Sheldon
Senior Member
- Apr 2, 2010
- 5,213
- 1,431
- 48
Yes a faith based belief. One that the adbocates of Atheism defend and proclaim with every bit as much passion and fervor as the most evangelistic Holy Roller Christian.But no more than I can prove to another person that there is a God, neither can the Atheist prove to another that there is not.
But I should have clarified that I wasn't speaking for Si Modo or Jillian and should have clarified that you would likely interpret your own remarks differently than I interpreted them.
But if I needed no other theory to convince me that Atheism is a religion as much as any other religion, it is because Atheists themselves have demanded to be recognized as a religion and have been declared by the courts to be so, including some groups having their own 501(c)(3) status.
Atheism Is Protected As a Religion, says Court For the purposes of protection under the First Amendment, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit (May 13, 1997), decided the Orange County N.Y.
Department of Probation could not force Robert Warner, an atheist, to attend
religion-based alcoholic treatment programs against the dictates of his own
beliefs.
"The district court agreed with Mr. Warner's argument that these meetings involved
a substantial religious element. Participants were told to "believe that a Power
greater than ourselves could restore us," and that they must "turn our will and
our lives over to the care of God as we understand him." In addition, the "Step"
program ordered those participating to "Admit to God ... the exact nature of our
wrongs," be "entirely ready to have God remove all these defects ... (and) ask Him
to remove our shortcomings," and to seek "through prayer and meditation to improve
our conscious contact with God, as we (understand) Him. The meetings were also
punctuated with frequent prayers of a Christian nature."
Four months into the program Mr. Warner complained that, as an Atheist, he found
the meetings objectionable due to their religious nature. It was then that his
probation officer determined that Warner lacked sufficient commitment to the idea
of learning the techniques of remaining sober, even though he apparently had not
been found in violation of his probation orders to remain sober!
"Attorneys for Mr. Warner relied on a number of legal precedents, including:" [refer to link] http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/alanon1.htm Atheist Groups in Prison
But two years earlier,in the case of Kaufman v. McCaughtry, the 7th Circuit Court
of Appeals declared atheism a religion for purposes of protection under the
Establishment Clause. The court said prison officials violated an inmate's rights
because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
Atheism Is Protected As a Religion, says Court
And there is this site:
https://atheists.org/about
And there are variations on that such as the Internet Infifels.
The Secular Web is owned and operated by Internet Infidels Inc., a 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization dedicated to promoting and defending a naturalistic worldview on the Internet.
As defined by Paul Draper, naturalism is "the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects it." Thus, "naturalism implies that there are no supernatural entities"—including God.
Secular Web: Atheism, Agnosticism, Naturalism, Skepticism and Secularism
Interesting. So atheism is a legally considered a religion.
About half-way down the first link:
That makes sense.Court Made Good and Bad Decisions, says Atheist Blogger
An atheist blogger saw a good side and a bad side to this ruling. "What the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals got right:" said Matt Dillahunty, was that "atheism is a 'religion' for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture."
What court got wrong, Dillahunty said, is that "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." The Court in this case recognized that unless the prison system had prevented all gatherings of religion, preventing a group of atheists to gather was a violation of the Establishment Clause.
"Tthey didn't declare that atheism was a religion, they declared that atheism was afforded equal protection with religions under the Establishment Clause." [italics added]
How did the court come to this conclusion? The Supreme Court and Circuit Courts use the "Lemon" test, Lemon v. Kurtzman, a three-pronged test concerning the secular nature of government laws and regulations. ACA: Online Articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman
The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:
The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Last edited: