Is atheism a religion?
Should atheism be considered a religion? The obvious answer, to me at least, is no, atheism is not a religion; it is the lack of religion, specifically the lack of belief in any deity. However, there is legal precedent that basically states that atheism is a religion for legal purposes.
There was an inmate in Wisconsin who wanted to start an atheist study group for his fellow convicts, but was barred from doing so by the State. He ended up suing the State requesting that he be allowed for the same reason that other inmates are allowed to attend church services and partake in religious ceremonies. The lawyers for the state argued that since atheism isn't a religion, that he should not be allowed the same right as other inmates. The judge ruled that for legal purposes, atheism will be considered a religion, and he should be allowed to hold his sessions.
Why does this matter? Shortly after the pledge was ruled unconstitutional, a coworker and I were discussing the matter (I'm pretty sure he's a Christian and he doesn't know that I'm an atheist), and he said that the establishment clause in the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". He used to be a lawyer and he pretty much recited it verbatim. His point was that by deeming the pledge unconstitutional, the judge was actually furthering a specific religion, atheism! To which I asked, "So, is atheism a religion." He said frankly, yes, it's just another world view. I retorted, that I don't think atheism is a religion, it's the abscence of religion. Neither of us pressed it much after that and seeing as how he's technically my boss, I didn't want to argue any further. Although, we did agree that if the case went to the Supreme Court, it would most likely me over-turned, as I mentioned in my other post.
This raises an interesting question though. One could make a case that because atheism is a legal religion, that the judge ruling in favor of the atheist families was actually promoting that religion, which is a clear violation of the establishment clause. It's a Catch-22, we wouldn't be able to have it declared unconstitutional and in violation of the establishment clause, because doing so would be a violation of the establishment clause. Sounds pretty absurd, but I'm not a lawyer.
If anyone has any thoughts on the matter, I'd love to hear it. Should atheism be considered a religion, legally or otherwise? Will this play a part in the pledge ruling going forward.
4:01 AM
|
|
This entry was posted on 4:01 AM
You can follow any responses to this entry through
the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response,
or trackback from your own site.
13 comments:
It's not like it's being changed to "one nation, under no God." Hard to see an omission as promotion of religion.
Yea, I agree
If atheism is to be considered a religion, then all activities deemed apolitical should be subject to political regulations, anaerobic organisms must be reclassified as aerobic, analgesics need to be categorized as pain-causing agents, anorexics treated for overeating, and amnesiacs be dealt with as having perfect recall.
What the Wisconsin judge seems to be saying is that atheists as persons have no fewer rights than do believers; the "isms" here are secondary to the individuals. By giving primacy to mere human beings, some will surely say, he reveals himself as a member of the "humanist" cult, and all his rulings should be reversed.
There's a difference between atheism--the lack of belief in god or gods, and secularism--making no reference to religion. It is true that government should not be atheist, but it should be secular.
Even were we to assume that atheism is a religion, which I agree it is not, that does not mean that ruling for the atheists would be an atheist ruling. In fact, ruling that "under god" does not beling in the pledge is actually a secular ruling and not an atheist one. Nobody is advocating that the pledge contain the phrase, "there is no God" (and I understand that not all atheists assert this but weak atheism makes no positive claim so this is the closest we could get to making the pledge atheist rather than secular).
The court would assert that government will make no reference to religion. That's not an atheist stance but a secular one.
My Webster's 9th Collegiate defines religion thus: "1 a (1): The service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance b: the state of a religious (a nun in the 20th year of ~) 2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 3 archaic: scrupulous conformity: CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"
So, does case law (hard cases make bad law, remember) trump language as defined by lexicography? I realize that, more and more, language means whatever the user wants it to mean, which explains much of our tumble into the dark ages here in Amurricah, but if the law is redefining language rather than implementing it, we are in DEEP doodoo.
Hate coming so late to a thread like this. But I'll add my two bits anyway.
Of course atheism is a religion. Its focus centers arround God, spirituality and morality.
An example of a non religion might be a belief in string theory. Its certainly a world view but says nothing about God or morality.
Frankly I think of atheism as being a religion, mostly because it requires the belief in something unproveable, namely, the non-existence of god.
Agnosticism is the way I hedge my bets in that realm. I truly believe that no god exists, however I can't prove it, so I'm agnostic, not atheist.
Considering atheism to be a religion has interesting legal implications, in that you can claim that your religious rights are being infringed upon if people force their religion upon you in public or governmental venues.
One of my favorite quotes is from Douglass Adams:
There's nothing a good agnostic can't do if he doesn't set his mind to it.
I agree with the posts that argue atheism is a religion. It comes from our Creator's gift of free will. Basically we have two choices. One is to follow God, the other is not to follow God. This is a fairly simple statement, but once you get below the surface, it is incredibly complex. I say that because I believe religion involves the choice not to follow God. The choice to follow is a relationship, not a religion, because when you choose to follow Him, He literally comes to live inside of you. Everything else is religion, which is just man creating his own god (little g) to follow. This created god has many forms. Hindu's serve many gods, new agers see themselves as god, Buddists and atheist say their is no God but all are equally religious because they all come from a finite source and believe by faith in something they cannot prove. I invite everyone on this site to examine the claims of Jesus Christ. He claims to be God. Lee Stroebel has written two great books to begin (or continue) in your search. (The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith). Jesus claims to have come to earth in order to die for your and my sin. He was crucified, died and was buried, only to rise from the grave on the third day to rise to heaven. His promise to all who believe in Him an follow Him as Lord will have life with him forever. All who don't will have life without Him forever. He loved us enough to give us the free will to make a choice. Please, choose relationship, not religion!
Because of Him!
Tom
It never ceases to amaze me how smug in their superiority religious people are, as evidenced by tomb's post above. Always this tone of the understanding parent chiding a stubborn child.
Please, I'm an adult, and from everything I've seen and read there's no reason whatsoever to pick any particular mythology over any other. Just because it's a popular myth doesn't make it true.
The fact that the bible was written by people with a vested interest in making it sound as "godly" as possible ensured that every so-called "miracle" was spun into an event worthy of the Republican media. In fact you could even say the the apostles were the first Republicans.
Tomb,
I was once a Christian and it didn't so anything for me. I disagree with you that atheism is a religion (of course) but I think it might be for legal purposes only, which was the point of this post
Super late reply... but a favorite quote I read once (can't remember where):
"If atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby"
By definition, Religion is a set of beliefs in a super natural creator or being.
But I'm gonna quote a reply I read in a different blog:
atheist: a person without a belief in the existence of gods.
aleprechaunist: a person without a belief in the existence of leprechauns.
so if someone claims that atheism is a religion that he doesn't belong, then he must agree that aleprechaunism is a religion that he doesn't belong as well.
Post a Comment