Via John Ray and Lost Tooth Society, we get this:

James Kaufman, a Wisconsin prison inmate sought permission for an Atheist study group, and asked correctional authorities to consider his request under the same rules than deal with religious organizations. A prison administrative board granted, but then revoked this request. Mr. Kaufman filed suit, and now the Seventh U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled that his religious rights were violated, and that "for legal purposes," Atheism is to be considered a religion.

Atheists are fond of trying to define "religion" as "belief in God." Absurd: if that were so, Wicca (if you believe in the Godess) would not be a religion, nor would Hinduism (believing in multiple deities) nor would Buddhism, nor would Shintoism (ancestor-worship) nor Scientology. When your definition of "religion" leads you to exclude a good percentage of the world's religions, you clearly have sold your brain.

Can you be an atheist and a Christian at the same time? Of course not. That's a hint that "atheist" and "Christian" occupy and compete in the same stratum.

As I would see atheism as a religion, I would definitely, vigorously argue that all related Constitutional protections should apply. In particular, had I some say in the matter, I would indeed side with Mr. Kaufman and insist that he be able to study atheism in the same way a Christian or Muslim prisioner would be allowed to do so.

And I say this as a Christian.

Sadly, I expect that ultimate rule will be that atheism will be considered a religion when it grants it some degree of protection, but that it will not be considered a religion when such categorization would detract from one of the many metaphyically-motivated jihads carried some of its more prominent (and often leftist) adherants.