Should Atheism and Agnosticism be considered ‘religions’?

Remove all ads!

This is purely for legal and human rights matters. In most democratic countries nobody can be persecuted or discriminated against based on their religion. This raises the question of 'What about those with no religion? Can they be discriminated against because they don't HAVE a religion?'. Now I'm not 100% up to date with the exact wording of the declaration of human rights and so forth but I get the feeling that certain specific phrasing is probably missed out.

Another matter is in private schools. Apparently in New Zealand at least it is illegal to force somebody to go to church if they already have another religion. For example I had two non-Christian friends who went to the same school as me, everyone else had to go to Church on wednesdays for half an hour or so yet they did not. If I stated that I'm 100% athiest or agnostic should I be allowed the same freedom? Am I free to protect myself from having people try to shove their religion down my throat even though I have no 'religion' to speak of?

In the way that certain religious groups can demand to being allowed to practice their religion should athiests and agnostics be legally allowed to refuse from being forced to practice another religion?

Frankly I think they should be. Atheism is the belief that there is NO god/gods, it's still a belief - it has no dogma or traditions, no holy book or places of worship - yet somebody can clearly say that they are an atheiest and therefore NOT Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Bhudist, Jedi etc. Agnosticism is similar in that an agnostic is NOT a 'religion', it shares many similarities with Atheism apart from the fact that they think there 'could' be god/gods - they just have yet to be presented with any evidence.

Should Atheism and Agnosticism be granted the same legal title as 'religions'?

 

Yes and no. An Atheist or Agnostic has no credo other than his own, so it is hard to discriminate him. On the other hand, in the isolated instance of forced public prayer and things like it or requiring swearing in on a holy book then Atheists and Agnostics should be respected as religions.

 

I'm not so sure about this. The way to discriminate against an athiest/agnostic would be via pretty much any religious grounds. If religion affects your decision in any way reguarding how you treat an ath/agn then you're discriminating against him.

 

I agree that those who choose to practice no religion should be protected from having such practice forced upon them. Freedom OF religion must include freedom FROM religion to be complete and genuine.

 

Yes, they should have the same rights. This means that atheists and agnostics shouldn't be forced to attend anything or assumed to be believers until they state otherwise, or forced to discuss their beliefs. They shouldn't be ostracised socially, either, but this is not something the law should deal with.

The other side of the coin is that an atheistic outlook shouldn't be given any more rights than a particular religious one. This means that they shouldn't be any more privileged. If you eradicate all display of religion from public life, you aren't making religions and people equal under law, you are enforcing an atheistic point of view.

Next, it can't be proven that God doesn't exist. Refusing to believe is one thing. Believing actively that there is no god is a form of religion of itself and is not any more scientific than Christianity or Islam or Buddhism. This should not be endorsed any more than a particular religion.

Freedom from religion does not include the right to force your areligious view on people and drive them to catacombs with their symbols and ceremonies.

Next, freedom from religion shouldn't work for your own religion. This means that if you profess to be a member of a certain church, you don't have any constitutional freedom to be patted on the shoulder for whatever you elect to do. Fulfil the tenets or get out, no screwing with the rules, claiming the benefits and hiding from obligations between "constitutional freedoms". That is, if you claim a religion, follow it.

[ March 12, 2006, 20:08: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Actually, I believe Homer Simpson did it while trying to create a new soda in the episode where he had the crayon removed from his brain and became smart.

True, but misleading. If you eradicate all display of religion from public life, then you are enforcing an atheistic view. But if you only remove it where appropriate, then you make them equal. The line to tread is a thin one.

 

So long as the Athiest also refrains from shoving HIS opinion down the throats of the religious people. If every lives and lets live, then it's all fine.

 

You can't give atheism as much weight as the sum total of all religions just because it negates them all. If you do that, a single group of people will cause major inconvenience, discomfort, even suffering in all other groups. By giving them the same rights, atheists should be given such rights as one denomination. "Appropriate" is already slippery ground because who's going to judge that?

If someone experiences deep emotional unrest because of seeing a priest in a frock or an islamic scarf, or an orthodox Jewish hat, or whatever, because he's wounded to the core by the very existence of religion, yadda, yadda, then it's sad, but it's his own problem. What shouldn't be done is placing people in such circumstances that their participation or silence could be interpreted as following a religion. If you're forced to join a procession, it's wrong. But if you have a problem with the same procession merely going down your street, then you are right: you have a problem. If you are forced to swear upon the Bible or Torah or Quoran as a non-believer, it's wrong. But if you have a problem with someone else in the courtroom doing it of his own will, then you have a problem, as above.

[ March 12, 2006, 20:42: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Agreed. That's also why I said it was a difficult line to tread; you can easily do too much or too little.

 

Well a fine place to keep religion out of is schools, I guess (unless they are private but even then it could lead to interesting situations should student's religion change).

Chev is right about people who are offended that a religion is being practiced publically have some type of personal problem. I would never damn somebody for publically displaying their religion (as long as it doesn't break the law).

Chev also touched on an interesting point of if you follow a religion that you should go all the way or not at all. If you want a religious holiday then you should also follow the religious scripture that you follow, fasting on certain days and so forth - although how this would be enforced is beyond me and would probably be more trouble than it's worth. However it could give the right to employers to deny employees days off for their religious holidays if it is discovered they are not 'devout' enough and are only claiming to be part of a religion to simply aquire the human rights perks.

If somebody tries to convert me to his religion I am entitled to try to convert them to MY 'religion' also. If the Mormans come a-knockin' or some such or somebody in the street approaches me with a pamphlet asking me to turn to God and seek forgiveness for all my transgressions I think I have every right to spend the same amount of time pointing out the fundamental flaws in their sacred text. It's only fair.

 

The only time religion (or the lack thereof) should be impeded by the law is when others are forced to act in accordance with said religion (or lack thereof). Religious people should have the right to try to convert people. Atheists should have the right to, uh, unconvert people. No one should be asked to swear in on a holy book, however, since the government does not officialy endorse any religion. It's a matter of logistics. Unless we want to stock every holy book in existence (even Dianetics) in our courts, asking people to swear on a bible, even if it is optional, is still a government endorsement of a specific religion to the exclusion of others.

 

The crux of the problem is this notion that we should respect someone's religious views merely because they are religious in nature and that the law should come to their aid if they are discriminated against because of their religious beliefs.

The flip side is that if someone's views are not religious in nature, but merely philosophical or political in nature, they are open to criticism and can be used as a legitimate basis for discrimination.

From this we get all sorts of evil things, like Scientology. A money-grubbing, brain-washing cult that ducks taxes and the law because, hey, we're a religion so don't you dare criticize us! It's silly.

A belief -- any belief -- should be open to criticism, and yes, even discrimination. If someone is racist, sexist, homophobic or for that matter simply thinks the world is flat, why on Earth shouldn't I have the right to not hire such goons? What on Earth should I not be permitted to say "dude, you're stupid and your ideas are idiotic and I don't care if you just pulled them out of your ass or from a 6,000 year old book."

 

The School could place in the contract that you sign when you enroll that you must abide by certain standards of behaviour (and thus forbid alcohol, tobacco, drugs, pornography, sexual immorality) as part of the conditions of enrollment, and violation would mean that the contract has been breached. You would have to committ to these standards or else seek a different educational facility for your learning needs.

I don't really know whether it counts as a religion under the law, or whether some who believe as such would want to be classed as a religion, but religious should not be forced.

 

There are schools in existence that condone (or at least don't disallow) these types of activities? Damn, why didn't I know about this years ago! And all this time I thought the reason most schools didn't have these things written down was because it was illegal for people under 18 to engage in any of these activities.

 

Think of religon as a variable, with 'numbers' assigned to the various religious beliefs. Aetheism, then, is a 0. Not one of the religions, but a value nonetheless. As has been said before, we have to be careful how we implement this. Government offices should not play religious music, but if someone wants to listen to it on their headphones during break, fine. If someone wants to put religions plaques and quotes in their cubical, where others are allowed to have swimsuit calendars or atheistic quotes, that's fine. If the mall is owned by the government, they can't play muslim messages, but the muslim-owned store in the mall is free to do so. If a student-led bible study wants to meet after school, that's fine, but they have to let the student-led Koran study meet there, too, and the student led atheist philosophy study. If there are no muslims, or none want to start a Koran study, then that doesn't interfere with the other groups having theirs. What baffles me is people who attack private citizens expressing their beliefs. People have tried to get all religious broadcasting off TV and radio, they've tried to close down all religious study in schools, there's a case going on now about a college that wouldn't let a student lead a bible study in his dorm room with the door closed. This is enforcement of atheist views.

 

@NOG: I think you summed it up perfectly.

 

AFI: I was thinking about post secondary institutions for that idea. Assuming that the student was legally old enough to have these things (18 for porn, 19 for alcohol and tobacco in Ontario), the school would specifically forbid these things because they conflict with the standards that the institution wants to maintain.

 

I was being sarcastic Gnarff. Yes, I understood that when you made the statement you were assuming that we were talking about a student population that was old enough to legally engage in such activities.

 

To answer the initial question -- why would the athiest or agnostic care? It seems to go against what the atheist believes anyway. I agree there should be no discrimination, but the two are not religions.

As far as school requirements go... don't go to the school if you don't like their rules. A private school can lay out that religion classes are a requirement (there are many schools in the US that have similar requirements), and everyone should be expected to follow those rules. If your religious beliefs are trampled on by such a requirement then don't go to that school.

If this whole thread is about you not wanting to go to church -- tough. Either you or your parents signed a contract and you are obligated. Not wanting to go to church does not make anyone agnostic, and a person trying to pass themselves off as one for such petty reasons is quite offensive (and quite transparent to the school officials).

Not in any company I've worked for. Companies allowing such things are lawsuits waiting to happen.

Every time I read statements like this I'm absolutely astounded. "I can't prove He exists so you must prove He doesn't exist." Yeah, right.

In the immortal words of Gene Wilder -- "Scratch that, reverse it." I've never had an athiest come knocking on my door.

A students dorm is NOT a private residence. The dorm is school property and cannot house a religious meeting. It's called the separation of church and state -- it means just that. A state owned school cannot promote a religion (promoting one religion leads to discrimination of other religions). It is not the enforcement of athiestic views but rather an enforcement of non-discriminatory practices. Not even Ohio State or UT-Austin have enough classrooms for EVERY religion to get equal time for study; therefore, no one gets a room and any religious studies must be done in churches OFF CAMPUS.

 

Erm. And that's surely not goonish but very gentlemanly of you, especially the last sentence. You probably expect the word "sodomite" to be avoided, don't you?

@Drew: Swearing on a holy book might actually be discriminatory against the religious people, not atheists. It's a custom intended to add weight to your oath. You could swear on your ancestors' spirits (or beards ), on your honour, on your holy text. If you do it, you draw something very bad on yourself if you break the oath.

@T2Bruno: Separation of church and state doesn't automatically imply hostility. But if the state were to allow one such meeting, it would have to allow another, meaning all religions should be allowed the same. There's no reason why the student should be allowed to host a private beer party for select people but not a bible study. Except if it weren't a private study but something more official, with lots of circulation, posters and the like.

Yeah. How dare you mention God in a TV show!

[ March 14, 2006, 21:27: Message edited by: chevalier ]