God vs. the Tooth Fairy?
S.A.M. said:
Do we have clubs of people who don't believe in UFOs, a festival for those who don't celebrate Christmas, a book for those who don't collect stamps?
Why even have a separate category for atheism?
Excepting Christmas, because, yes, there
are festivals for other people, I think you're making a bit of a mistake.
I don't actually know how religious you are, but you
are culturally sensitive along a religious boundary, and that's where I think your question hits its first wall.
Maybe you think God is the equivalent of UFOs, stamp collecting, or faeries, but most people apparently
don't. And, presently, we do not have civil rights issues in front of society defined by whether or not someone collects stamps or has seen a UFO.
We do, however, in terms of religion. And you know this. Creationists in Kansas, premillennial dispensationalists attacking the Middle East, abortion, homosexuals, prayer in schools, &c. In Islamic nations, there is the question of whether you should be able to buy underwear without some man leering over you. Or the question of whether a newspaper should be shut down for not being Islamic enough.
Nobody's shutting down a newspaper because of the Tooth Fairy. If your bra doesn't fit, it's not some mischievous garden sprite. It's not the freakin' Reticulan Greys trying to teach children bad science.
Yes, atheism requires an identification because it represents a certain comparative condition. I mean hell, this has made it to federal court before because some idiot somewhere decided to argue that since atheism isn't a religion, it has no First Amendment protection and thus can be suppressed.
In 1997, for instance, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (NY, CT, VT) ruled that a county correctional system could not force a man to enter a religious-based alcohol treatment program against his beliefs.
Religious people, S.A.M., made this important. Consider
Alcoholics Anonymous. Fully
half of the twelve steps involve God (2-3, 5-7, 11). So imagine that a person who happens to be an atheist is sentenced in a public intoxication case to undergo AA counseling. Well, in order to
pass the program—to be successful to the Court's satisfaction—that atheist would have to acknowledge the existence of God, beseech Him to help, and constantly pray to Him for understanding.
Now, what if it was
you? And what if it was Jesus Christ? Could you fake your way through? Should you have to?
"Re-education" is often a sinister term. It would be in this case, too.
If people's ability to sustain themselves in society did not, from time to time, hinge on whether or not they believe in God, then I could agree that the atheists were out on a limb. But they're not, because the world doesn't work that way.
Something a little more concrete, the U.S. Supreme Court:
At one time, it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual's freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful, and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among Christian sects -- or even intolerance among "religions" -- to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain.
(Stevens, accent added)
And in an even earlier case:
The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law.
(Roberts, accent added)
Choosing
no religious expression is still a
form of religious expression; it is relevant and defining in religious terms.
The answer, then, to your question—
"Why even have a separate category for atheism?"
—is that it's that important to the religious people. If they could just let certain things go—say, the fact that someone doesn't believe in God—it would be a
lot easier to get along.
______________________
Notes:
Clark, Curtis E. "Atheism Is Protected As a Religion, says Court". The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blog. September 15, 2008. http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/2008/09/atheism-is-protected-by-law-austin.html
Alcoholics Anonymous. "The Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous". AA.org. Accessed March 11, 2009. http://www.aa.org/en_pdfs/smf-121_en.pdf
Stevens, J. John P. "Opinion of the Court". Wallace v. Jaffreee 472 U.S. 38. Supreme Court of the United States. June 4, 1985. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. Accessed March 11, 2009. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0472_0038_ZO.html
Roberts, J. Owen J. "Opinion of the Court". Cantwell v. Connecticut 310 U.S. 296. Supreme Court of the United States. May 20, 1940. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. Accessed March 11, 2009. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0310_0296_ZO.html
