Thursday, 13 October 2011
-
Atheism is a Religion Under the Constitution
The Supreme Court has held that what makes a belief religious is "whether it is a sincere and meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God." Since most of us live for something or the other, this test would mean that most of us are religious. Including atheists.
The Court even explicitly says so: "[A]mong religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." (US v. Seeger) Essentially, belief in no God and commitment to study the non-existence of God are protected by the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment.
The relevant part of the 1st Amendment is this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." So atheism is a protected practice. I agree. Atheism should be treated as a religion under the 1st Amendment. Atheists should be allowed to express their fundamental rights that religious people have. This means, (as it did in Kaufman v. McCaughtry) that atheists may practice their beliefs in jail by studying atheism and promoting it, and that (as in U.S. v. Seeger) secular humanists may be conscientious objectors to war based on their religious beliefs.
But if atheism is a religion for the free-exercise clause, then it must be a religion for the establishment clause. The government must not promote one religion over another.But the reality is that the government (unintentionally or not) promotes atheism all the time.
I took a philosophy of mind class back in undergrad taught by a materialist, and he expressly said at the beginning of the semester "For this class, we will assume materialism is true." That baffled me, since some of the emerging theories of mind (Searle, Chalmers, Nagel) are actually anti-reductionist/materialist. My favorite literature class was taught by an ardent atheist who would rant every few weeks against religion and the Bible, even though it had absolutely nothing to do with The Last of The Mohicans. Even my public speaking and communications professor was an atheist who would go on and on about how his back pain disproves the existence of an intelligent designer.
If state-sponsored religious professors can't set up classes to prove that Christianity is true, may state-sponsored atheist professors use class time to argue against religion? Why should they be? What exactly is the difference between that and Intelligent Design?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: nyclegodesi24@xanga
- Name: Finney
- Location: Staten Island, New York, United States
- About Me: VERITAS.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 15 Views: 0 14640 Comments: 0 766 View all posts by nyclegodesi24@xanga
Comments (63)
"Since most of us live for something or the other, this test would mean that most of us are religious. Including atheists. "
i'm agnostic... but i don't "live" for the fact that i am agnostic. likewise, i'm not sure atheism can be considered a religion any more than not collecting stamps can be considered a hobby.
also, i get you're bitter about your experiences. but this post, whether or not you meant it to, comes across as passive-aggressive and snarky. i've been told by professors i'm going to Hell for being agnostic. so this obviously isn't a one-sided issue. and i've never found "well... they're doing it too!!" to be a worthwhile argument for anything. it just seems like, rather than argue that it should stop on both sides, you seem to be arguing for the right to alienate and offend others as you've been alienated and offended. and that only perpetuates the cycle.
That's a really interesting ruling. It sets up a real problem, though. Sadly, we cannot scientifically prove G-d, Noah's Ark, Jesus (as G-d, not just if he lived), reincarnation, Zeus, or most things central to any particular religion....except things pointing to atheism. So, for example, the universe, scientifically speaking, is looks to be billions of years old. That goes against what the bible teaches us...and so the atheistic point of view is the more scientific one. And the one most likely to still allowed to be taught in a college system.
I don't understand the question about ID, though. ID is a crappy scientific theory and should not be taught in lieu of the overwhelming concences regarding evolution. It's true that the best explaination for the structure of the natural world points to evolution and at least a very old earth.
Professors can literally talk about whatever they want, and they do. You've experienced one side of this, and that is the Atheist side of professors. What about those who rant and rave about how much Christianity is true, and all should agree with and practice it? The hell that's never happened.
Please tell me how the government promotes Atheism "all the time." Courthouses display the Nativity scene outside on their front lawns at Christmas time, and presidents have always cheered "God bless America."
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga -
"i don't "live" for the fact that i am agnostic."
But if you devote yourself to anything - a cause, a set of principles, a person, yourself - then, according to the Supreme Court, that antything is protected by the First Amendment (so long as it's consistent with the other protections by the Constitution)
"so this obviously isn't a one-sided issue."
I agree, it obviously isn't. Which is why I believe that (1) Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught as a science, (2) Atheists should be given the right to express their beliefs in jail, and (3) if Christian professors may not attempt to persuade students of arguments for their beliefs, then atheists may not, either. There's nothing one-sided about that, and my point is essentially that it should "stop on both sides" - or be allowed on both sides.
I'm not exactly bitter about my experiences, btw. I loved professor Lackey (medieval phil.), Sarkissian (phil. of religion), and Mengay (that lit. prof who taught me Last of The Mohicans). (I hated my communications professor though; I'll give you that one.) They enriched me intellectually and, to some extent, spiritually. But it's saddens me that they're permitted to use their platform to argue for their worldview, but no Christian may do the same.
So to clarify, I'm not merely saying "They're doing it too, so we should". I'm saying, either both of us are protected under the First Amendment, or neither of us are.
@aliciaproft@xanga - To clarify, I haven't claimed Christians haven't abused their platform. But if they're working for a state university, the Constitution seems clear that they may not use their platform to persuade people of their arguments for Christianity (or any other religion). Perhaps Christians have abused their platform as professors of public universities by doing just that. (I personally haven't heard of any such Christians. I'm sure they exist, though.)
I sense that people will take me for watering-down the negative effects of religious fundamentalists on the state. I don't at all mean to water-down the damage they've done by attempting to undermine Church--State.
If you're saying professors should be allowed to say what they want, then aren't you saying Christian professors who are paid by the government should be permitted to push their beliefs?
No, they can't. They cannot teach a class in a way to indoctrinate someone into a religion or into atheism. If your professor did that then you should have reported him. However, higher education beyond high school is not compulsory, it's voluntary, therefore teaching "about" religion/atheism is indeed legal.
And just to be clear, if a law is not passed because it is solely rooted in a religious belief with no secular reasoning backing it up that does not equate to passing a law based on atheism. Atheism means disbelief in the existence of gods. That's it, there is no other dogma attached to it that would equate a law not based on religion as being an "atheist law".
Religion has been around for thousands of years and was woven into the social fabric of almost every human culture. The Supreme Court's definition of religion clearly is meant to include atheism in the definition of religion which is an assault on what atheism actually means.
Religion and atheism by their very definitions make them oxymoronic to one another. This foray into absurdity isn't the first time the Supreme Court has tried to take American society down the rabbit hole.
@nyclegodesi24@xanga -
"But if you devote yourself to anything - a cause, a set of principles, a person, yourself - then, according to the Supreme Court, that antything is protected by the First Amendment (so long as it's consistent with the other protections by the Constitution) "
true, but as you pointed out, it's a devotion parallel to a belief in a deity. nothing that i believe, i see as universal truth, divine providence, etc. people who believe in a deity often experience reality and then compare it to their beliefs that they've already established to be true and unchangeable. then, through cognitive dissonance, they either accept or reject reality according to what they believe. i, on the other hand, cherish that reality above all else.
not to mention, a part of why i'm agnostic is because i don't believe it's wise to take something that can never be proven, and base your whole life on it. so the simple fact that i reject the traditional concept of what a god is would indicate i have nothing in my life to replace it.
" There's nothing one-sided about that, and my point isessentially that it should "stop on both sides" - or be allowed on both sides. "
i can agree with that. personally, nothing about attempted conversion by a Christian professor really bothers me. nothing they say could convince me, anyway. it's only when i feel like my grade is dependent on agreeing with them that i get anxious. i will say, though, that so far in my higher education career i've been lucky to agree with all of my professors. at my university, politics was a hotter topic than religion. and while i took plenty of religious classes, my views were always in the majority.
here's an anecdote for ya. i remember, i took a Jesus in Film class one summer. a few of the students freaked out and left because the professor would never refer to Jesus as the Son of God (they also got pissed because the majority of us voted to watch Life of Brian). in reality, he was a very hardcore Christian who always refused to turn his classroom into a conversion attempt. and when he talked to us about the drama, he pointed out that anyone who couldn't stand to have their beliefs challenged didn't have strong beliefs to begin with. but in the end, you're always going to piss someone off.
Atheism is in no way a religion. Taoism and Buddhism are both based on accepted published works of literature. Professors can talk about religion/atheism all they want, if they give you a grade based on your religious beliefs that is where the error comes into place.
College is the time to experience the adult world and frankly the adult world isn't that much different or better than high school sometimes. For the rest of everyone's life there will also be scores of folks telling you how wrong you are to believe anything you do. Report your professors if you feel they have unfairly graded you.
I see what you are saying though... I always thought the refusal to rent a public school out to a church group was actually discrimination against religion. You don't promote religion by allowing them to rent it anymore than you are promoting gambling by allowing the Lion's Club to rent the school out for Bingo.
Neither of the legal quotes you list state that atheist is legally considered a religion. Atheism usually isn't "a sincere and meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God." And your second quote lists belief systems that happen to be atheistic, but that don't represent all atheists. However, that being said, i agree that atheism should generally have the same legal protections and restrictions as religious beliefs... and it does.
"But if atheism is a religion for the free-exercise clause, then it must be a religion for the establishment clause. The government must not promote one religion over another. But the reality is that the government (unintentionally or not) promotes atheism all the time."
No it doesn't.
"My favorite literature class was taught by an ardent atheist who would rant every few weeks against religion and the Bible, even though it had absolutely nothing to do with The Last of The Mohicans. Even my public speaking and communications professor was an atheist who would go on and on about how his back pain disproves the existence of an intelligent designer."
I agree that's inappropriate. However, that sort of things happens with all controversial views. I had a political science professor once who would spend every class telling us her conservative political views. It annoyed me, but when i complained about it to a roommate, he didn't have any sympathy because it's usually the other way around (a liberal professor pushing their views on a trapped audience). This sort of thing happens. To act like your group is being singled out, and to adopt a persecution complex, because this happened to you seems kind of silly.
@zoetherat@xanga - To act like your group is being singled out, and to adopt a persecution complex, because this happened to you seems kind of silly. "
But that's not what I did. =)
@nyclegodesi24@xanga - Well, it sounds like it's what you're doing right now.
@zoetherat@xanga - It's not a persecution complex. It's equal application of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. Secular Humanism is a religion under the 1st Amendment. And via McCaughtry case, so is atheism. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1467028.html
Regardless of our beliefs, Protestant, evangelical, Catholic, Jewish, you name it, we still need to respect our atheist neighbors. The 2nd commandment tells us to love them. We have a few who come to our church services each Sunday because they are involved in our social justice programs with the local school and community, and we need to find good where it exists, and encourage it. We are all guaranteed certain rights and protections under the law, and as individuals, we frequently forget that.
Every time someone says "atheism is a religion!" I think of this lovely video of what we'd have to do to make atheism a religion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I92vQ0Nj4LA
A good line from the video: 'They make is sound like being a religion is such a bad thing. I think it's a supposed to be a good thing, so why do they use it as an insult against us?'
ETA: around 2:30 is when she starts "trying to make atheism a religion".
This is my third year in college. I have never heard of a professor rant or rave about religion. One of my classes this semester is The Bible as Literature. It's personally not going the way I expected because our original professor fell ill at the beginning of the year and we have a replacement one. I know for a fact he's a Christian and goes to church but he's been very professional about keeping the class at looking at the Bible as Literature because technically that's pretty much what it is. Just some people believe that it was written by men who were blessed enough to be told by God himself to write these stories down. So if one is comfortable with what they believe that's pretty freaking awesome because I'm lost as in what I want to believe. But anyone who uses your beliefs against you, especially for grades in school that's bullcrap.
Your professor should not have used his class to promote atheism, particularly when it's not even related to that. However, more often than not I feel the government promotes Christianity, but that's from my view as a Buddhist/Agnostic.
Just the idea of believing in something/someone is out there or NOT believing in something/someone out there puts both groups into the same category: belief.
Physicists have shown that experiments are heavily influenced by those perceiving the experiments. This leads me to believe that no matter how many miracles you show a skeptic, he can only see what he believes. And vice versa.
No one belief system should be heralded above another, including atheism. The ACLU and judicial system should acknowledge Atheism as a belief system. Any group of people discussing God is a group of believers discussing their belief system. Just the "topic" alone places them into the religious category.
I think it is highly inappropriate for a teacher/instructor/professor of a non-explicitly religious institution to preach anything for or against religion, or political entity (but do I repeat myself)? It pisses me off when they do so, because for many ignoramus students, that is the only "factual" source they will get any legitimate information. Education is meant to be an objective source of facts , a basis for how we understand the world.
The difference between religion and lack thereof is faith to uphold their beliefs.
An Atheist has no set characteristics, other than a lacking of faith (one thing)to uphold their beliefs.
Whereas a religious person will reject anything that contradicts their faith.
The difference between science and dogma is that science never states that anything is absolutely "proven," so it can and does consistently progress by proving itself wrong.
Dogma seeks to prove anything else threatening its foundations wrong.
Many(but not all) Atheists give credit for how they perceive reality with empirically-tested theories which have held sturdy through the burden of proof,repeatedly.
The difference between an Atheist and a Theist is that there is no systematic beliefs/rules/rituals on the part of the former.
They simply do not accept the existence of an omnipotent entity(ies) that they cannot observe with their natural sensory organs. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the religious, who must prove that something exists which is not readily identifiable. This is why science has taken the burden on proving that the earth rotated around the sun, instead of the other way around- because it was not readily observable with our natural senses.
SCIENCE BEGAN WITH WHAT WE COULD READILY OBSERVE, AND FOUND WAYS TO ENHANCE OUR OBSERVATIONAL ABILITIES.
RELIGION BEGAN WITH WHAT WE COULD READILY OBSERVE, AND MADE UP UNOBSERVABLE STORIES WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO CHALLENGE WITH THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
@Pen_of_Mjoollnir@xanga - Heh well I'm glad one person agrees with me.
@OstentatiousEloquence@xanga - Atheism is defined differently for the purpose of the 1st Amendment. It's taken to be equivalent w"ith "Secular Humanism". It might also be a lack of belief, as defined for the purposes of determine who bears a burden of proving their claim (which, as you say, is the theist).
"Whereas a religious person will reject anything that contradicts their faith."
"that they cannot observe with their natural sensory organs."Sorry to disappoint you. There are things I had faith in about 10 years ago that I no longer have faith in today.
How do you know your senses are valid? If you answer by appealing to what you experience via your senses, you're using circular logic (for your experiences are valid only if your senses are valid). Do you have blind faith in your senses?
@nyclegodesi24@xanga - Secular Humanism is not necessarily Atheism. I would consider it a type of philosophy, not religion, in that it discludes rigid rituals, rules, or supernatural nonsense.
You could compare many of their moral ideas with Christianity (which I agree with), but then you could also say that christianity's beautiful moral ideals are borne not of superficial teachings, but the innate goodness of many human beings. I don't see it mattering at the end of the day. Moral Communism is my stance. Doing good works is what matters, not why they're done.
You may choose what you have faith in, and I'm sure most people digress at one point or another in their leanings, but faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, regardless of whether or not you discard/amend it over time. Similarly, a person who suffers from delusions (a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence) can have differences to their delusions over time. The difference between faith and a delusion (most of the time) is that a delusion is not willful.
I know my senses are valid by social feedback and consistency. My senses and others' senses are reasonably identical in identifying sensory elements and output, including smell/taste/sight/sound/feel. My senses are consistent in that a wall one day still looks like a wall another day, and when it changes, it is as reasonably expected (i.e. wet paint is dry paint the next day). I cannot prove and will not claim that my senses are absolutely correct, but they are the only and closest way to find what's correct.
Do you not trust your senses, willfully blinding yourself?
Atheism is as much a religion as theism is.
Atheism is not a BELIEF that god doesn't exist, it is a LACK OF belief that god exists.
Also, you seriously think the government PROMOTES atheism? Do you live under a rock? I wish you did your research before babbling about something you clearly know nothing about.
Just because the Supreme Court says something doesn't make it so. Atheism is no more a religion than bald is a hair color.
State-supported educators assert opinions about religion all the time into their class, and they aren't just atheists. Nobody gets upset when a Christian professor makes a crack about the absurdity of Greek mythology, so why does everyone whine when somebody speaks unfavorably about Christian mythology? It's no different, so why don't you protest?
It's because you don't really care about high-minded social issues and fairness, you're either just butt-hurt that you heard somebody slam your own pet beliefs, or your indignation is an affectation, a poor attempt to make you appear thoughtful. Lucky for you, it'll probably work.
And if you think the government doesn't promote theism, then why was "Under God" added to the Pledge of Allegiance, and why did my public school teachers MAKE me say it when I was young?