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.
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