Freedom of Religion or Freedom From Religion

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

and I will go out on a limb and say you probably don't want military chaplains - agents of the government - to be restricted from practicing their religion.

Actually, I do want them restricted from preaching about the evils of homosexuality (which has consistently occurred) and if that's a problem they can resign. There are, I'm sure, many wonderful chaplains who provide counseling and support to the military men and women that they serve without discrimination for sexual orientation or religion, however there are some that do not.

When one is working for the government there is going to be some restriction. Would one support a military chaplain who was a pure pacifist?

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Actually, I do want them restricted from preaching about the evils of homosexuality (which has consistently occurred) and if that's a problem they can resign. There are, I'm sure, many wonderful chaplains who provide counseling and support to the military men and women that they serve without discrimination for sexual orientation or religion, however there are some that do not.

When one is working for the government there is going to be some restriction. Would one support a military chaplain who was a pure pacifist?

You mean like a Quaker? I wonder if there ARE Quaker chaplains?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

So the American Atheists are only upset because there's only a cross and if they added a Star of David and a Crescent or two they'd be cool with the religious symbols on display? Suuuuurrrreeee. This group has always been a rabble rousing, Christmas tree suing bunch.

Atheism is such a waste of time anyway. Hey guys, lets create a religion (Dogma included) where we don't believe in religion!!!

This may surprise you, but just like religious people, a-religious people are mostly quiet and keep to themselves. Nevertheless it is annoying to watch one's supposedly a-religious government supporting Christianity on a regular basis. Unsurprisingly most Christians don't notice/are OK with it.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

You mean like a Quaker? I wonder if there ARE Quaker chaplains?

Probably have been. Odds are they're not allowed to tell our soldiers to lay down their weapons and walk away (not that any particular Quaker would, I'm speaking in the hypotheticals.) Government employees and military personnel in particular have restrictions to their freedoms of speech. Ask state employees here who are restricted in the number of bumper stickers allowed on their cars, or political buttons they can wear.

Reality of anti LGBT sentiment among the chaplains who are supposed to be counseling

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Why do people love to claim this? Atheists make up a small percent of society and for the most part are not an organized group of people.

So? Why should/does this matter to you? Does a belief system need at least a 100 million followers for AOII Angel to consider it valid?

It's not a religion. Their is no "dogma" and no great leader determining what all atheists must believe.

I take it you're not familiar with the writings Dawkins or Hitchens but either way there are many religions without the Pope-like supreme leader. Don't even try to tell me that atheists don't proselytize either.

A very few are vocal and politically active, and this seems to stick in the craw of some Christians. I think that these critics really think that accusing atheists of having their own religion is some sort of insult...but isn't that insulting yourself?

I'm not calling atheism a religion to necessarily insult, but to call them out. They claim the desire to live free from having others religion thrown in their face yet they throw their religion around. As a non religious man myself, I find these atheism groups very ironic, as do many others.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

This may surprise you, but just like religious people, a-religious people are mostly quiet and keep to themselves. Nevertheless it is annoying to watch one's supposedly a-religious government supporting Christianity on a regular basis. Unsurprisingly most Christians don't notice/are OK with it.

Actually it doesn't. I know non-religious mostly keep to themselves but I was speaking of organized atheism (specifically AA) in my original post. Maybe I should have added a disclaimer

Also, can you point to some examples of how the government regularly supports Christianity?

Probably have been. Odds are they're not allowed to tell our soldiers to lay down their weapons and walk away (not that any particular Quaker would, I'm speaking in the hypotheticals.) Government employees and military personnel in particular have restrictions to their freedoms of speech. Ask state employees here who are restricted in the number of bumper stickers allowed on their cars, or political buttons they can wear.

Reality of anti LGBT sentiment among the chaplains who are supposed to be counseling

Two words for you- conscientious objector.

[AnotherKD]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

I'm not calling atheism a religion to necessarily insult, but to call them out. They claim the desire to live free from having others religion thrown in their face yet they throw their religion around. As a non religious man myself, I find these atheism groups very ironic, as do many others.

All of the atheists that I have ever met fall into 2 categories- ones that you can't even tell they're atheists because they don't get into talking about religion and they don't really care what others have to say, and the ones that I can best relate to some of the vegans that I know. The vegans I know post articles on veganism, will refuse to eat lunch with someone that orders any sort of meat or dairy product, and will in general dress you down for your lack of knowledge and caring about animals' rights.

It's not that the first group of atheists that I know are touting their "religion", as you call it, and shoving it in peoples' faces. They are the opposite- they want the removal of any sort of religion from everything out there. The desire to remove religion from everything is no more of a "religion" than militant veganism in that regard.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

So? Why should/does this matter to you? Does a belief system need at least a 100 million followers for AOII Angel to consider it valid?

I take it you're not familiar with the writings Dawkins or Hitchens but either way there are many religions without the Pope-like supreme leader. Don't even try to tell me that atheists don't proselytize either.

I'm not calling atheism a religion to necessarily insult, but to call them out. They claim the desire to live free from having others religion thrown in their face yet they throw their religion around. As a non religious man myself, I find these atheism groups very ironic, as do many others.


Actually it doesn't. I know non-religious mostly keep to themselves but I was speaking of organized atheism (specifically AA) in my original post. Maybe I should have added a disclaimer

Also, can you point to some examples of how the government regularly supports Christianity?




Two words for you- conscientious objector.

I actually have read both Dawkins and Hitchens. Not religion. Mostly science, but not religion. Last time I checked, religion involves the worship of some thing or ideal. Atheism...not so much. If you were discussing a specific group of atheists, then yes, you should have specified that group, otherwise, your statement was ridiculous, inflammatory and ignorant. As AnotherKD pointed out, you wouldn't be able to pick out most athiests because they don't discuss it. Mostly because people who are ignorant decide to throw their own religions in their faces. This is just as offensive as making sweeping generalizations about Jewish people, Catholics, Mormons, etc. You just feel justified because people don't stand up for those with no belief.

BTW, AOII ritual is a belief system. Is that a religion? I feel very strongly about it, as do many of my 140,000 sisters. It's actually written out, unlike the supposed "belief system" of athiests. You have a very loose definition of religion.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by IrishLake

I never said I was a GOOD Catholic, lol....

Aww. c'mon. You don't have to be a good Catholic to have this kind of fun with her.

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I'm not a huge fan of religious dogma. Well, unless it's the movie Dogma, because that one is one of my favorites!!!
iApprove

Ditto.

Originally Posted by AnotherKD

The desire to remove religion from everything is no more of a "religion" than militant veganism in that regard.

It can be, depending on what one wants to replace it with.

There is a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed: atheism and religion are not antonyms. One can be atheistic (or nontheistic) and religious. Traditional, classical Buddhism is nontheistic. There are atheistic (or nontheistic) Jews, atheistic/nontheistic Toaists, certainly atheistic/nontheistic Unitarian-Universalists and atheistic/nontheistic many-other-religions.

Dictionary.com defines "religion" as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." The Wiki defines it as "a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values." Frederick Streng (a founder of the Society of Asian and Comparative Philosophy) defined it simply as "a means of ultimate transformation." The line between philosophy and religion isn't always a clear one.

While the belief in a Supreme Being (or Supreme Beings) is certainly part of many if not most religious systems, especially in the West, it's not a necessary part by any means. Again, look at Buddhism, Taoism or, depending on the definition of "religion" used, Confucianism. So I think it is entirely reasonable and accurate to say that while some atheists are opposed to religion and seek to have religion of any kind suppressed (antireligious), and while some atheists simply live with an absence of religion (irreligious), other atheists seek to replace theistic religion with atheistic/nontheistic religion.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I actually have read both Dawkins and Hitchens. Not religion. Mostly science, but not religion. Last time I checked, religion involves the worship of some thing or ideal.

Again, not necessarily. Buddhism doesn't really fit into the description of the worship of some thing or ideal.

All that said, I think an argument can be made that folks like Dawkins and Hitchens make a religion out of science or out of human reason.

And in case I'm not clear, I don't mean this as disparaging of atheists at all. That's not what I'm trying to say. What I'm trying to say is that the typical discussion of "atheism vs. religion" is limited by a very Western (and American) understanding of what religion is. Per the Dalai Lama:

I'm Buddhist, I'm a Buddhist practitioner. So actually I think that according to nontheistic Buddhist belief, things are due to causes and conditions. No creator. So I have faith in our actions, not prayer. Action is important. Action is karma. Karma means action. That's an ancient Indian thought. In nontheistic religions, including Buddhism, the emphasis is on our actions rather than god or Buddha. So some people say that Buddhism is a kind of atheism. Some scholars say that Buddhism is not a religion — it's a science of the mind. . . .

I even consider Buddha and some of his important followers like Nagarjuna (one of Buddha's leading disciples) to be scientists. Their main method is analytical. Analyze, analyze — not emphasis on faith. And these masters are not magicians.

(And yes, I have known of a few Greeks who consider their ritual their religion. I remember an essay in an old edition of Baird's where it was discussed in those very terms.)

[AnotherKD]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

It can be, depending on what one wants to replace it with.

There is a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed: atheism and religion are not antonyms. One can be atheistic (or nontheistic) and religious. Traditional, classical Buddhism is nontheistic. There are atheistic (or nontheistic) Jews, atheistic/nontheistic Toaists, certainly atheistic/nontheistic Unitarian-Universalists and atheistic/nontheistic many-other-relgions.

Dictionary.com defines "religion" as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." The Wiki defines it as "a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values." Frederick Streng (a founder of the Society of Asian and Comparative Philosophy) defined it simply as "a means of ultimate transformation." The line between philosophy and religion isn't always a clear one.

While the belief in a Supreme Being (or Supreme Beings) is certainly part of many if not most religious systems, especially in the West, it's not a necessary part by any means. Again, look at Buddhism, Taoism or, depending on the definition of "religion" used, Confucianism. So I think it is entirely reasonable and accurate to say that while some atheists are opposed to religion and seek to have religion of any kind suppressed (antireligious), and while some atheists simply live with an absence of religion (irreligious), other atheists seek to replace theistic religion with atheistic/nontheistic religion.

I think my only issue with that I don't see how a "traditional atheist" (I know, but that's all I can think of to call them right now) would view their not wanting to participate in organized religion as their own religion. I don't think that there is really a subset of atheists that have a set moral code and "a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values", because, that kind of goes against the feeling that there is *nothing* out there. I guess it's the idea that the very point of religion not existing is a religion in itself, I can't wrap my head around that.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Aww. c'mon. You don't have to be a good Catholic to have this kind of fun with her.

Ditto.

It can be, depending on what one wants to replace it with.

There is a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed: atheism and religion are not antonyms. One can be atheistic (or nontheistic) and religious. Traditional, classical Buddhism is nontheistic. There are atheistic (or nontheistic) Jews, atheistic/nontheistic Toaists, certainly atheistic/nontheistic Unitarian-Universalists and atheistic/nontheistic many-other-relgions.

Dictionary.com defines "religion" as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." The Wiki defines it as "a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values." Frederick Streng (a founder of the Society of Asian and Comparative Philosophy) defined it simply as "a means of ultimate transformation." The line between philosophy and religion isn't always a clear one.

While the belief in a Supreme Being (or Supreme Beings) is certainly part of many if not most religious systems, especially in the West, it's not a necessary part by any means. Again, look at Buddhism, Taoism or, depending on the definition of "religion" used, Confucianism. So I think it is entirely reasonable and accurate to say that while some atheists are opposed to religion and seek to have religion of any kind suppressed (antireligious), and while some atheists simply live with an absence of religion (irreligious), other atheists seek to replace theistic religion with atheistic/nontheistic religion.

Again, not necessarily. Buddhism doesn't really fit into the description of the worship of some thing or ideal.

All that said, I think an argument can be made that folks like Dawkins and Hitchens make a religion out of science or out of human reason.

And in case I'm not clear, I don't mean this as disparaging of atheists at all. That's not what I'm trying to say. What I'm trying to say is that the typical discussion of "atheism vs. religion" is limited by a very Western (and American) understanding of what religion is. Per the Dalai Lama:

I'm Buddhist, I'm a Buddhist practitioner. So actually I think that according to nontheistic Buddhist belief, things are due to causes and conditions. No creator. So I have faith in our actions, not prayer. Action is important. Action is karma. Karma means action. That's an ancient Indian thought. In nontheistic religions, including Buddhism, the emphasis is on our actions rather than god or Buddha. So some people say that Buddhism is a kind of atheism. Some scholars say that Buddhism is not a religion — it's a science of the mind. . . .

I even consider Buddha and some of his important followers like Nagarjuna (one of Buddha's leading disciples) to be scientists. Their main method is analytical. Analyze, analyze — not emphasis on faith. And these masters are not magicians.

(And yes, I have known of a few Greeks who consider their ritual their religion. I remember an essay in an old edition of Baird's where it was discussed in those very terms.)

I would not consider Buddhism a religion as classically considered either, but unlike atheism, there are definitely ideals and thoughts in Buddhism that adherents try to live by. I'm very good friends with a practicing Buddhist. There is no worshipping, but there is definitely a following of the Buddha and his teachings.

As for Greeks having their rituals as their religion, that is pretty rare and bizarre as to border on unheard of. To then use that reference from Baird's to then espouse that Greek organizations are religions is ridiculous. Maybe you are being the devil's advocate, but as previously stated on other threads, he doesn't need one. Are there atheists who take it too far? Sure. I'd say they are more political than religious, however. Is republicanism or democratic membership a religion? Some people take it way too seriously, but it's not a religion.

As for

All that said, I think an argument can be made that folks like Dawkins and Hitchens make a religion out of science or out of human reason.

I don't think this is anymore true than any scientist. People are passionate about their work. A evolutionary scientist who truly believes in evolution is making a religion out of science just because they don't believe the religious version of the beginning of the world? Or is it because Dawkins and Hitchens dare to write about it?

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I actually have read both Dawkins and Hitchens. Not religion. Mostly science, but not religion. Last time I checked, religion involves the worship of some thing or ideal. Atheism...not so much. If you were discussing a specific group of atheists, then yes, you should have specified that group, otherwise, your statement was ridiculous, inflammatory and ignorant. As AnotherKD pointed out, you wouldn't be able to pick out most athiests because they don't discuss it.

Once again, I'm not talking about some random guy who doesn't go to church or believe in a higher power. I'm talking about organized atheism here, and they LOVE to talk about and share their beliefs with others. http://atheists.org/about

Mostly because people who are ignorant decide to throw their own religions in their faces. This is just as offensive as making sweeping generalizations about Jewish people, Catholics, Mormons, etc. You just feel justified because people don't stand up for those with no belief.

Atheists do have a belief.

BTW, AOII ritual is a belief system. Is that a religion? I feel very strongly about it, as do many of my 140,000 sisters. It's actually written out, unlike the supposed "belief system" of athiests. You have a very loose definition of religion.

Well, If you truly wanted to, I don't see why you couldn't make your ritual your religion. As for the bolded, you must not be familiar with the writing of Dawkins or other revered atheists who have written on the topic.... their "belief system" is perfectly spelled out.

You have a very constrictive definition of religion, not surprising since you've said that you don't consider Buddhism a religion.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Once again, I'm not talking about some random guy who doesn't go to church or believe in a higher power. I'm talking about organized atheism here, and they LOVE to talk about and share their beliefs with others. http://atheists.org/about



"American Atheists" do have a belief.

Well, If you truly wanted to, I don't see why you couldn't make your ritual your religion. As for the bolded, you must not be familiar with the writing of Dawkins or other revered atheists who have written on the topic.... their "belief system" is perfectly spelled out.

You have a very constrictive definition of religion, not surprising since you've said that you don't consider Buddhism a religion.

So I fixed this for you. As I previously stated, a particular group of atheists MAY have a belief system, but saying ALL atheisism is a religion is stupid.

I also did state that I have read Dawkins and Hitchens. Last time I checked, most people have a belief system. It's their belief system, but that doesn't make it universal.

I don't think you have to dump all belief systems under the term religion. Buddhism doesn't necessarily fit the bill, and the Buddhists I know don't consider it a religion. It's not the end of the world what I think, and I don't throw it in their face that they are or are not a REAL religion.

All of this stems back from your original sweeping statement. Now that you have tried to amend it to just the American Atheists...rant all you want.

[SWTXBelle]

I am looking for the transcript - NPR had an segment some months back about military humanist chaplains.