Legally is atheism a religion?

[GeoffP]

It all depends on how you characterize the question. If you see faith as being inherently quantitative, then atheism - as an extreme of the distribution (and I cheekily note even Dawkins holds out a distribution as an example in The God Delusion) then atheism must hold some arbitrary place p(x) in that distribution f(x) = p(x)d(x). (I can't make the curvy sign in the message box.)

Now if, instead, you categorize all atheism as a philosophy independent of all theistic belief, then you might argue it was not a belief, but a natural state. I suppose I will argue against that empirically since lots of societies have some kind of theism at some kind of level, whether it's just throwing spears and the like in someone's grave or the like.

Then again, this point has been gone over about a million times at SF, and the ground seems a little trampled.

 

[Syzygys]

discuss.

Legally it should be, but it isn't...*


* Page 34. The Big Book of Everything by Syzygys

For extra credit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Texas_Church_of_Freethought

"On May 18, 2006, the Texas State Comptroller's office granted tax-exempt status to the NTCOF as a result of actions taken by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who had previously secured tax-exempt status for the Ethical Society of Austin.[5] This status had been previously denied to the NTCOF and other non-traditional churches because they did not profess "a belief in God, or gods, or a higher power."[6]

Because the NTCOF characterizes itself as a church, it has been the subject of mixed opinion by atheist groups"

 

[Syzygys]

Common sense is a higher power although obviously not for everybody...

 

[spidergoat]

Legally it should be, but it isn't...*

This question seems to be in the hands of state legislatures, some of which (the bible belters), are known for religious bias.

 

[S.A.M.]

U.S. Rep. Pete Stark "Comes Out" as an Atheist

Two points:

He "came out" after being sworn in, so it doesn't apply. Second, it says he's the first open nontheist in the US Congress.

Be interesting to see if he gets reelected

 

[S.A.M.]

This question seems to be in the hands of state legislatures, some of which (the bible belters), are known for religious bias.

I bet there aren't many atheists voting for the bible thumpers either

 

[Enmos]

I bet there aren't many atheists voting for the bible thumpers either

Oh yea, who is left to vote on then ?

 

[KennyJC]

discuss.

references appreciated

Don't you guys have anything more worthwhile to say than constantly go on about the semantics of words?

Atheism is not a religion. It really is as simple as that.

 

[Hapsburg]

discuss.

What do you mean "legally"? The (United States) government doesn't determine what is or isn't a religion. They might give tax-exempt status to non-profit incorporated groups, but that's extended to more than just churches and religious organizations; it's a status afforded on a case-by-case basis to non-profit cultural/social organizations and institutions. It's up to the organization that is given tax-exempt status to determine its goals.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

discuss.

references appreciated

About as much as bald is a hair color.

 

[John99]

What do you mean "legally"? The (United States) government doesn't determine what is or isn't a religion.

that is not exactly true.

 

[lightgigantic]

Legally it should be, but it isn't...*


* Page 34. The Big Book of Everything by Syzygys

For extra credit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Texas_Church_of_Freethought

"On May 18, 2006, the Texas State Comptroller's office granted tax-exempt status to the NTCOF as a result of actions taken by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who had previously secured tax-exempt status for the Ethical Society of Austin.[5] This status had been previously denied to the NTCOF and other non-traditional churches because they did not profess "a belief in God, or gods, or a higher power."[6]

Because the NTCOF characterizes itself as a church, it has been the subject of mixed opinion by atheist groups"

once again, there's more to the legal status of a "religion" than tax breaks

there is the whole of issue of civil rights

 

[lightgigantic]

Don't you guys have anything more worthwhile to say than constantly go on about the semantics of words?

Atheism is not a religion. It really is as simple as that.

.... yet legally it appears to use the same laws that govern the legality of theism ...

 

[lightgigantic]

What do you mean "legally"? The (United States) government doesn't determine what is or isn't a religion. They might give tax-exempt status to non-profit incorporated groups, but that's extended to more than just churches and religious organizations; it's a status afforded on a case-by-case basis to non-profit cultural/social organizations and institutions. It's up to the organization that is given tax-exempt status to determine its goals.

if it grants special concessions for "religious practices and paraphernalia" (like perhaps in the army)

if it grants special considerations for "religious worker visas"

if it has special laws in place to determine issues of discrimination based on religion

etc etc

then it certainly does have a legal definition of religion

(more to it than tax breaks)

 

[iceaura]

Ah, so now they do have atheists swearing in for jury duty? Government service?

I have been sworn in for jury duty and court testimony. I don't think anyone is even allowed to investigate religious beliefs in that context, unless relevant to the case at hand during selection - it certainly didn't come up.

I am just trying to find out the legal status of atheism.
Once again, references appreciated

Once again: the Navajo, Taoist, Buddhist, Inuit, and several other US religions include athest adherents. I just can't see how you are going to get a religious status for "atheism" in such circumstances. Even the officially theistic religions have atheistic adherents (there are atheistic Catholic priests).

They do, now.

http://www.acfnewsource.org/religion...st_church.html

There is also one at Harvard

http://www.harvardhumanist.org/

They have a minister and everything

Those aren't atheist, or exclusively atheist, churches. One is for anyone who has fallen away from the local religions, the other is for humanists of any kind whatsoever - even theists of some kinds would fit in.

And neither group seems to identify itself as a religion, let alone the same religion as the other.

 

[GeoffP]

Ice, I don't think any of that takes away from the quantitative/qualitative contrast. Atheists are defining themselves this way. Is it not then a point in a quantitative distribution, rather than an independent state?

 

[iceaura]

Ice, I don't think any of that takes away from the quantitative/qualitative contrast. Atheists are defining themselves this way.

The Buddhist atheists are defining themselves in what way?

If you are asking whether there are or can be religions whose followers are atheists, the answer is obviously yes. If you want to know whether someone could start another one, I see nothing legally stopping them. If that has anything to do with "atheism" itself being "a religion" under American law, I don't see what.

Legally, is theism a religion?

 

[lightgigantic]

The Buddhist atheists are defining themselves in what way?

buddhists clearly fall under the legal definition of religion

Legally, is theism a religion?

there are numerous bodies that fall under the banner of "theism" that are legally recognized as a religion, if that's what you mean ....

 

[laladopi]

No, probably because they are the polar opposite of a religion.
They do not practice anything other than being a human being.

 

[lightgigantic]

No, probably because they are the polar opposite of a religion.

So you are arguing that polar opposites have absolutely no similar characteristics?

Perhaps you can provide some sort of example of this since I have never heard of this before

(Ever wondered why it was kind of strange that communism and totalitarian regimes are ideologically polarized yet remarkably similar in practical application?)