An Atheist public affairs watchdog group today criticized the recent decision by the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled (”for legal purposes”) that Atheism was a form of “religion.” The case involved a Wisconsin prison inmate who was denied an application to form an Atheist study group. The court ruled that the prison wrongly violated the First Amendment religious rights of James Kaufman (KAUFMAN v. MCCAUGHTRY). Prison authorities would have promptly allowed him to form a Christian, Jewish, Muslim or other religious group; but they insisted that an Atheist group was not motivated by “religious” beliefs. The court affirmed earlier decisions that non-theistic “belief” or philosophic systems were, for purposes of the law, “religious” in nature.
In a nutshell, if we lie, and call Atheism a religion, we get equal rights. Should we? The 7th Circuit Court thinks so. In what I think is a well-intentioned ruling, they forced a government agency to treat Atheists like theists, and give us the same rights. The result is the same — special rights for everyone means no special rights for anyone, which is legal. But is it right? Do we really need to lie to achieve that end? This was the right outcome of the wrong lawsuit. What they SHOULD have done is outlaw the special rights in the first place.
maddogstu
Are there kids around these campfires?
I’m in complete agreement with Mike Newdow (AA Newsletter, Monday, August 29). And I get a big laugh when the President and officers of American Atheists demonstrate the same kind of aggressive panic in their dogma against this issue, as do theists when someone challenges their religion in some respect.
Look people, we can choose to side by the strict dogma of the likes of American Atheists’ leadership and submit to the fact that we will all continue to lose ground in respect to Constitutional rights, or else we can begin to think differently, smartly, about our position (dire situation) — a new paradigm, if you will.
It is correct that atheism is not a religion, as the lexicon has come to define the word over the centuries. And we can continue to shout and yell back: “No, we’re not!”, just like a bunch of kids each time someone says we are a religion. Or…we can reap the many MANY benefits, NOW, by ensuring that the government provide EQUAL treatment to us as that afforded to theisms (Christianity in particular) by acknowledging that [only] in respect to the First Amendment, regarding personal beliefs to do with the question of gods, deities, supreme beings (not the specific answer), we do belong in the same arena and demand equal protection/benefits under the law. Newdow is correct in that this is a prime opportunity we need to embrace.
Let’s throw away the old, failed, way of thinking — the O’Hair dogma, is dead. Christians will continue (as they’ve always) to insist that atheism is a religion, but “So what?!?” I ask. Now, if we’re smart, we can simply smile back with the knowledge and assurance that we are all on completely equal footing in the eyes of our government, and say to them: “Only in respect to the question of god(s) for purposes of the First Amendment and US Constitution.”
We collectively need to get beyond the arrogance and the aggressiveness that always seems to explode in some atheists when someone mislabels us — but remember, only WE can label ourselves. In this, it can help greatly if we try to restore the original meaning of the word, “religion” (kinda how the courts have agreed). Here is a link that explain what “religion” originally meant, and what it should really mean today.
http://www.centrum21.idps.co.uk/cratex/reldef1.htm
As for me, I can certainly live with that, as a life-long atheist who is secure in his atheism and materialism viewpoint.
The benefits for all of us infidels here in Jesusland are just too great to unthinkingly sweep away. It is quite unfortunate indeed that it seems only the forward thinking brilliance of Mike Newdow among today’s atheist/secular leadership understands this issue in the broadest sense.
This decision (KAUFMAN v. MCCAUGHTRY) points out once again the lack of clarity on the part of the judiciary when it comes to understanding the nature of the wall of separation between government and religion.
That lack of clarity has created a muddle on the part of both government agencies and the general public because no one is exactly sure what is and is not permitted. When the courts call atheism a religion or say Ten Commandments displays are permissable in some government venues but not others, they undercut the rights of believers and nonbelievers alike.
The principle that needs to be adopted is that no government agency – be it local, state, or federal – has any business taking any action that endorses, or gives the appearance of endorsing, any religion or religious concept. Until and unless our society adopts a policy of stict governmental neutrality on matters involving religion, we will continue to muddle along with this kind of inane commentary from the judiciary.
This case should have been decided on the basis that if prison officials allowed study groups to be formed for any reason, then this one should have been allowed. Religion really had nothing to do with it.
Of course, atheism doesn’t become a religion because a court says it is. Those of us who know better must continue to insist it is not, whenever and wherever we have the oppportunity.
Is atheism a system of belief?
If we say its ?non-belief?, that we do not accept the existence of the supernatural, then there must be something we ?believe? that leads us to that position. The atheist position results from the fact that we ?believe? that there is no supernatural domain, and in effect that only the natural worlds exists (this cannot be considered a scientific ?fact?). (ie, that all that exists, exists in the natural world). This is a system of belief, a world view equal to (or better – more in keeping with evidence) than the supernaturalist view.
TIM MITCHELL, Washington, DC writer and critic: writes
?….it gives more legal ammunition to the Religious Right’s claims that the ‘religion’ of secular humanism is being taught in public schools, and therefore keeping Christian prayer and Bible studies out of public schools is a form of religious discrimination….?
Wrong, this idea must be fought, and I think it?s easier to fight than saying ?atheism? is not a sytem of belief. The ‘religion of secular humanism or atheism is NOT being taught in public schools. The schools teach about math, english, history, and science. They do not teach atheism. That science is based on methodological materialism is not related to atheism ( philosophical materialism). I personally know of no schools that teach ?god does not exist?.
This subject occurred to me when Bush was doing his “faith based” initiatives. Why could not humanists claim tax dollars to do projects in different communities?
Is Atheism a religion?
Yes and no.
Since there is no belief involved, it can not be a religion in the strictest sense.
However:
There is an old philosophical debate in mathematics.
Is Zero a number?
It stands for ‘nothing’. It represents ‘nothing’. It represents ‘no value’.
Yet without it, mathematics would be very difficult, in some cases impossible.
Think about how easy it is to do math using our current numbering system, and how difficult it would be with Roman numerals, which has no zero.
Go ahead, write out 1,000,000,000 in Roman numerals. Do long division without it. Multiplication. Difficult, clumsy, awkward. Get the idea?
In the same sense, Atheism is a religion, since it represents that place where ‘no religion’ exists. It is a place holder in ’social calculations’, (for lack of a better term), just as Zero is a place holder in mathematical calculations.
So for reasons of logic in legal and social calculations, yes, Atheism needs to be treated as a religion.
I do believe, along with many others, that the term ‘Atheist’ is somewhat of a pejorative. It was created and defined by religious people, as a way to describe the non-religious. It is a negative word in that is means ‘without belief’. We should not let our philosophical opponents define us, it is a quick way to lose.
Far better would be a term with a positive definition. I just do not know what that might be. Humanist comes close, but has too much political baggage for many. Forget ‘brights’, too silly. But now I am stepping over the threshold into another debate.
Tom
Samuel,
Atheism (at least the weak variety) is a statement of non-belief. Whatever we might hold as positive beliefs, including your examples are individual beliefs and neither a component of, nor representative of atheism
Tom…… (REF: see my post above your?s)
Don?t atheists still ?believe? in something? What is the ultimate reality… why does anything exist… are there other universes… what is consciousness… are questions similar to many that theists ask. The difference is they ?believe? in the existence of a supernatural domain and their answers include this ?belief?. Isn?t it also a ?belief? for us, since we must then ?believe? in the existence of a universe with no other domain except the natural? Does this make sense?
HeatheNZ,
I?ve heard this weak/strong description before, but it didn?t make sense.
I don?t see how they are ?individual beliefs?, since to say ?the supernatural does not exist? means all that exists, exists within a natural universe. Thus, atheism is a component of this belief, which all atheists, in effect, hold.
HeathenZ:
It’s very simple, really: it’s projection. “I believe this way, ergo, everyone else believes something this way.” It’s existentialism twisted inside out. Aristotle’s maxim that reality is structured according to what I can experience w/my five senses holds: I don’t need to believe in gravity for something to fall when I drop it, anymore than I need to believe to be burned by placing my hand on a hot burner. It occurs.
existentialism (I believe it was 1st brought 4th by George Berkeley) basically says, “If U believe in something strongly enough, it’s truth.” (paraphrase).
It is a blind-eye effort to create a philosophical strawman.
Me? I believe I’ll go have a beer.
Cheers.
I believe I’ll have two.
My opinion is atheism is not a religion. However, for Constitutional law purposes I say that an atheistic religious view should be given the same freedoms as any other religious view.
Samuel,
Atheists do not believe in the supernatural, which is what all religion is based on. Atheists believe in what we can see and deduce via the scientific method, and, unlike religion, we are willing to change what we believe. We base what we believe on what empirical evidence and scientific repetition shows us to be true.
To say that Atheism and religion are the same because they both believe something is like saying that a donkey cart and a stealth bomber are the same because they both have wheels.
Tom
Another nice one, Tom.
I was just going to praise your earlier post about the zeroes, but now see you’ve done it again, so well done on both accounts!
I refuse to continue to explain to people why atheism is not a religion. I’m glad to see that others here have got it right, not to mention take the time to articulate and provide beautiful analogies as well. Your zero analogy explains why the confusion exists.
I am much better at writing than at ‘Assistant State Directing’
I am too armchair oriented.
It also helps to have Barnes and Noble as your pusher…er…supplier, I mean book seller.
Tom & JC,
I think you may be misunderstanding my point (or maybe I am!) .
Of course I agree with you that Atheists do not believe in the supernatural, BUT this is true ONLY if you define ?religion? as being purely ?a belief in supernatural and worship of God?
What I?m trying to point out is that if you stretch the definition, as several dictionaries do: ?relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality…? or ?a system of beliefs about ultimate reality?, why couldn?t one include Atheism. Aren?t we faithfully devoted to the ultimate reality that there is no other domain than the natural.
Secondly, I see Atheism being a ?sub-classification? under ?naturalism?. Isn?t the concept of ?all that exists, exists within a natural world? a system of belief? Even if we have evidence that this may be true, it?s still a belief at this point. If ?Atheism? is contained within ?naturalism?, a system of belief, then Atheism is a ?belief?.
We want to have the same protections under the constitution that all other systems of belief have. Don?t we? After all, the Constitution says ?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…?. If Atheism is not a ?religion?, then what is to stop the government from saying that Atheists can be prohibited from promoting their belief because it?s not a religion, and the Constitution only protects religion (ie, belief in the supernatural)
So, do we want to separate ?religion? from ?belief? ? Maybe we do. But, if we do, then it will become imperative that ?beliefs? are under implicit legal protection?
Sam
PS: Your argument that , ?Atheism and religion are the same because they both believe something is like saying that a donkey cart and a stealth bomber are the same because they both have wheels.? - is not entirely valid. They may be very different, but they are BOTH modes of transportation. If there was a law protecting all modes of transportation, both would be protected.
Samuel, OK. Change my comparison to a stealth bomber and my Weber charcoal grill. They both have wheels. Or better, a kitchen cart, it doesn’t use heat as part of its’ function.
Stretching definitions is a bad practice. That is how we got:
A Supreme Court that says taking property “for the public use” means whatever produces the most taxes for the govt. or the most money for the mayors brother-in-law.
A Supreme Court that says regulating interstate commerce includes the private decisions between doctors and patients to use a non-toxic herb as part of treatment.
Ivory tower propeller-heads that think the term of art: ‘the people’, in the Constitution, means every individual citizen every time it is used, except for keeping and bearing arms where it means govt. employees instead.
That prior restraint, background checks, waiting periods, registration, confiscation, bans, storage laws requiring dis-assembly, no-carry laws, do not constitute being ‘infringed’.
People that think ‘no law respecting the establishment of religion’ means forcing prayer on children is OK.
Rulers that think ‘the right of the people to peaceably assemble’ means herding them into compounds surrounded by storm fencing, barbed wire and armed guards 2 miles away from the person or institution they are protesting.
I could go on, but there are too many examples.
Words have meanings. Changing those meanings has consequences, usually for the worse.
Stretching is for taffy, not laws.
Tom
I have 3 words for everyone: ‘Ipsa race loquitor’ – translates from latin to ‘the thing speaks for itself’. Words to live by.
I am an atheist. I have no rulebook to go by, save natural laws, physics, & cause & effect. I go to no atheist masses. I do not pray, or bow to an idol, or sing hymnals to some all-powerful abstract. I pray 2 no-one and no-thing. I do not worship myself. I offer no hosannas to the highest. I am not above, or below, anyone or anything. I rely on my 5 senses 4 proof.
I am human: is that not enough?
Tom,
I agree with you on all your points, even though they have nothing to do with defining atheism! I guess what I was thinking was that maybe changing the meaning might have worse long-term consequences on the those 42% of Americans whom the latest Pew poll found hold the view that ?…living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time[creation].? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html?incamp=article_popular
Unbelievable!
Samuel,
Hello. I’ll talk to you because you at least are willing to listen…
Let’s look at your paragraph:
“What I?m trying to point out is that if you stretch the definition, as several dictionaries do: ?relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality…? or ?a system of beliefs about ultimate reality?, why couldn?t one include Atheism. Aren?t we faithfully devoted to the ultimate reality that there is no other domain than the natural”
Tom gave an excellent example of why we should not stretch definitions. I’ll try to answer the latter part of your statement. You may have missed earlier posts, but others like HeatheNZ correctly point out that atheists are free to entertain their own beliefs, and practices. You ask if we all believe in the natural domain. I tell you that is not necessarily true. Some people venture to say there is an alternate reality – an alternate existence that has nothing to do with deities. Remember that belief does not require proof. I would venture to say that most rational people believe only in the natural domain, because this is what we can readily witness and test. Just because a large proportion of this “rational” group is atheist as well does not mean that you can carelessly assign all atheists this attribute.
You go on to say “Secondly, I see Atheism being a ?sub-classification? under ?naturalism?. Isn?t the…” Atheism is simply a definition which means without a god belief. That’s it. People want to hook up all sorts of other stuff to it because, as Tom brilliantly pointed out, atheism is a place holder like the number zero which describes a lot of people that have no belief in deities, but have not proclaimed what they DO believe in and HOW they should be labeled.
Some people may call zero a number, and provide sensible sounding reasons. This is the same thing happening to atheism as a religion. The reason that it can’t stick is because of a key difference being that religion defines the beliefs of all that claim it. This is NOT true with atheism. I hope this helps.
these lengthy explainations of what is is makes my head want to explode
cant we just nip this one in the bud and say that atheism is not a religion because our best explaination of religion is based on belief, which means, “confidence in the truth that something exsist without rigorous proof” and that atheist arrive at thier conclusions with supported scientific evidence, or rigorous proof.
God help us all
Charlie,
It’s not quite that simple either. Not all atheists have decided to drop their God belief because of scientific evidence. Take, for example, a kid raised with original Buddhist teachings – which focus on enlightenment. The Buddah himself rejected metaphysical speculation. A person raised to follow this form of Buddhism would not have any belief in a god, but NOT because of examining scientific proof.
Charlie,
Siddhartha Guatama, better known as Buddha, was born about 563 BC. I’m sure you can imagine there was not much science then.
JC,
I would love to understand what you said….I have no clue what Buddah is all about except you call them atheist but not because of science….how old is buddah stuff….if its more than let say 500 years old ur sumptin…then I would say Buddah didnt have scientific evidence to draw its conclusions from….I will be researching Buddah in the coming days
I love the internet….and I love you guys .. (shedding a tear) cause you guys are all I got in this Fairytaled and Balanced world….really….no not really…Mike Myers rules A’
Buddha predates Xtianity by 500 yrs (give or take). No creator gods – just the pursuit of enlightenment. Existence & pursuit of the ‘alpha’ state.
Buddhism is wise: it doesn’t elevate divinity above humanity. When we elevate divinity above humanity, when we elevate nationality above humanity, it is an error that results in tragedy and atrocity.
The Buddhist track record for intolerance and persecution? Zero. Buddhist track record 4 slaughtering 1 another? Zero. Buddhist track record for cultural subjugation? Zero. Buddhist track record for…hey, U get the idea. Am I a Buddhist? No. Am a big fan, tho. Gotta love anyone who is calm, rational, compassionate, etc. Buddha never claimed divinity: just a man.
The real violation is of the establishment clause of the constitution. A government institution has no business establishing religious groups and should cease and desist. There should be no presumption that such groups would help the inmates behave better in their lives…this presumption violates the establishment clause.
On the other hand, to prohibit an individual from establishing discussion groups of any kind is a violation of his individual rights as well as his free speech rights. I believe that prisoners still possess these rights. We need not call atheism a religion in order to allow an individual to think and speak as he wishes.
JC, Charlie:
Actually, Asia had a thriving civilisation while most of Occidental man was still living in grass huts. They knew about Mars, Jupiter & Mercury, the earth revolved around the sun, etc. & all w/o ‘divine guidance’! Fancy that.
charlie
I’ve been contemplating zen koans for 20-25 years. Some are only now starting to make sense. For a short time I was going to a Buddhist group doing zazen. They were the most open-minded and compassionate people I’ve been around for some time. Although I’m not a Buddhist.
To me Buddhism is just a rational way of understanding our subjective mind. Nothing holy. Some might call it spiritual but I do not.
On one post you ask “Who are we” etc. and why those questions were necessary. I tried in my simple minded way to answer but wasn’t very successful. If you wish I would be very glad to have a dialogue with you or anyone else about it.
I’ve been very timid about jumping in these debates for a number of reasons and apologize for any rude or insulting remarks.[I have my demons also.]
Take care all
I think we should welcome the “special privileges” of being called a religion. Here’s why:
1- Lots of otherwise good people are infected by relgious beliefs. They may never understand how “religion” offends, and likely did not mean it as such.
2- By being outside the “religion” box, we have forfeited
a- a place in inter-faith discussions, institutions, etc,
b- atheist chaplains, (see skippyslist.com)
c- a check-box to for faith (so we write in (n/a, or none, or nogod, or mind your own damn business),
d- a well organized lobbying group,
e- an appropriate level of representation for our broad “way of thinking” in politics, in school … anywhere.
3- Being outside the “religion” box, though I understand the breath of clean air that brings many of us, lets the religionists easily tell their kids that we have horns and eat our young – thus keeping us outside of the mainstream although our numbers indicate we should have vastly more representation than say for example jews. Or muslims. Or both. And add in 7th day adventists.
4- If christians can sit down with jews and muslims without killing each other – because each group denies a piece(s) of the others somewhat shared thought universe – why don’t we have a seat at the same table? (We could at least agree with the jews that christ and mohammed have been oversold. Yes, that was a joke.)
5- Insisting that our way of non-belief and calling ourselves non-religious is THE ONLY RIGHT WAY … has a born-again zeal to it that is very religious. Not something to be proud of. (Been there, done that, not particularly happy about it.)
6- Acknowledging many (clearly not all) religionists as basically good people and getting return acknowledgement would serve to put religious belief and conflict back to where it should be: on a par with whether you drive a ford or a chevy, whether you wear boxers or a thong, – not something worth totally dismissing someone’s worth as a human being over.
But are we ready to take an “equal” place if it comes at a cost of soft-pedaling our “we and only we are right” mantras? Could it be that we are just as guilty of walling out the religionists as they are at walling out the non-believers? Can we expect religionists to not react with terror if we insist on shouting that they are a bunch of nutty cultists?
Even if we overnight convert half the presbyterians to atheism … we would still have a whole lot of theists to live with. We won’t eradicate them – even were we to employ tactics not worth consideration. Shouldn’t we focus on better relations? Shouldn’t they go both ways?
I grow tired of having to bite my tongue because atheism for many people is so radical as to preclude explaination or discussion. Wouldn’t we have a better shot at convincing theists and the closet atheists amoungst the theists to join us if we became a “legitimate” school of thought rather than a bunch of wild-eyed zealots? If the cost is to not violently object to the term “religion” in certain contexts, then I for one am willing to relax my own rhetoric in the interest of increasing recognition of just how mainstream we really are.
Of course we could just continue to trade verbal hand grenades with the religionists. But I think we would “save” more people if we became a bit more cuddly – or even a bit less prickly. Doing so would certainly not be as emotionally satisfying as screeching out our myriad slogans … but could well be a great deal more effective. Perhaps even giving rise to long-term success at the cost of the occasional short term rant.
I think Natasha (not to speak for her or to claim her agreement with my non-standard-even-for-an-atheist views) was very much on to something when she posted: “I’m trying to open a wedge.”
I think that wedge is something we should all aspire to. I’ll take it in whatever form it presents itself.
Paul-not-of-Tarsu said
“Insisting that our way of non-belief and calling ourselves non-religious is THE ONLY RIGHT WAY … has a born-again zeal to it that is very religious….”
True – except that atheists do not have a “way”, and we (mostly) tend to avoid calling atheism a religion because religion is commonly considered synonymous to theism. And nothing could be less theistic than atheism .
I agree it is wrong to dismiss someone’s worth as a human being because of their faith (or lack of). I hope (and it is my experience) that sucha view point is the exception rather than the rule – for theists and atheists both.
Finally your use of words like convert and save sound scarily like evangelizing
Paul-not-of-Tarsus,
You said, “Insisting that our way of non-belief and calling ourselves non-religious is THE ONLY RIGHT WAY … has a born-again zeal to it that is very religious.”
Could you pinpoint the post where someone insisted atheism not being a religion was the only right way?
If you have been reading my posts carefully then you would see that I insist that atheism is not a religion. Take note of the period a the end of the last sentence. That is not the same as making the declaration that this is the only possible way to look at it. Therefore, if you are referring your comment to me, then you are putting your own words into my mouth, which I definitely do not appreciate. My intention is to clarify, and eradicate vagueness – something useful when contemplating retorts in the arena of theistic discussions.
If you had read the beginnings of this thread you would see that I agreed with an opinion that for purposes of law atheism could be looked upon as a religion – this is where the tomato being a fruit/vegetable food fight dialogue escalated.
You do use the phrase “in certain contexts” which I agree with. I’m not sure this is the best course to pursue regarding the group of atheists in America which uniformly agree we should be on equal footing with theists, but this option seems to be the only one available to obtain the benefits you outline in your post, while no other factual “religious” following has been established.
HeatheNZ said
“Finally your use of words like convert and save sound scarily like evangelizing”
Used as self-mockery, theist-mockery, and to set up a scenario to discuss. Those words were very much meant to sound that way. Thanks for noticing.
One of the reasons we non-theiests of various flavours lack representation is because we fracture so easily. I understand all too well how little theistic an atheist is – you are preaching to the choir!
But if accepting some label in some situations gets our foot in the door, I think we should accept the inaccuracy as ‘close enough for government work’, especially considering the stilted legal mind-set and move on and take what is offered on that basis.
I think it would be great for bible-study attendees to know and be reminded every week that RIGHT NEXT DOOR is the atheist non-bible study group. To meet these people at the water fountain and notice that they don’t lick the spigot just to be evil. That they buy clothes in mainstream stores and adhere to the same personal hygene standards and are good decent people who make good neighbors. They might BE your neighbors! And that they don’t have a blatant orgy – complete with farm animals – rather than study or discuss something eggheaded like religion or non-religion.
I think the goal to increase the respect and visibility we non-theists currently do not have is far more worthy than getting lost in the semantics that are largely lost on most people – especially on the theists.
Anything we do to wake up theists out of their cultlike tunnel-vision to the real world, real people, and real concepts helps us, helps them, and helps the world. Some minor semantic sloppiness seems a small price to pay for a win-win-win.
Discussions that digress to the “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” zone are something theists do. Indeed, engaging in that sort of endless harangue makes atheism look more like a religion.
I do not suggest we should all think as one, have one way or even a defining document. That is even less desireable than likely. But if we cannot put minor squabbles aside and concentrate on the large issues (i.e. theists routinely riding roughshod over us in public speech and affairs) affecting all those who are not theists, we lose.
Reminds me of Bruce Lee’s “Using no way as way, having no limitation as limitation.” Which, while a good summary of Bruce’s philosophy, didn’t prevent the Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do association of martial arts schools from having a curriculum to teach.
The JF/JKD schools directly compete with and often directly across the street from schools who do teach one style, one way of fighting art. While JF/JKD is not “one way”, that “no way” philosophy is taught in a school and format much like the other “styles” and in a larger sense of the word IS it’s own style. I know they charge much the same amounts as the korean place across the street, or the aikido dojo downtown.
I guess that is the short version of the way I see it. In the small specific sense, clearly atheists, brights, humanists, agnostics etc. do not constitute a religion. But in the larger sense, atheism is much like a religion, a bunch of people with a large degree of overlap in their similar but quite varied world views. Also much like a religion, larger atheism has many sub-groups who each shout out thier own specific spin on the same general theme – often losing their larger agreement in the smallness of the specifics.
To someone outside the muslim community, the various flavours all look the same. Sunni, shiite, alawi, druze, whatever. They are not christian, atheist or jewish. They are muslim.
From outside the christian community, the subgroups are more alike than not. Catholic, protestant, presbyterian, lutheran, church of england, christian-scientist, amish, quakers, unitarian, pentecostal, whatever. Not muslim, jewish or atheist. (As a refugee from there, I can vouch for how vicious, but tivial, the divisions are on the inside.)
The Jewish community of course has similar fault lines. Orthodox, reform, hasidic, sephardic, reconstructionist, cabala. Even humanistic judaism. (A nontheistic movement that emphasizes Jewish culture and history as the sources of Jewish identity. Not sure if they are a jewish sect or an atheist sect.)
To someone outside the larger non-theist non-community; atheist, agnostic, non-theist, bright, humanist, hard atheist, soft atheist, whatever, have very similar non-beliefs. We are not christian, jewish or muslim. And we are very much defined by the catagory of things we are not. Which, from a slightly non-squeaky look at it, puts us into that catagory as well. Imo, and apparantly in some legal minds as well.
If I don’t tithe the church, but I do cut a check to American Atheists is that not a direct substitute? Much like Jeet Kune Do rather than Tai Kwon Do, no? So I personally will try to not lose the forest for the trees if someone considers my atheism to be a religion. That they recognize the existence of a catagory of thought that replaces other religions seems to be a good starting place. From there we could move to recognition of how mainstream non-religion truly is. THEN, MAYBE, we could start on how atheism is often more of a disbelief or skepticism or absence of blind faith or whatever other particulars any one sub-group feels is important. “Once the camel gets his nose in the tent, the body will soon follow.”
Lets go for the wedge, open the discussion, take our place as a loose gaggle of similar philosophies and COMPETE with the religions for the hearts and minds of our fellows, the tax dollars and exemptions, and the consideration in public speech and policy that are due us by our very numbers.
Sorry if I’m beating a dead, umm, camel.
Paul-not-of-Tarsus,
I sympathize with your vision and applaud your goal of equitable representation and voice. It’s a compelling utopian image.
However I disagree with your tactics, and further, consider that to implement such tactics offers no gaurantee (or arguably liklihood) of attaining any stated goal, but does come with a price of compromising our intellectual integrity and honesty.
To consider atheism a religion (in the sense of faith or belief centered) is anathema to me. To compromise my integrity in exchange for (perhaps) the right to fair treatment seems a poor bargain from my perspective.
I for one would rather subsist in the metphorical desert than live in a guilded cage.
JC,
I’ll make no attempt to pinpoint anything because I was not replying to you or any other person specifically. Imo, “THE ONLY RIGHT WAY” was the gist of what had been expressed in several places above. Certainly I have thought that way at times. If you insist on getting lawyerly about it, I’ll freely stipulate that “THE ONLY RIGHT WAY” should be considered a logical extreme of thoughts I felt were expressed in this thread and “THE ONLY RIGHT WAY” was used for general rhetorical purposes rather than as a specific retort to a specific person.
You “insist that atheism is not a religion.” And I noticed the period. I see your point. I think I understand your point. My point, my opinion, my gist, even my logical extreme if you prefer, is that – imo – a larger issue exists: do we take every opportunity to go mainstream? Or do we contemplate our navals and whine about definitions? I say screw neat definitions – go mainstream at every opportunity!
I did read the thread. Not with a lawyers eye, mind you. I was addressing the question Dave posted just under the announcement that started this thread. That question was, “Should we?”
My answer, not doubt apparant to even non-lawyers is “Yes!”
I think holding out for a stricter definition, a ban on all “special privileges”, would just be a missed opportunity.
I agree with Darrow’s ‘rose by any other name’. I disagree with your (JC’s) concern for clarity. I agree with Dangerman’s “do not think atheism is a religion”, think Dangerman’s insight into the theists not getting the no-religion concept is very apt, but think the social recognition is more important than neat laws (they ain’t neat now – not gonna get neater). I don’t share reluctantatheist’s concern that the government will register atheists, I think the faith-based boat has sailed and that we would do better to treat that “initiative” as an opportunity than deny that it happened. I agree with Charlie’s “go for it.”
I think JP is onto something: the law often defines something too strictly, and then gets flumoxed trying to write it more generally. Such is the case with religion, with marraige variants and no doubt others. Law is clearly imperfect, nor likely to suddenly improve.
Charlie is right on with “our belief is based on scientific theorys derived from all of the sciences”. Notyourdaddy is right there with “we gained a lot more than we lost.” I’m ok with JustinW’s “”for the purposes of the law”". Gotta like notyourdaddy’s “mother of all religions”, reminds me of my “monotheism was a bad development” rant.
Dbryant is a theist with an agenda imo, but I agree with his ‘do whatever to escape bureaucracy’ theme, and I have no problem with putting atheism (in all its forms) next to theism (the more forms the better – don’t forget Baal and the aztecs …) and letting students decide. If you look at the numbers, we’d get way more exposure than Baal and company. Not that I see the theists letting this happen any time soon.
To JustinW’s 1,2,3 I’d suggest that science is seperate from atheism or religion. Theists are able to function with the scientific method during the week yet be devout whatever’s on the weekend. Doesn’t make any sense to me, but it happens. A lot more than I think reasonable.
I think HeatheNZ reads Atheism in very strict terms, whereas I read the term more generally. Is there a term all agree on to lump all non-theists into one general disagree-able but lacking blind faith bucket? I guess I’ve been using “non-theists” in that manner – but not strictly. I doubt any of us owns a term or can dictate a strict meaning.
Right there with notyourdaddy’s immoral/religious atheists thingy. John Ringo (author) calls himself “ethical,” because “moral” has too much religious baggage. That one rang a bell for me.
I respect the term Heathen – I know there is more there than I understand.
While you can’t really argue with “what they SHOULD do”, when you hear any of the woulda-coulda-shoulda’s you have to think that somebody is not dealing squarely with reality. And as atheists (or whatever) we have an obligation to keep our feet on the ground.
Darrow hits truth with “Life and people are messy.” “The term ‘religion’ has different meanings in every U.S. Jurisdiction…” Imo, strict definitions are illusion.
Drax hook kicks some Bruce Lee with “LONG LIVE THE RELIGION OF NO RELIGION!”
To return to my point, JC, my intention is not to clarify or eradicate vagueness – though I don’t mind those things. My intention is to point out that we owe ourselves a larger piece of public pie/respect/recognition/whatever (yes, vague, I know) and we won’t get it if we turn it down because we didn’t like the typeface.
ps that was another long one. sorry.
HeatheNZ,
I respect your concern for integrity. It is clear many others in the larger non-theist non-community share it or something like it.
Which is why we divide into many little groups instead of a larger more effective one. Rather like the tower of babel. (Gag, yet another theist concept.)
While my tactics (not that they are mine) do not offer gaurantees, I can gaurantee no results if we stay in the shadows and do nothing to assert ourselves.
How does acknowledging the inherent sloppiness of the legal/political/social system compromise your personal integrity? How would supporting, or at least not protesting, one tiny additional inaccuracy or one thin additional layer of imperfect text constitute a gilded cage? Very nicely turned phrase, though I don’t quite understand it.
At the risk of using a clear, non-vague definition
anathema: one that is greatly reviled, laothed or shunned.
OK, I think I understand now. I think I have felt something like that in the past. I don’t think I was very effective in that mode, which is part of why I’ve come to view theists as not something to be avoided at all costs, but something that you will be up to your butt in all day long whether you like it or not. Hence my emphasis with going mainstream.
Paul-not-of-Tarsus,
“Some minor semantic sloppiness seems a small price to pay for a win-win-win.”
Minor sloppiness can mean a great magnitude of difference in the most infinitesimal of scientific scenarios. Granted, social behavior is not science, but I believe that human reasoning has a similar caveat for error.
I agree with your wedge suggestion. The reason I am wary about allowing atheism to be associated with religion, including for legal use, is the natural tendency of humans to simplify and consolidate concepts for easier comprehension. Once again, HeatheNZ and I are on the same page. Religion is not a perfect structure with an absolute definition, as evidenced by this thread. There are facets of religion that have a negative connotation. Atheism has enough negativity associated with it as is, without needing to be weakened by any negative attributes implicit with religion.
On the other hand, I also agree with your martial arts analogy to some extent. I do agree with your assumption that most atheists share beliefs that overlap. It is in consideration of all of this that I offer the following two possible solutions to this conundrum:
1. The group of atheists in America formally assert a new group label and/or movement with an assigned definition of beliefs such as humanism, separation of church and state, using science as the ultimate authority for explaining the unknown, and achieving our goals through non-violent means. Persons not adhering to these beliefs would not be a part of the group, although could still considered to be atheist.
I believe this to be the preferred solution. Short of that…
2. We ask that atheism and atheists be viewed as “religious” in the eyes of the law, on the condition that it is expressly understood that this is a borrowed definition to make things easier, as we do not wish to create undue confusion, and receive misconstrued opinions and misplaced attributes for ourselves.
JC,
“Atheism has enough negativity associated with it as is, without needing to be weakened by any negative attributes implicit with religion.”
Some thoughts.
Most of the people who regard religion as the trash that it is (note to self: don’t say that in front of theists – you can’t turn your back on them after that) probably understand atheism enough to get the distinction, the irony, the humor, and the inherent contradiction of atheism as a religion. The people who don’t regard religion as something unclean will be offended to have atheism in the same catagory … but might learn something about atheism is the process of forming their next rhetorical spew. I’m thinking any exposure is good, because while atheism does have popular negative associations (communism, for one) most are enabled by the gross ignorance most people have of the belief-set. Non-belief non-set. Whatever.
Further, any atheist study group meeting in prison in school or under another government aegis made available by the legal pretense of religion would probably cover (probably to excess) the basics of atheism in the first session and in any session containing new members. Even a sentence of the simplest atheist basics ought to make its non-religion-hood plainly apparant. Even before you start listing the 57 varieties of atheist/ism.
Atheism (in the very broadest sense) already has too many groups, flavours, varieties and sects. (Yes, sects. Another touching point with the dreaded theist conspiracy.) That fragmentation is, imo, our largest problem. I would hope any new group would take up the goal of being an umbrella group, an action ennabler and a funnel to increase all of our effectiveness and representation. As such, I would hope that restrictive core beliefs be minimized or made as general as possible in order to include the broadest swath of voters possible. The bigger a block we can reach would make us more politically influential.
Does such a group already exist? I haven’t checked out all the groups … I usually close the browser in disgust after a group I regarded initially as promising proves to be so locked into other political extremes too absurd to me for me to stomach any further research. I suppose I have my own anathemas.
I got an ider….Why dont we write a book for atheist to follow….our book will be different than the others….we’ll put dinosaurs in it ur sumptin
My wife invited her Pastor over for some chit chat the other night….We jammed on some strings for an hour and then we talked about his belief and my logical conclusions…I only got excited a few times…after 2 hours of discussion…Im not praising jesus and he still is….I can only hope that he left my house feeling unafraid of atheist….the problem with that is that his book wont let him be unafraid…I also got him to admit that one of the biggest problems I have with his religion and others like it is that part of doing God’s Work is shoving it down my throat…spreading the gospel
Atheism is not telling people how to conduct thier lives….of course there needs to be common law….but not one group needs to be the author of that law…I think that law comes from a constitution that states agreed on
How about we call atheism not a religion….and we go for adding being an atheist to (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;)…and other laws that Guarantee our rights to exist without discrimination?
The only reason that I am in favor of calling atheism a religion is because it will put so many theists noses out of joint having to give us, the people they hate, equal rights as them. It would be great giving them the holy finger.
If I don’t throw salt over my shoulder after spilling it, I’m not expressing a form of superstition. It really is that simple, no word games required which is a ploy to argue for non-belief as a belief. I just call myself non-superstitious and always wrote in “None” for religion on applications back when they did ask.
why not , every moment of life is holy for an unbeliever i.e. no more taxes for anything, then in your free time you could take up donations for your church, oh yeah clerical discount for your musical instruments. it really boils down to believers wanting to pin you with a belief so they can feel better.
project management
…
new hampshire log homes
new hampshire log homes