Atheism and religion in law
It is established in the precedent of US law that atheism is considered a religion. However, most atheists here like to take the position that atheism is not a religion. I'm curious as to where the various atheists here stand on this.
It seems hypocritical of "atheists" (as a generic descriptor) to fight to have the court of law and declare atheism to be a religion in order to get the benefit of having rights granted to you under that status, while attempting to intellectually defend atheism as not even containing a single affirmative belief within it.
If you had the power to legally declare atheism no longer a religion, would you do it? Why or why not?
(I don't think this has been discussed before, but I could be wrong. Maybe it's one of the first "new" topic of discussion that we've seen in quite a while.)
It seems hypocritical of "atheists" (as a generic descriptor) to fight to have the court of law and declare atheism to be a religion in order to get the benefit of having rights granted to you under that status, while attempting to intellectually defend atheism as not even containing a single affirmative belief within it.
If you had the power to legally declare atheism no longer a religion, would you do it? Why or why not?
(I don't think this has been discussed before, but I could be wrong. Maybe it's one of the first "new" topic of discussion that we've seen in quite a while.)
It is established in the precedent of US law that atheism is considered a religion. However, most atheists here like to take the position that atheism is not a religion. I'm curious as to where the various atheists here stand on this.
It seems hypocritical of "atheists" (as a generic descriptor) to fight to have the court of law and declare atheism to be a religion in order to get the benefit of having rights granted to you under that status, while attempting to intellectually defend atheism as not even containing a single affirmative belief within it.
If you had the power to legally declare atheism no longer a religion, would you do it? Why or why not?
(I don't think this has been discussed before, but I could be wrong. Maybe it's one of the first "new" topic of discussion that we've seen in quite a while.)
It seems hypocritical of "atheists" (as a generic descriptor) to fight to have the court of law and declare atheism to be a religion in order to get the benefit of having rights granted to you under that status, while attempting to intellectually defend atheism as not even containing a single affirmative belief within it.
If you had the power to legally declare atheism no longer a religion, would you do it? Why or why not?
(I don't think this has been discussed before, but I could be wrong. Maybe it's one of the first "new" topic of discussion that we've seen in quite a while.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6095776.html
Lawyers are a strange subspecies.
I would declare atheism a disease, similar to reading Hegel and believing his tripe.
Was this a supreme court decision? I did a search and did not find that atheism specifically was declared a religion for purposes of the equal protection clause, secular humanism was (are you equating secular humanism to atheism?) [a supreme court decision was referenced] See link below:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6095776.html
Lawyers are a strange subspecies.
I would declare atheism a disease, similar to reading Hegel and believing his tripe.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6095776.html
Lawyers are a strange subspecies.
I would declare atheism a disease, similar to reading Hegel and believing his tripe.
I was thinking of something from about a decade ago. I had to dig around a bit to find the actual case law to make sure that what I remembered was accurate:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1467028.html
Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by ․ God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion. Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch. Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n. 5 (7th Cir.1994) (internal citation and quotation omitted); see also Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 340, 90 S.Ct. 1792, 26 L.Ed.2d 308 (1970); United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 184-88, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965). We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion.
...
Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics. As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman's religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise.
...
The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005).
...
The problem with the district court's analysis is that the court failed to recognize that Kaufman was trying to start a “religious” group, in the sense we discussed earlier. Atheism is Kaufman's religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being. As he explained in his application, the group wanted to study freedom of thought, religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices, all presumably from an atheistic perspective. It is undisputed that other religious groups are permitted to meet at Kaufman's prison, and the defendants have advanced no secular reason why the security concerns they cited as a reason to deny his request for an atheist group do not apply equally to gatherings of Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or Wiccan inmates.
...
Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics. As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman's religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise.
...
The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005).
...
The problem with the district court's analysis is that the court failed to recognize that Kaufman was trying to start a “religious” group, in the sense we discussed earlier. Atheism is Kaufman's religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being. As he explained in his application, the group wanted to study freedom of thought, religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices, all presumably from an atheistic perspective. It is undisputed that other religious groups are permitted to meet at Kaufman's prison, and the defendants have advanced no secular reason why the security concerns they cited as a reason to deny his request for an atheist group do not apply equally to gatherings of Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or Wiccan inmates.
I think someone can be a religious atheist. There are Churches for Atheism. I guess it comes down to how you define a religion and how you define atheism.
I think these are good definitions for both
Religion:
A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that aim to explain the meaning of life, the origin of life, or the Universe.
Atheism:disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
You can easily be an atheist without holding any other shared beliefs with any group. I am an atheist but I find most of the stuff I believe to be very different than most atheists. One big thing for me is I wish there was a god and specifically wish the Christian God to be real.
Also, as defined atheism is really just a default position. It can of course be more than that if you are a "strong atheist" or someone who says "god does not exist". But not accepting a claim is really the position everyone should take until convinced. I don't see how any singular answer to one claim is sufficient to call anyone "religious"
I think these are good definitions for both
Religion:
A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that aim to explain the meaning of life, the origin of life, or the Universe.
Atheism:disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
You can easily be an atheist without holding any other shared beliefs with any group. I am an atheist but I find most of the stuff I believe to be very different than most atheists. One big thing for me is I wish there was a god and specifically wish the Christian God to be real.
Also, as defined atheism is really just a default position. It can of course be more than that if you are a "strong atheist" or someone who says "god does not exist". But not accepting a claim is really the position everyone should take until convinced. I don't see how any singular answer to one claim is sufficient to call anyone "religious"
This claim is far from obvious and controversial. But that's something to discuss in a different thread.
I will also point out that you didn't answer the question:
I will also point out that you didn't answer the question:
Originally Posted by me
If you had the power to legally declare atheism no longer a religion, would you do it? Why or why not?
Its legal status has no discernible or significant impact on my life.
If I had the power to legally declare killer whales to instead be labelled as 'sea pandas' I wouldn't, for the same reason.
Damn that pragmatism.
Cuts through questions like this, just as Occam's Razor cuts through unnecessary notions like 'objective morality' ^_^
Since theism isn't a religion, it would be strange to count atheism as a religion.
That said, law usage of terms doesn't necessarily follow dictionary logic (and often for sound reasons).
That said, law usage of terms doesn't necessarily follow dictionary logic (and often for sound reasons).
This doesn't really sound like pragmatism to me. You're not citing practical consequences of accepting it as true. This is more like status-quo-ism.
.
This seems like simple equivocation.
That's why the phrase "for purposes of the First Amendment" is repeated. It's not ruling that atheism is a religion for all intents and purposes rather this individual group is covered by certain rights that others have. I'm no lawyer but I don't think this ruling does anything like cover all atheist groups or atheism in principle as religious.
When people say atheism isn't a religion they typically mean that it doesn't entail any specifics further than absence of belief in God(s). They don't mean that no atheist groups should have similar legal standing to existing religious groups.
That's why the phrase "for purposes of the First Amendment" is repeated. It's not ruling that atheism is a religion for all intents and purposes rather this individual group is covered by certain rights that others have. I'm no lawyer but I don't think this ruling does anything like cover all atheist groups or atheism in principle as religious.
When people say atheism isn't a religion they typically mean that it doesn't entail any specifics further than absence of belief in God(s). They don't mean that no atheist groups should have similar legal standing to existing religious groups.
Others might provocatively call is hypocrisy.
Right, so the position is that "we" (atheists which aren't even part of a collective group with any shared beliefs) want to be treated like a "religion" (in an organizational sense even though there's no real sense in which we are a religion) in order to gain rights and privileges defined for religious organizations.
Would you accept the opposite direction? That "we" (religious people who are part of a collective group) want to be treated like "not-a-religion" (in an organizational sense) in order to gain rights and privileges defined for non-religious organizations? (Say, anything in which you say "separation of church and state" to deny access to?)
That's why the phrase "for purposes of the First Amendment" is repeated. It's not ruling that atheism is a religion for all intents and purposes rather this individual group is covered by certain rights that others have. I'm no lawyer but I don't think this ruling does anything like cover all atheist groups or atheism in principle as religious.
When people say atheism isn't a religion they typically mean that it doesn't entail any specifics further than absence of belief in God(s). They don't mean that no atheist groups should have similar legal standing to existing religious groups.
When people say atheism isn't a religion they typically mean that it doesn't entail any specifics further than absence of belief in God(s). They don't mean that no atheist groups should have similar legal standing to existing religious groups.
Would you accept the opposite direction? That "we" (religious people who are part of a collective group) want to be treated like "not-a-religion" (in an organizational sense) in order to gain rights and privileges defined for non-religious organizations? (Say, anything in which you say "separation of church and state" to deny access to?)
Not "we". Kaufman and his group specifically. Kaufman's atheist group can have properties that grant it legal protection under laws for religion without that saying anything about "atheism" in the simple sense of "absence of belief in God(s)". Kaufman's group doesn't appear to be necessarily absent of shared beliefs like the we you talk about. This is the equivocation: that Kaufman's atheist group and atheism are the same thing. That atheism isn't a religion doesn't imply that an atheist can't be religious.
I'm not sure I understand your question. What rights and privileges do non-religious organisations have that a religious group would try to gain?
I'm not sure I understand your question. What rights and privileges do non-religious organisations have that a religious group would try to gain?
Not "we". Kaufman and his group specifically. Kaufman's atheist group can have properties that grant it legal protection under laws for religion without that saying anything about "atheism" in the simple sense of "absence of belief in God(s)". Kaufman's group doesn't appear to be necessarily absent of shared beliefs like the we you talk about. This is the equivocation: that Kaufman's atheist group and atheism are the same thing.
What you're seeing is also the effect that many religious people understand, which is "that person/group/organization doesn't represent me" yet they get lumped into the characteristics of that group by name. For example, I can come back and say that "what some Christians do" and "Christianity" aren't the same thing. And you know how those conversations go. So why can't it be turned back around in the opposite direction?
I'm not sure I understand your question. What rights and privileges do non-religious organisations have that a religious group would try to gain?
I don't find there to much tension here, and mainly consider it an artifact of a legal system that gives privileged benefits to "religions". Athiests quite reasonably would like a range of legal protections, that they can't be discriminated against for their view, and broadly receive similar benefits as would other people with other beliefs. However, our legal system privileges "religious beliefs" in particular, so by legally classifying atheism as a religion one gets the practical solution of these various legal benefits. Perhaps it would be nice to rewrite the first amendment with words other than "religion", but we are stuck with what we have. That the content of an atheists views are typically more of a rejection of religious beliefs than religious beliefs themselves doesn't seem particularly important for this practical matter.
I don't find there to much tension here, and mainly consider it an artifact of a legal system that gives privileged benefits to "religions". Athiests quite reasonably would like a range of legal protections, that they can't be discriminated against for their view, and broadly receive similar benefits as would other people with other beliefs. However, our legal system privileges "religious beliefs" in particular, so by legally classifying atheism as a religion one gets the practical solution of these various legal benefits. Perhaps it would be nice to rewrite the first amendment with words other than "religion", but we are stuck with what we have.
Also, it's not yet clear to me that it would be equitable to remove explicit protection for religious organizations while still maintaining explicit prohibition for religious organizations through separation of church and state. This leads right back to what I was asking Bladesman about.
That the content of an atheists views are typically more of a rejection of religious beliefs than religious beliefs themselves doesn't seem particularly important for this practical matter.
What would you propose to replace "religion" in some idealized world? What sort of organizational concept do you feel would be a good equivalent to use?
Also, it's not yet clear to me that it would be equitable to remove explicit protection for religious organizations while still maintaining explicit prohibition for religious organizations through separation of church and state. This leads right back to what I was asking Bladesman about.
Also, it's not yet clear to me that it would be equitable to remove explicit protection for religious organizations while still maintaining explicit prohibition for religious organizations through separation of church and state. This leads right back to what I was asking Bladesman about.
Exactly, which is why the thread itself is sort of boring. We have this asymmetric legal structure that codifies "religious beliefs" as something special and so for the purpose of fitting with that legal system atheism might get classified as a "religion". But this has more or less nothing to do with the actual nature of an atheist's beliefs or lack of belief; indeed, the legal system SHOULDN"T be a function of the actual nature of the persons views.
We can delve into the "boring" law business (see below) but the tension you are trying to identify between the legal classification and how one might refer to oneself just isn't a big deal in my view.
The basic principle here is that legal treatment of theists and atheists should be the same. So I wouldn't want governments able to make laws privileging athiests, for instance, either by, say, preaching athiesm in schools or whatever. I don't know if I have a particularly good replacement label (indeed...I'm not bothered by being an athiest in a "religion" forum either), but whatever language was chosen it would certainly need a large legal canon - much as there is for "religion" to suss it out.
But let's assume I'm a strict adherent to the view that atheism is not a religion, yet fight legally to have it recognized as such. I suppose it would be slightly nicer if the law had language in it that "reconciled" exactly with this view. But so what? It only takes a couple sentences to explain that the legal support is because the legal system historically privileges religions and so by piggybacking on that we can get the benefits even if we like to maintain philosophical differences between our views and the views of religious people. n
Doesn't the quote answer the question? We shouldn't have a government sponsered endorsement of atheism in all the various ways we reject government sponsoring Presbyterians.
You state this as it's restricted to just Kaufman's case, like that was the first or last time that this has been done.
What you're seeing is also the effect that many religious people understand, which is "that person/group/organization doesn't represent me" yet they get lumped into the characteristics of that group by name. For example, I can come back and say that "what some Christians do" and "Christianity" aren't the same thing. And you know how those conversations go. So why can't it be turned back around in the opposite direction?
What you're seeing is also the effect that many religious people understand, which is "that person/group/organization doesn't represent me" yet they get lumped into the characteristics of that group by name. For example, I can come back and say that "what some Christians do" and "Christianity" aren't the same thing. And you know how those conversations go. So why can't it be turned back around in the opposite direction?
Can you think of anything in which a religious person was somehow restricted from doing something based on their religiosity? Those things. Because you want to distinguish the "we" to just Kaufman's group, I can restrict my perspective to just individuals, too.
No, because I do not care if atheism is "legally" defined as a religion. It doesn't effect me and I do not think it would effect most atheists. I think some atheists groups should get the same rights as religious groups but I do not think all atheists should get the same rights as religious people just because they are atheists.
This leads to your statement above not being particularly about atheism but "atheism" (at least according to your presumption that "religion" was not the appropriate category), and so we're now faced with government being able to endorse any organization. Consider that a (highly simplified) expression of separation of church and state is that organizations that receive government money cannot talk about Jesus without being in violation (Jesus being both a religious and "religious" topic).
Under the much more broad concept of "religion" it seems that the (highly simplified) expression of "church" and state would be that organizations that receive money cannot talk about ... anything at all? Consider the number of government funded advocacy groups. Would advocacy of anything now be restricted in the same way that advocacy of Jesus' teachings are restricted? If not, what is the reasoning?
---
* http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1467028.html
Of the three [issues raised], the one that has prompted the issuance of this opinion is his claim that the defendants infringed on his right to practice his religion when they refused to allow him to create an inmate group to study and discuss atheism.
But this precisely is the conflation issue. Legally, If "religion" is not the specific category generally understood as religion (which is not the same category of what is legally defined as "religion"), then this statement is now reduced to any gathering of persons who "come together and discuss some particular idea."*
This leads to your statement above not being particularly about atheism but "atheism" (at least according to your presumption that "religion" was not the appropriate category), and so we're now faced with government being able to endorse any organization. Consider that a (highly simplified) expression of separation of church and state is that organizations that receive government money cannot talk about Jesus without being in violation (Jesus being both a religious and "religious" topic).
Under the much more broad concept of "religion" it seems that the (highly simplified) expression of "church" and state would be that organizations that receive money cannot talk about ... anything at all? Consider the number of government funded advocacy groups. Would advocacy of anything now be restricted in the same way that advocacy of Jesus' teachings are restricted? If not, what is the reasoning?
---
* http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1467028.html
This leads to your statement above not being particularly about atheism but "atheism" (at least according to your presumption that "religion" was not the appropriate category), and so we're now faced with government being able to endorse any organization. Consider that a (highly simplified) expression of separation of church and state is that organizations that receive government money cannot talk about Jesus without being in violation (Jesus being both a religious and "religious" topic).
Under the much more broad concept of "religion" it seems that the (highly simplified) expression of "church" and state would be that organizations that receive money cannot talk about ... anything at all? Consider the number of government funded advocacy groups. Would advocacy of anything now be restricted in the same way that advocacy of Jesus' teachings are restricted? If not, what is the reasoning?
---
* http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1467028.html
My understanding of current law is that it is already very loose and permissive on what qualifies, and that while there is a "sincerely held" test on ones "sincerely held religious beliefs", the restrictions on the type of content are fairly broad. Indeed, the supreme court has repeatedly held that the definition of religion includes atheism. I see your slippery slope (if we include atheism, ought we thus not include ANY belief) but slippery slopes are things resolved by legal canon, and I don't see any particular reason to think that our legal canon has it grossly wrong.
So for instance, it seems correct to rule that athiests could form a group at prison given that this is allowed for religious people. Well, ought we let neonazis also form a group at prison then? I feel our legal canon is sufficiently robust to answer this to the negative. For instance, this particular case delineates some parallels between atheism and religion that are presumably not going to be met by comparing neonazis and religion:
Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by ․ God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion. Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch. Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n. 5 (7th Cir.1994) (internal citation and quotation omitted); see also Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 340, 90 S.Ct. 1792, 26 L.Ed.2d 308 (1970); United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 184-88, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965). We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir.2003) (“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”). Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs are deeply and sincerely held. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-ci....ejbMAQEI.dpuf
Or would you allow (under your framework) churches to engage in explicit forms of advocacy in the same manner as labor unions? And would you allow social advocacy "in Jesus' name" (whatever that might mean) the same way you would allow social advocacy for other social organizations and programming?
My understanding of current law is that it is already very loose and permissive on what qualifies, and that while there is a "sincerely held" test on ones "sincerely held religious beliefs", the restrictions on the type of content are fairly broad. Indeed, the supreme court has repeatedly held that the definition of religion includes atheism. I see your slippery slope (if we include atheism, ought we thus not include ANY belief) but slippery slopes are things resolved by legal canon, and I don't see any particular reason to think that our legal canon has it grossly wrong.
Originally Posted by you
Exactly, which is why the thread itself is sort of boring. We have this asymmetric legal structure that codifies "religious beliefs" as something special and so for the purpose of fitting with that legal system atheism might get classified as a "religion".
So for instance, it seems correct to rule that athiests could form a group at prison given that this is allowed for religious people. Well, ought we let neonazis also form a group at prison then? I feel our legal canon is sufficiently robust to answer this to the negative.
For instance, this particular case delineates some parallels between atheism and religion that are presumably not going to be met by comparing neonazis and religion:
No, because I do not care if atheism is "legally" defined as a religion. It doesn't effect me and I do not think it would effect most atheists. I think some atheists groups should get the same rights as religious groups but I do not think all atheists should get the same rights as religious people just because they are atheists.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE