Speaking as a training barrister, I find your misuse of the Law erroneous.
1=Legal definitions do not always follow the definition of a word as it would be seen outside of the courtroom. Often courts misuse words to get what they see as a fair result. That is why the advocate for the other side is criticising the jurisprudence of this case.
2=That is not a supreme court case, that is a federal court case, thus I give it all the creditably of a magistrates court in the UK. Which is very little.
3=It was not saying Atheism is a religion; the article said that. The judge actually said it should have the same rights as a religion to start its own study group. Subtle points like this are very important in Law.
4=The supreme court said religion does not need to be based on god, no one here has disagreed with that argument, but that does not make Atheism a religion.
|