there are not any in the city, just leave us alone!", while ignoring the gaping flaw in both the excuse, and the exclusion of non-Bible based faiths. Please!!

Its like watching two opposing sides in a serious conversation about, well, anything, get interrupted every time they start talking about serious issues by 50 clowns, from two opposing teams that hate each other over which kind of pie filling they use, rushing in and throwing pies at everyone. It it wasn't so frakking serious to this nations basic common sense and stability, it would be just plain stupid, and not even funny stupid, just stupid.

LexAequitas said...

Yeah, why didn't Obama tell that Federal District Court Judge to consider Islam in the case about white supremacists!

[sarcasm mode off]

Barb said...

Bad enough to descend from pigs, but Muslims reportedly have called Christians monkeys and atheists think we all share great grandpappys with the apes.

I'll go with those Bible believers who say we are made in the image of God --all of us --"male and female created He them" --in our present form.

Kagehi said...

"atheists think we all share great grandpappys with the apes."

A) Not even close.
B) Not atheists, but scientists, who are not all atheists (and where even less so 150 years ago when Darwin published).
C) Either you know this is a lie, or you refuse to learn that it is, neither of which gives you a moral of ethical position in saying ***anything*** about what you, or anyone else, imagines is the result.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I prefer the image of God to that of apes, monkeys etc. That's my first amendment choice.

LexAequitas said...

Anony, of course you prefer the image of God -- that's because you make God in your image.

Personally, my hopes for what's true have little to do with what may be actually true. I hope I've won 83 million dollars in the mega millions sweepstakes. That doesn't affect the truth of the matter at all, even if the first amendment would allow me to state it as though it were fact.

I'm kind of looking forward to Survivor: ReligionClause!

Barb said...

Kagehi --A --how is my statement not even close? I realize not all darwinians are atheists --but I dare say MOST atheists are Darwinians. And my understanding is that apes and humans are thought by Darwinians to have common ancestry. That means, grandpappies in common!

scolion said...

Barb, human beings share common ancestry with yeast. What on earth is your point?