Court rules atheism a religion

[Richard G]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874

 

[geni]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874

hi long time no see

this would appear to be the appeal to authority logical fallacy

 

[cyborg]

I see, so your point is that American law has a rather ridiculous view of what religion is.

 

[Bri]

According to Dictionary.com, atheism could be considered a religion (see definition 4). But then so could just about anything, and one could easily belong to multiple religions. In fact, I'm not sure what the difference is between "religion" and "hobby" according to that definition. Does that mean that people worship model trains and postage stamps?

re·li·gion Audio pronunciation of "religion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1.

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

-Bri

 

[TragicMonkey]

Surely the proper ruling would have been that atheism and religion are both philosophies exploring the metaphysical nature of existence, and such philosophies are protected under the First Amendment. "Religion", in the context of the Bill of Rights, doesn't mean "philosophy of existence with a god or gods", it refers to a broader system of beliefs, which could include gods or not.

But I guess I'll never make the Supreme Court with that kind of crazy thinking.

 

[Cain]

Atheism is not an outlook on life; it cannot be considered a "religion" in any meaningful sense of the term. If a large number of people were foolish enough to believe in the existence of pixies, then we would have a term for those of us who do not believe in pixies. Thank God such a word is unnessary. Too bad the same cannot be said for atheism.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Atheism is not an outlook on life; it cannot be considered a "religion" in any meaningful sense of the term.

Define "religion", then.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Atheism is not an outlook on life; it cannot be considered a "religion" in any meaningful sense of the term. If a large number of people were foolish enough to believe in the existence of pixies, then we would have a term for those of us who do not believe in pixies. Thank God such a word is unnessary. Too bad the same cannot be said for atheism.

That's why I prefer "non-believer."

AS

 

[bmillsap]

I don't see this as particularly silly, given the context. In the context of religous discrimination, if you don't treat atheism as a 'religion', it means it's the only unprotected viewpoint. The court seems to have ruled that in this context, atheism should be protected to the same extent true 'religious' beliefs are, and in this context it needs to be treated equally to how you'd treat other religions.

 

[tkingdoll]

That's why I prefer "non-believer."

AS

The trouble with that is, it doesn't refer to what you don't believe in. At least if you are labelled 'atheist', people are likely to make the (generally) correct assumption that you are rejecting religion.

I find it a little too close to the 'unbeliever' accusation used by some theists to mean 'heathen'. But perhaps that's just me

 

[Cain]

Making sense of atheism

Many terms are grossly misused and abused in public discourse ("capitalism" and "socialism" spring to mind).

I have had a long-standing problem with "atheism" and "agnosticism", mostly because "atheism" sounds oh-so-evil, and agnostics, generally speaking, arrogantly and mistakenly position themselves as holding on to some sort of rational middle-ground.

This is not intended as an exhaustive posting. First, I note the common distinction between "strong" atheism and "weak" (or "negative") atheism. The former holds on to some sort of explicit and unnecessary -- not to mention absurd -- belief that the non-existence of God can be proven. The latter simply holds that there is no reason to believe in any god of any kind. Some of these weak atheists, perhaps even a majority, may believe the evidence supporting a god or gods is so flimsy that one's lack of belief in a deity is on par with one's lack of belief in pink unicorns, dragons, and other mythological three-headed beasts (as in the case of Christian lore).

The distinction between these types of atheism is completely lost on the public. It doesn't help when Internet sophisticates begin championing agnosticism, which they confuse with weak atheism. Agnosticism, properly understood and situated, is in fact a BRANCH of atheism in that agnostics *lack a belief in a god or gods*. Their further idiosyncratic epistemological claims are not substantive in terms of taking sides in the public discussion.

As predicted the "Bright" proposal was a complete failure. It requires too much explanation and it seems to immediately confirm atheist stereotypes ("oh, you're so arrogant"). Reducing the term atheism to its bare parts 'a' -- meaning lacking -- "theism" -- which relates to god(s) -- is too difficult for the public to follow. I therefore label myself a "non-theist".

My non-theism probably fits perfectly with most definitions of "weak atheism" but doesn't carry all the baggage, or require subtle distinctions to separate myself from splinter groups.

 

[Iacchus]

According to Dictionary.com, atheism could be considered a religion (see definition 4). But then so could just about anything, and one could easily belong to multiple religions. In fact, I'm not sure what the difference is between "religion" and "hobby" according to that definition. Does that mean that people worship model trains and postage stamps?

They worship Elvis don't they?

 

[Nohm_Sane]

I also call myself a nontheist instead of an atheist for exactly the same reasons that Cain described above.

 

[Bri]

Thank God such a word is unnessary. Too bad the same cannot be said for atheism.

Interesting choice of words.

-Bri

 

[Iacchus]

I don't see this as particularly silly, given the context. In the context of religous discrimination, if you don't treat atheism as a 'religion', it means it's the only unprotected viewpoint. The court seems to have ruled that in this context, atheism should be protected to the same extent true 'religious' beliefs are, and in this context it needs to be treated equally to how you'd treat other religions.

We're getting closer. Since it is a viewpoint and, entails the word belief.

 

[Bri]

I don't see this as particularly silly, given the context. In the context of religous discrimination, if you don't treat atheism as a 'religion', it means it's the only unprotected viewpoint. The court seems to have ruled that in this context, atheism should be protected to the same extent true 'religious' beliefs are, and in this context it needs to be treated equally to how you'd treat other religions.

Perhaps the word "religion" in the law should be changed to "belief" or "viewpoint" rather than redefining "atheism."

-Bri

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

I don't see this as particularly silly, given the context. In the context of religous discrimination, if you don't treat atheism as a 'religion', it means it's the only unprotected viewpoint. The court seems to have ruled that in this context, atheism should be protected to the same extent true 'religious' beliefs are, and in this context it needs to be treated equally to how you'd treat other religions.

Quite so. The law is an ass, but it's good to have.

 

[Iacchus]

That's why I prefer "non-believer."

AS

So, I could be a "non-believer" in all but the one True God ... which, is Atheism. Or, at least to the extent that this is what "floats my boat" and makes my little world spin around.

Oh, in case anybody didn't know, the god of light and reason was Apollo.

 

[Iacchus]

The trouble with that is, it doesn't refer to what you don't believe in. At least if you are labelled 'atheist', people are likely to make the (generally) correct assumption that you are rejecting religion.

No, you are merely rejecting the most common notions of religion.

 

[Fengirl]

Speaking from a non-USA perspective, this doesn’t seem too far out of line with the way the European Court of Human Rights interprets religious freedom. The protection offered by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of thought, conscience and religion – and the freedom to choose, change, observe, manifest and teach one’s beliefs) has been held to extend to atheism.

Here in the UK, we also have continuing legal difficulties with defining what is, or is not, a “religion”. As an example of what I mean, the following “definition” of religion is offered in recent legislation prohibiting workplace discrimination on grounds of “religion or belief":

“In these Regulations, "religion or belief" means any religion, religious belief, or similar philosophical belief.”

The regulatory guidance states that

"This does not include any philosophical or political belief, unless that belief is similar ro a religious belief"

Hhhm. Clear, everyone??

The government’s guidance further states:

“Given the wide variety of different faiths and beliefs in this country, we have reached the view that we should not attempt to define “religion or belief” and that it would be better to leave it to the courts to resolve definitional issues as they arise.”

A wonderful piece of legislative buck-passing!