Recently, I had a Letter To The Editor published in several newspapers. Within it, I asked a whimsical question regarding the "religion of Atheism" and, almost immediately after the ink had dried on the newsprint, the opinions came rushing in.
The assertion that Atheism is a religion and the probability that it would become a hot-button issue among practicers of Theistic religions was predictable, in fact, the notion is repugnant. It was the vehement protests among the self-confessed Atheists and Secular Progressives themselves that were surprising.
Part of the back-and-forth discussion referenced dictionaries and encyclopedias, none of which restricted their definition to a deity or the supernatural, and all definitions I have read so far have, in effect, said that religion may also include disciplines, attitudes, beliefs, practices, conscientiousness or any "cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." (Merriam-Webster). Then there is that Federal Judicial ruling that hailed from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals RE: KAUFMAN v MCCAUGHTRY, in August of 2005, in which the Court ruled that Atheism is a religion. In one of the statements, the court ruled, "A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being, (or beings, for polytheistic faiths) nor must it be a mainstream faith."
Now, we return to the anomalous consternation of the Atheists with this ruling.
For decades, society has witnessed Atheists, under the cloak of Secular Humanism, attack religion and their artifacts which are displayed in tax-supported public places, demanding their removal. During the days that they were not considered a religion, Atheists were free to enter upon tax-supported public land and impose their beliefs upon Theists through their legal arm, the ACLU. They enjoyed the protection of the First Amendment by preaching their gospel under the umbrella of secular free-speech. However, it appears as if the tables have turned as Atheistic demands to be free of Theistic religion and their artifacts, in tax-supported public places, may now be viewed as nothing more than the Atheist's demand to become an official State supported religion by having their beliefs enforced by tax-supported institutions against Theistic religions. If Theistic religions are forced to "go-away", then the Atheists win by default.
Being a religion, Atheism will now be prevailed upon by the courts to have their parishioners follow the theory of separation of church and state by butting out of such controversies, lest they be viewed as one religion attempting to gain the upper hand on another in their quest to become the official religion of the United States.
This is certainly a conundrum for folks who never really thought of themselves as religious.
The assertion that Atheism is a religion and the probability that it would become a hot-button issue among practicers of Theistic religions was predictable, in fact, the notion is repugnant. It was the vehement protests among the self-confessed Atheists and Secular Progressives themselves that were surprising.
Part of the back-and-forth discussion referenced dictionaries and encyclopedias, none of which restricted their definition to a deity or the supernatural, and all definitions I have read so far have, in effect, said that religion may also include disciplines, attitudes, beliefs, practices, conscientiousness or any "cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." (Merriam-Webster). Then there is that Federal Judicial ruling that hailed from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals RE: KAUFMAN v MCCAUGHTRY, in August of 2005, in which the Court ruled that Atheism is a religion. In one of the statements, the court ruled, "A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being, (or beings, for polytheistic faiths) nor must it be a mainstream faith."
Now, we return to the anomalous consternation of the Atheists with this ruling.
For decades, society has witnessed Atheists, under the cloak of Secular Humanism, attack religion and their artifacts which are displayed in tax-supported public places, demanding their removal. During the days that they were not considered a religion, Atheists were free to enter upon tax-supported public land and impose their beliefs upon Theists through their legal arm, the ACLU. They enjoyed the protection of the First Amendment by preaching their gospel under the umbrella of secular free-speech. However, it appears as if the tables have turned as Atheistic demands to be free of Theistic religion and their artifacts, in tax-supported public places, may now be viewed as nothing more than the Atheist's demand to become an official State supported religion by having their beliefs enforced by tax-supported institutions against Theistic religions. If Theistic religions are forced to "go-away", then the Atheists win by default.
Being a religion, Atheism will now be prevailed upon by the courts to have their parishioners follow the theory of separation of church and state by butting out of such controversies, lest they be viewed as one religion attempting to gain the upper hand on another in their quest to become the official religion of the United States.
This is certainly a conundrum for folks who never really thought of themselves as religious.
3 comments:
Atheism, per se, is not a religion, no more than theism is a religion. Theism is a tenet of many religions, and even atheism is a tenet of a few religions, but neither is, itself, a religion. At best, either can be creeds of a religion. If you are going to call "atheism" a religion, you must also call "theism" a religion, and somehow make the case that all the myriad religions that have a god are just one religion, instead of many religions with a common tenet.
What the Kaufman ruling said was that there are situations where, for first amendment purposes, atheism is treated as a religion. This no more makes atheism a religion than court rulings make corporations "persons" based on rulings that corporations are sometimes treated, legally, as persons.
Your analysis about what kind of difference this makes is also wrong. The government can't promote atheism OR theism. By insisting that government remain NEUTRAL, this, itself, does NOT mean the government is promoting atheism. TO promote atheism, the government would have to promote the idea that gods don't exist.
By removing 'in god we trust', this is not promoting atheism, but neutrality. US currency didn't used to have such religious promotion, and going back to how things used to be isn't promoting atheism. The same is true for 'under god' in the pledge of allegiance; it wasn't in the original pledge, and removing it isn't promoting atheism, it's going back to the religiously-neutral version.
Brian, I must, respectfully, disagree with you on most of your points.
Unlike the variety of theistic religions which, in the main, believe in various gods and deities, the religion of Atheism actively and singularly rejects ALL gods and deities in one comprehensive doctrine. Therefore, theism is a merely an adjective which describes a religion as one which, collectively, believes in the existence of a god or deity while Atheism is a the religion of a singular doctrine which rejects the existence of any god or deity. As such, it, comprehensively, cuts across all theistic lines targeting them all.
From Dictionary.com:
a·the·ism
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry:
athe·ism Listen to the pronunciation of atheism
Pronunciation:
\?a--the--?i-z?m\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date:
1546
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
From Wikipedia:
Atheism generally has one of two meanings:[1] Viewed narrowly, it is an explicit position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[2] or rejects theism.[3] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[4] alternatively called nontheism.
Assuming for the point of argument that the court made this ruling "for first amendment purposes", that's all it takes to make Atheism a fully vested religion. The Constitution does not give the courts the power to decide what class of religion it will be (ie. a Second Class religion.). The 1st Amendment guarantees that all religions will be treated equally by the government, to do less would be the endorsement of one religion over another.
However, the commentary by the court in their published opinion belies the notion that their decision was fanciful or perfunctory and merely rendered to quell the noise of an inmate incarcerated in a State prison.
You state, "TO promote atheism, the government would have to promote the idea that gods don't exist." Actually, all the government would have to do is to promote one religion over another. As an example, the removal of a Menorah displayed on public property at the insistence of an the Atheist church or religion. If, in fact, the Menorah were removed at the insistence of the Atheist church or religion, this would be pandering to one religion (Atheism) over another (Judaism), and the Atheistic pulpit of the rejection of all gods and deities.
The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This was done by the framers of the Constitution because the Anglican Church was the only religion in which English Subjects could, legally, worship. As such, this was the official government church. The Constitutional authors wanted no part of this in the newly formed United States of America. They wanted to ensure that all religions were on equal footing in their religious observances, including the newly defined religion of Atheism.
"What the Kaufman ruling said was that there are situations where, for first amendment purposes, atheism is treated as a religion. This no more makes atheism a religion than court rulings make corporations "persons" based on rulings that corporations are sometimes treated, legally, as persons."
Just as an FYI, the courts don't rule corporations into existence, it is an administrative action created by the various State Legislatures to create a "legal entity". However, like a corporation, religions must act through agents since the religions themselves are a philosophical body rather than an actual person. However, your analogy is intriguing.
Post a Comment