Not sure what gives this dude the right to tell others what they believe or don't believe. Or to define another person's religion for them. Don't generally pay much attention to folks like that.

Thanks Piper...you might want to read the whole Circuit Court opinion (Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678 (7th Cir., 2005) to understand where he is coming from. In order for a prison (state or federal institution) to be "neutral" as to religious beliefs it has to classify atheism as a religion. Here is a quote from the case defining "religion:"

"The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a "way of life," even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972). A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths), see Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 & n. 11, 81" ...

"The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., U.S. , 125 S.Ct. 2722, L.Ed.2d (2005). The Establishment Clause itself says only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls "nonreligion." In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as "the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." Id. at *10 (internal quotations omitted).

So yes, since everyone has a way of life, atheism, under the First Amendment is a religion, so as not to discriminate against non-believers. And in double speak, non-religion equals religion.

Perhaps once some of the previous commentators read the court's definition they will see that your prof is teaching the "legal" definition. The fact that you can only use his sources is b.s. of course, especially if he didnt even give you the citation to the case he used, so you can read it in context.

It is a big deal. I would complain about him not following the textbook or using other research.