Daily Wisdom 02-07-2008 Atheism is a Religion

< February, 2008 >

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29

Atheism is a Religion

"Bah! I don't believe in God, nor in any afterlife. When we die, we die. The Bible is just myth anyway. Going to church, reading the Bible and praying, these things are all a waste of time. I don't have any religion and I think that people who do just need that crutch."

What this atheist fails to realize is that such activities -- church attendance, Bible-reading, prayer -- are simply the outward expressions of some people's set of beliefs. That set of beliefs is the religion, not the outward expressions of those beliefs.

A religion, therefore, is nothing more nor less than a person's set of beliefs. The above atheist has clearly expressed his set of beliefs, and with the same passion and conviction that is evident in many Christians--or Hindus or Muslims for that matter. A person's set of beliefs need not conform to an organized, recognized "religion." It may be a set of beliefs based on a personal life philosophy. In the case of the atheist, he has expressed a set of beliefs common to those who consider themselves atheistic. It is a well-worn set of beliefs, the atheistic religion.

Each religion, each life philosophy, is a set of beliefs, usually regarding the larger questions of existence, such as the origins of the universe, and whether there is human soul or an afterlife. Whether a set of beliefs has a long-established history and an established organization or not, your set of beliefs is your religion. In fact, atheism in America and many other places has more of a well-honed credo than many sets of beliefs widely accepted as "religions."

Neither the atheist nor the agnostic has the right to suppress the expression of any other religion. Yet, that is how many are interpreting America's constitution in recent decades. "Freedom of religion also includes freedom FROM religion!" They often say. This sentiment is not even close to true.

In the first place, it places the religion of non-religion above established, organized religions (often those institutions which the non-religious can accuse of hypocrisy, corruption, or trying to create a theocracy). Even if these charges are sometimes true, it is no excuse for re-writing a constitution, nor pretending it says what some may wish it said.

In the second place, the "freedom from religion" movement fails to recognize that atheism, agnosticism, and all other sets of beliefs often hostile to established religion, are themselves religions, as we've already shown. So the very constitution which they claim allows them freedom from religion cannot place ANY religion, including non-religion, above any other set of beliefs.

Thirdly, the idea of freedom from religion is itself unconstitutional. It cites the First Amendment, often called the freedom of speech amendment. It is doubtful that most who follow this line of thought even know what the First Amendment says. This amendment is more properly called the Freedom of Expression Amendment, for it states, in its entirety:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The anti-religion religion would have us believe that any public expression of religion violates their right to non-religion and therefore is a violation of the separation of church and state (a phrase which does not appear in the first amendment, nor anywhere else in the US Constitution). Although the phrase is certainly well-established as following the spirit of the Constitution's protection of freedoms by preventing the US Government from establishing a State religion, it must not usurp any of the rights which are expressly stated in the Constitution itself. Furthermore, there is no "state" involved in personal public expressions of faith.

So, for example, if the anti-religion religion contends that no one should be able to display publicly any expression of their religion, is this more like "congress making a law establishing a religion" or is it more like "prohibiting the free exercise thereof?"

What if we interpret other portions of this same amendment the same way? We would have to say that "congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press--well, unless of course the press says something I happen to disagree with." As you can see, this cuts the heart out of the Constitution's promise of freedom of expression.

For a freedom to be a TRUE freedom, it must always be expressed in positive terms-- freedom TO practice that religion (or assembly, or the press, etc.), not "freedom to not have to be bothered by anything I might not agree with." We've all had to deal with certain sects coming to our door, stopping us at airports, or hypocritical televangelists, etc. As annoying as this is for us all, the fact is, like everyone in the USA, they have every right to express themselves in this nation, however hypocritical--or annoying--we may find them, and no matter how "religious" the content of this free speech is.

This non-religion religion has gained such a strong foothold in America that even school textbooks purposely omit the religious freedom motivations of many of the first colonists of this continent. As if simply reporting this part of history somehow violates the separation of church and state. If some would go as far as trying to change history to get their views heard, there must be a very deep motivation indeed, and it is not protecting the freedom of speech.

So what is really at the heart of these objections to religious expression, if not protecting the constitution? Why would they be so adamant about denying the freedom TO practice the set of beliefs of some, in favor of the set of beliefs of others? Only they can answer this. I suspect they need to look deep into their hearts to find the answer. I hope they will do so. For their own sakes.