Should atheism be legally treated as a religion?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

One of the most often posed questions in R/T is "Is atheism a religion". I think this question is a) easy to answer (it's not; part of the definition of a religion is "the worship, veneration or at least propitiation of supernatural or mystical entities or forces", I think), and b) of semantic interest only.

A much more important and interesting question is "should atheism be legally treated as a religion" - should laws protecting or restricting religions apply to atheism and other non-religious religious positions too, for example?

[WinkyDink]

1. This is linguistically ("a-") and philosophically absurd.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. Did you actually bother reading my post, or did you just think "it's 'is atheism a religion' again"

and trot out your stock response?

[RC]

2. No. For one,

the wingnutz would try to curtail political activism by the reality based non-believers on religious grounds.

Atheism is a lack of religion in the first place, how can anyone, other than the deluded wingnutz treat a lack of belief as a belief?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. The question isn't whether it is a belief, but whether it should have the same legal status as one.

[RC]

5. I believe I stated that and I stated why.

[Apollo11]

7. I believe in science. I believe that death is the end.

I believe it is foolish to imagine you know something that cannot be proven.

So I guess you could say that Atheism is a belief system.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. Atheism can be part of a belief system.

On its own, I would say that it's a belief but not really a belief system.

It's also a religious position, even though it's not a religion.

[MIS_UNDER_ESTIMATED]

52. .

Apollo11
I believe in science. I believe that death is the end.
I believe it is foolish to imagine you know something that cannot be proven.

So I guess you could say that Atheism is a belief system.

That may describe your belief system, but that is above and beyond the defintion of atheism. All atheism is, is the lack of belief in gods.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. In terms of personal protection from discrimination, there should be protections for atheists

eg

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers with at least 15 employees, as well as employment agencies and unions, from discriminating in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. It also prohibits retaliation against persons who complain of discrimination or participate in an EEO investigation. With respect to religion, Title VII prohibits:

* treating applicants or employees differently based on their religious beliefs or practices – or lack thereof – in any aspect of employment, including recruitment, hiring, assignments, discipline, promotion, and benefits (disparate treatment);
* subjecting employees to harassment because of their religious beliefs or practices – or lack thereof – or because of the religious practices or beliefs of people with whom they associate (e.g., relatives, friends, etc.);
* denying a requested reasonable accommodation of an applicant’s or employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs or practices – or lack thereof – if an accommodation will not impose more than a de minimis cost or burden on business operations; 1 and,
* retaliating against an applicant or employee who has engaged in protected activity, including participation (e.g., filing an EEO charge or testifying as a witness in someone else’s EEO matter), or opposition to religious discrimination (e.g., complaining to human resources department about alleged religious discrimination).

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html

[cosmik debris]

8. That's my position too

Atheist people should have every benefit and responsibility that theist people have.

The problem with the OP's question is that we really don't want government deciding what is or is not a religion, especially if that determination comes with extra rights, privileges, or benefits.

[smoogatz]

9. Yes.

I think that my house, as a place of non-worship, and my income, which is derived areligiously, should be fully tax-exempt.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. To take you more seriously than you intend,

should humanist societies and the like be tax exempt?

[smoogatz]

27. Why not?

If fairness plays any part in these things, that is.

[pokerfan]

10. If atheism is a religion

then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. If people found a club for not collecting stamps, it should be treated like any other hobby club.

At least in law (although probably not by individuals).

So I'm not sure your analogy cuts the way I think you intend it to.

[pokerfan]

14. No, that would simply make it a club

You seem confused over the definitions of 'hobby' and 'club.'

Calling atheism a religion is also akin to calling a baldness a hair color. If a bunch of bald people wanted to form a club, that would simply make it a club of bald people, not suddenly give them hair.

Creationists play this game all the time. When the fail to get their mythology accepted as science (in an attempt to do an end-rum around the First Amendment), then they accuse science as espousing the 'religion of materialism.'

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. ...you're doing this from memory, aren't you?

My impression is that you have a set line of arguments that you trot out when people ask "is atheism a religion", and you're just rolling them out, without bothering about the fact that that's not what I'm asking.

Again, laws against discrimination on grounds of hair colour should also protect bald people.

[pokerfan]

25. tired old arguments deserve the same

You are redefining words to serve your purposes, e.g. "clubs are hobbies," "beliefs are religion." As I said, this is a game the fundies like to play. Once they succeed in watering the language down to where disbelief means the same thing as belief, then it's just a quick hop and step to making the argument that science itself is a religion (materialism) and that evolution should not be taught.

However, if all you're arguing is that people possess the civil right to both freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion i.e. 'separation of church and state,' then we have no argument but I suspect that you are actually after more than just that.

[YankeyMCC]

11. No nt

[HamdenRice]

12. Not "as" a religion, but "like" a religion for human rights purposes

If atheists are to be protected by international human rights conventions that protect people against persecution for their religion and beliefs, then yes, atheism would have to be treated "like" a "belief."

That doesn't mean it is a belief in the supernatural or a belief in a specific doctrine. But the protection of "beliefs" really is better understood as a protection of "opinion."

For example, human rights law protects people who "believe" that the government should take a stronger role in helping peasants in Guatemala (agrarian populism). That doesn't mean that "agrarian populism" is a religion -- only that death squads shouldn't persecute agrarian populists.

[TechBear_Seattle]

15. Everyone is an atheist

Rather than write a long explanation, I will keep it simple:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." (Stephen Roberts)

Atheism was one of the charges leveled against Christians by the Romans, as Christian rejected the state gods of Rome. In that light, arguably EVERYONE is an atheist. If atheists are going to be stripped of their First Amendment protections solely because they are atheists, then I demand that Christians endure the same, as they fail to honor Mithras, Ahura Mazda or the Great Mother of All.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. Everyone is a pickled herring, if you redefine the words "pickled herring".

An atheist is not someone who disbelieves in one God, it's someone who doesn't believe in any god.

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. Not true

Unless you are willing to claim that two and a half centuries of Roman persecution against Christians on the grounds of atheism is a lie. I would be very happy to provide a mountain of evidence to support my assertion.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. Stop and think about that.

The Romans didn't speak English. They may have persecuted Christians for a word that is usually translated as "atheism", but that's not relevant to the definition of the word in English.

Also, just because the Romans accused the Christians of something, doesn't mean they were guilty of it.

I don't know whether the charge you're referring too translates as "failing to worship *the* Gods" or "failing to worship *our* Gods", or what, but it's entirely irrelevant either way.

In English, the word "atheism" means "not believing in any gods",. and it does not mean "not believing in a particular God".

What the Romans charged the Christians with is nothing to do with that.

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. Actually, "atheism" comes to English via Latin from Greek

Your implication that it is an English word shows your ignorance on the matter.

At least as early as the Republican period, possibly even as early as the Kingdom period, Romans had adopted a great deal of classical Greek philosophy and religion. This adoption included a number of Greek words which conveyed concepts foreign to native Roman philosophy. One of these words was ἀθεότης, atheotis, best translated as "godlessness." The word was used by the Greeks and then Romans to convey two related ideas: the deliberate omission of honoring the gods, or the position that the gods were not deserving of worship. Early Roman writers Latinized the word as atheos, and it is this word that was brought into English.

After the death and deification of Julius Caesar, it became a matter of civic duty to worship the genius of past emperors as divine guardians and protectors of the Empire. Under Imperial law, all citizens were obligated to prove their loyalty to the Empire by making an offering of incense to the genii of the divine emperors; failure to do so was seen as an open statement of disloyalty if not outright treason, and was punished as such. The official charge was atheism, that is to say, the deliberate omission of honoring the gods. The reason as to why this omission was deliberate was not the point, and monotheism was not an allowed excuse (except for Jews, who the only group given an exemption to this requirement.) Under Roman law, your distinction between "failure to worship the gods" and "failure to worship our gods" did not exist.

The definition you are using for atheism -- not believing in any gods -- is incomplete. "Atheism" has a well documented history of at least 2400 years and, until modern times, has been used to convey much the same meaning as when it was first coined. Even into the Enlightenment, the word was used to mean the failure to attend religious services, not a belief or doctrine regarding the existence or non-existence of God. Voltaire was infamous as an atheist not because of his writings, but because he adamantly refused to attend Mass.

I use "atheism" is its original sense and in the sense that it has been used for nearly all of the word's long history. That you insist on changing the definition is your failure, not mine.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. Religion is decimated by the piety of glamourous anti-semites.

Words don't always mean what you might think from the derivation.

There is an English word "atheism". It comes from Latin, but it's an English word,
It has had different meanings in the past (the title character of "The Atheist's Tragedy" isn't an atheist in the modern sense; he acknowledges the existance God but is hostile to him, IIRC).

But, in English, nowadays and for centuries past, atheism means "not believing in any Gods", and using it to mean "not believing in a particular God" is incorrect.

[TechBear_Seattle]

24. Many Christians say exactly the opposite

If I reject the Christian god, then I am an atheist. That I might worship other gods still makes me an atheist according to the definition of "atheism" used by many conservative Christians.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. Many Christians say that atheists don't exist. That doesn't make them right.

Lexicographers, on the other hand...

[pegleg]

28. There are certainly enough fanatical atheists that it could be called religion. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. Only innaccurately, though.

There are fanatical Man Utd fans, but one would only call that a religion rhetorically.

[pegleg]

30. When the communists took over in Russia they referred to their new religion

as "scientific atheism". It denied the supernatural but established its own "religious" ceremonies and holidays.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. Two points.

Firstly, I would guess that what the Russians actually said was in Russian - are you sure the words translate 1-for-1

Secondly, when thinking about the meaning of a word, examples where it's being used for political purposes should usually be discounted, because the user has a vested interest in the meaning, and may well be distorting it.

[pegleg]

32. Agreed

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Forced+Secularization+in+Soviet+Russia%3A&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

"Atheists waged a 70-year war on religious belief in the Soviet Union. The Communist Party
destroyed churches, mosques, and temples; it executed religious leaders; it flooded the schools
and media with anti-religious propaganda; and it introduced a belief system called “scientific
atheism,” complete with atheist rituals, proselytizers, and a promise of worldly salvation. But in
the end, a majority of older Soviet citizens retained their religious beliefs and a crop of citizens
too young to have experienced pre-Soviet times acquired religious beliefs. This article seeks to
explain why atheists, with the full support of a totalitarian state, were unsuccessful in secularizing Russian society."

[Adarlene]

34. they introduced a belief system...

complete with rituals etc.

This is not atheism as I know it but a made up control mechanism, just like any other belief system.

Atheist do not believe that god (any god or number of gods) exists.
Like Santa and Leprechans... there-are-no-such-things. I guess I am also asanta and aleprechan and afairies. LOL

The religious who trot out Soviet atheists are just trying to justify their own beliefs by saying "they believe in such and such!".

If science ever finds god, then I will believe in it. Until then I remain simply a human being who does not believe in religion or god.

[pegleg]

35. Their belief system was atheistic in that it denied anything supernatural.

Their belief system was in science and materialism and their value to the state. It doesn't get more atheistic than that. No theism existed in their doctrine. Those who made policy are the perfect example of atheists. In the real world you will never attain a completely atheistic society - but only on an official level. People will believe what they believe and they will reason what they reason. People are not the "Borg".

[beam me up scottie]

37. So atheism = "belief in science and materialism and their value to the state"???

Say what?

[pokerfan]

39. To the believer...

secularism == godless, wicked atheism.

They've been waging their own war on the Enlightenment for over two hundred years.

[beam me up scottie]

40. I never knew what I believed until I moved to the bible belt.

Now people just fall all over themselves telling me what I think.

[pegleg]

43. Tell em they've got their bible belt fastened too tight.

[beam me up scottie]

45. I recently lost another friend who wouldn't stop trying to "save" me.

He couldn't help himself and I can't get past the fact that someone who knows me actually thinks I'm evil.

[pegleg]

42. No, that is not true.

As a believer, secularism is totally necessary to a free society. I don't find secularism nor atheism wicked. Atheism is what it is. Belief in a supernatural existence is what it is. The Enlightenment certainly does not exclude religion. It excludes narrow - minded religious dogma as the only source of authority.

[pokerfan]

48. I probably should have said 'many believers'

I have met many that seem to conflate secularism with atheism. They're usually the ones trying to get either evolution out of the schools or their creation mythology inserted.

[pegleg]

44. I am paraphrasing how the soviets defined their version of

"scientific atheism".

[beam me up scottie]

46. Ah, gotcha!

I thought that sounded really out of character for you. :)

[MIS_UNDER_ESTIMATED]

51. Atheism /= secularism /= anti-theism.

Atheism /= secularism /= anti-theism.

[varkam]

33. I think that a central issue to human rights is autonomy, or rather the right to be autonomous.

Under that rubric, I believe, falls the notion of the right of people to believe (or not believe) whatever they wish about the unknown. Any attempts to infringe, on that, runs contrary to human rights, IMO.

[pegleg]

36. Finally, You and I agree on something. nt

[varkam]

38. I'm sorry. I forgot that I was supposed to be one of those fanatical atheists.

What I meant to say was this: We should throw the believers to the lions.

[pegleg]

41. You're excused.

[Zebedeo]

47. Atheists should enjoy all of the rights

and none of the restrictions with which other religions are burdened.

In other words, the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment should apply to atheism, but the "establishment clause" should not apply.

Atheism is special.

[pokerfan]

49. The teaching of science in public schools should be banned

It is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Science rejects the supernatural, excludes the metaphysical and clearly promotes the godless, atheistic philosophy of http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html">materialism.

Let the godless science worshipers set up their own schools and may God have mercy on their souls.

[conscious evolution]

50. Yes and no

It should not be treated as a religion because it is not one.
That said,atheist should have the same legal protections that any minority,oppressed or non- mainstream group has.