Editing Creativity (religion) (section)

=={{anchor|Legal challenges}}Other legal cases==
Creativity was recognized as a religion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in ''Peterson v. Wilmur Communications'' (205 F.Supp.2d 1014) (2002).<ref>Decision and Order: ''Peterson v. Wilmur Communications''. 205 F.Supp.2d 1014 (2002). [[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin]].</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://files.ali-aba.org/thumbs/datastorage/skoobesruoc/pdf/CL018-CH15_thumb.pdf |title=Selected Cases on Religious Discrimination |publisher=Office of Legal Counsel, [[United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]] |date=May 2005 |page=3 |access-date=March 18, 2011 |archive-date=July 24, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110724233137/http://files.ali-aba.org/thumbs/datastorage/skoobesruoc/pdf/CL018-CH15_thumb.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> The [[American Civil Liberties Union]] intervened on behalf of the World Church of the Creator.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://acluva.org/1794/aclu-warns-chesterfield-not-to-block-world-church-of-the-creator-meeting-in-public-library/ |title=ACLU Warns Chesterfield Not to Block World Church of the Creator Meeting in Public Library |date=September 17, 2002 |publisher=American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia |access-date=July 19, 2013}}</ref>

California [[United States federal judge|federal judge]] [[Maxine M. Chesney]] ruled against an imprisoned Creator who brought a suit against [[Pelican Bay State Prison]] based on an alleged violation of the [[Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act]] in ''Conner v. Tilton'', 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111892 (ND CA, Dec. 2, 2009),<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/white-supremacy-group-doesnt-qualify-as-religion |title=White-supremacy group doesn't qualify as religion  |website=[[First Amendment Center]] |date=2009-12-11 |access-date=2016-05-25 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160501075215/http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/white-supremacy-group-doesnt-qualify-as-religion |archive-date=May 1, 2016 |url-status=dead }}</ref> in which Creativity and several other organizations and belief systems (including MOVE, [[veganism]] and the Church of Marijuana) were declared to not constitute "religions" but [[morality|moral]] or [[secular ethics|secular philosophies]] under the definition of [[religion]] based on addressing of "fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters"<ref>{{cite book |last1=Barker |first1=Renae |editor1-last=Barker |editor1-first=Renae |editor2-last=Babie |editor2-first=Paul |editor3-last=Foster |editor3-first=Neil |title=Law and Religion in the Commonwealth: The Evolution of Case Law |date=2022 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-1-5099-5016-4 |pages=11–32 |language=en |chapter=Defining Religion for the World? |quote-page=22 |quote=U.S. v. Meyers, 95 F.3d 1475, 1483 (10th Cir. 1996); Africa v. Commonwealth of Pa., 662 F.2d 1025, 1032 (3d Cir. 1981)}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Lexis search|website=Lexis|url=http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&ORIGINATION_CODE=00142&searchtype=get&search=2009%20U.S.%20Dist.%20LEXIS%20111892%20%20}} {{Subscription required}}</ref> as part of a three-point test for determining religion developed by the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit]]. The court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to raise a genuine issue about whether Creativity is a religion; it found that to the extent Creativity deals with a "fundamental concern", the concern is with [[secular]] matters and not with what the court considered to be religious principles. Creativity is not "comprehensive" in nature because it was presented as confined to one question (or moral teaching), and that the structural characteristics of Creativity "do not serve to transform what are otherwise secular teachings and ideals into a religious ideology."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1467028.html |title=Kaufman V. Mccaughtry &#124; Findlaw |website=Caselaw.findlaw.com |access-date=2016-05-25}}</ref> In ''Hale v. Federal Bureau of Prisons'' (2015),<ref>{{cite web|url=http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/colorado/codce/1:2014cv00245/145813/66/ |title=Hale v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al, No. 1:2014cv00245 – Document 66 (D. Colo. 2015) :: Justia |website=Law.justia.com |access-date=2016-05-25}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.rluipa-defense.com/2015/10/rluipa-round-up-13/ |title=RLUIPA Round-Up |date=October 9, 2015 |access-date=March 9, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160530092433/https://www.rluipa-defense.com/2015/10/rluipa-round-up-13/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=May 30, 2016 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> the court found that Creativity may qualify as a religion under the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]] (with potential tax exemption by the [[Internal Revenue Service|IRS]]) and may be practiced in prison.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.onenewsnow.com/legal-courts/2015/10/12/convicted-felon-awarded-religion-decision |title=Convicted felon awarded 'religion' decision |website=Onenewsnow.com |date=2015-10-12 |access-date=2016-05-25 |archive-date=May 30, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160530122354/http://www.onenewsnow.com/legal-courts/2015/10/12/convicted-felon-awarded-religion-decision |url-status=dead }}</ref>

Furthermore, on March 12, 1989, U.S. federal judge [[Fern M. Smith]] of the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California]] ordered San Quentin prison authorities to return "The White Man's Bible" to an inmate after it was confiscated and the state failed to prove that the book presented an imminent danger.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-03-12-mn-860-story.html |title=The State |date=March 12, 1989 |newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] |access-date=March 9, 2019}}</ref>