Freedom of Religion or Freedom From Religion

[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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

But that's no reason to use such a broad brush in painting all atheists, anymore than it would be reason to use a broad brush in painting all Christians. Life is much more nuanced than that.

This. My wife's an atheist and most folks don't even know it. She's gone to mass with me, she used to go to a Baptist church in her home town just to be social, but she never got the whole God thing.

Folks should also not be so hot to blame atheists for not wanting religious displays paid for on the public dime.

Publicly paid for religious displays could very well be the camel's nose under the tent in terms of religious-government participation. Never in the history of the world has a partnership between religion and government worked out very well at all, least of all in a country like ours.

Best to keep the secular and holy separated--and when someone crosses the line, sue.

[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.

[Little Dragon]

Having read all that has been said so far, I want to share an idea that makes reference to the title of the thread. In the US, we have freedom OF religion, not FROM religion. It should be clear, but sometimes people don't seem to get it. The government cannot sponsor or favor any religion over others. That's it. That is freedom of religion, and that is the extent of separating government and church. The government cannot tell churches what to teach or preach. That been said, a Christian government official at a Christian event can be in official business and say God Bless. Same for Muslims and Jews and any other believer. His or her words are not the government's, but that of the person, even though acting in official capacity.

I give the example of Germany, which has had a very specific history, but can share some lights. In public schools, they teach religion. Teachers are government officials teaching religions. The kid (or the kid's parent) choose which religion they learn, but it is in a public space. Theology is taught in many public universities, same as philosophy or mathematics. Religion is present, though the government doesn't force anybody to believe or not believe in anything.

A government building in a Christian populated area has a cross. Should it have it? Only if government buildings in Muslim populated areas have the Crescent Moon or in Non-religious areas, have nothing. Government, as elected, represents its people.

Public display depends on the people being governed. I don't want to look, I don't look.

Another thing is passing laws favoring certain religious views. Then, we have an imposition. I don't want to follow, but then again, I could go to jail or pay a fine. That is wrong.

Atheist: I don't want my money to go into a cross in an official building.
Christian: I don't want my money to go into paying for an abortion under the healthcare reform.
Poor: I don't want my money to go into the rich's pockets.
Rich: I don't want my money to go into paying services that I don't use.

There are differences between actions of government that I may not like (including actions involving religions) and laws that impose religions or its practices on me.

If you can do something about it (not watching, not attending, keeping quiet) there is no imposition. If you can't or if something is expected from you, then everything is wrong with it.

Added:
BTW. As a Christian living in Spain (mostly secular society with reigning atheism), I know what it is to live in the minority. My positions stays the same.

[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.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Little Dragon

That been said, a Christian government official at a Christian event can be in official business and say God Bless. Same for Muslims and Jews and any other believer. His or her words are not the government's, but that of the person, even though acting in official capacity.

If that person is acting as a government agent, s/he is giving off the impression that the religion is the "right" one and is backed by the government.

If this person is making a speech at, say, a block party and decides to say a prayer and end with God Bless, s/he has every right to.

[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?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AnotherKD

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 see where you're coming from, and this is the reason I said upthread that, to the degree atheism could be considered a religion, is a very disorganized and individualized religion.

Beyond that, I'd say two things: First, that a large part of what I'm trying to say is that maybe there is no such thing as a "traditional atheist," or that what we think of as "traditional atheism" betrays our own relatively narrow experience.

Second, it is certainly true that there is no single worldview that can be described as "atheistic." In my experience, most atheists have replaced it with nothing/indifference (irreligion) or with some form of humanism, whether religious or secular. That's why I've been trying to be careful not to say that atheism is a religion, but rather that being atheist does not mean not being religious.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

I see Buddhism as a prime example of where the line between religion and philosophy can get very blurry.

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.

Careful there. I didn't say Greek organizations are religions. I said (and I really meant it as an aside, not an actual argument, so my apologies if that wasn't clear) that I have heard more than one person (inlcuding that writer in Baird's) say that their Greek organization/ritual was their religion. BIG difference. I too think it's bizarre. (And one of the people I knew to say that was himself bizarre.) But they did say it.

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?

No and no, at least not to my mind. It has nothing to do with making a religion out of evolution (and I really don't want to go off on a tangent about evolution vs. religion -- as has been said many times, the two are hardly mutually exclusive), nor does it have anything to do with them daring to write about it. (Really? Don't you know me better than that?)

When I say an argument can be made, I mean just that: an argument can be made. Not that it is an argument that will convince many people or even most people, but that an argument can be made. Sorry, maybe it's a professional hazard. When I say an argument can be made that folks like Dawkins and Hitchens make a religion out of science or out of human reason, I mean that an argument can be made that they place their faith/reliance in science (or human reason) in a way similar to the way some place faith or reliance in a god; that they accord science or reason the authoritative role that other religions accord their scriptures, myths, leaders, _______; and that they can appear to be just as dogmatic in their positions as some religious people. In otherwords, that science (or reason) informs their worldview -- the cause, nature and purpose of the universe and the implications of that for how people relate to one another and to the world/universe/whatever -- in the same way that other religions do for other people.

[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.

[AnotherKD]

I can't quote cause my phone won't let me...

But when you say "they" all the time, it's lumping every atheist into your same category, which isn't fair. Just cause some people talk about it all the time and have a website, so what? So do conspiracy theorists, trekkies, and people that have feet fetishes. Doesn't mean that's a great representation of the entire population. My belief that there is nothing up there, that you simply become a dead body when you die, and that things aren't in someone else's hands, that's it for me. There is no "humanist" ideal that that lack of belief comes with.

Just my $.02.

[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.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I see where you're coming from, and this is the reason I said upthread that, to the degree atheism could be considered a religion, is a very disorganized and individualized religion.

Beyond that, I'd say two things: First, that a large part of what I'm trying to say is that maybe there is no such thing as a "traditional atheist," or that what we think of as "traditional atheism" betrays our own relatively narrow experience.

Second, it is certainly true that there is no single worldview that can be described as "atheistic." In my experience, most atheists have replaced it with nothing/indifference (irreligion) or with some form of humanism, whether religious or secular. That's why I've been trying to be careful not to say that atheism is a religion, but rather that being atheist does not mean not being religious.

I see Buddhism as a prime example of where the line between religion and philosophy can get very blurry.

Careful there. I didn't say Greek organizations are religions. I said (and I really meant it as an aside, not an actual argument, so my apologies if that wasn't clear) that I have heard more than one person (inlcuding that writer in Baird's) say that their Greek organization/ritual was their religion. BIG difference. I too think it's bizarre. (And one of the people I knew to say that was himself bizarre.) But they did say it.


No and no, at least not to my mind. It has nothing to do with making a religion out of evolution (and I really don't want to go off on a tangent about evolution vs. religion -- as has been said many times, the two are hardly mutually exclusive), nor does it have anything to do with them daring to write about it. (Really? Don't you know me better than that?)

When I say an argument can be made, I mean just that: an argument can be made. Not that it is an argument that will convince many people or even most people, but that an argument can be made. Sorry, maybe it's a professional hazard. When I say an argument can be made that folks like Dawkins and Hitchens make a religion out of science or out of human reason, I mean that an argument can be made that they place their faith/reliance in science (or human reason) in a way similar to the way some place faith or reliance in a god; that they accord science or reason the authoritative role that other religions accord their scriptures, myths, leaders, _______; and that they can appear to be just as dogmatic in their positions as some religious people. In otherwords, that science (or reason) informs their worldview -- the cause, nature and purpose of the universe and the implications of that for how people relate to one another and to the world/universe/whatever -- in the same way that other religions do for other people.

Ha. Just continuing the debate! It's kinda interesting. I think lots of people don't think about the fact that there really are people who work with them, that they actually know who don't believe in God. I've seen some signs on the sides of buses for an atheist group saying, "Don't believe in God? Me neither." So that atheists don't think they're alone. I've seen some really benign conversations at work turn UGLY when people decide to convert the atheist in the room. I know quite a few non-believers in the medical profession. In Maryland, there was a huge conversation in the Doctor's lounge one day. More than half of the physicians reported they were atheists/agnostics. Not a single one was intent on converting a believer into a non-believer.

[KDMafia]

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.

Maybe it's me but I don't see why this is listed as a bad thing. No one is saying that on their own time religious organizations can't promote their views. Hell I have had way more religious pamphlets handed to me than anything for atheism. The issue was based on freedom of religion. You can practice what you like but there is no reason that the gov't should support one religion at the exclusion of others or should make assumptions based on religion (I think this gets especially dicey at places that deal with memorials in light of different views of the afterlife and what it takes to get there).

Also, to answer how our gov't supports christiantity. Um, Presidents are sworn in the Bible, most president end their speeches with "may God bless America" There are National days of Prary which are generally attended by Christian pastors. Christmas is a federal holiday. The entire issue of rights deprived of Homosexuals is completely based on a religious foundation yet it has been encoded in our laws. There are many ways in which or gov't does express a Christian bent.

[KSig RC]

I'm not going to quote the wall of text earlier, but the distinction between "Freedom of Religion" versus "Freedom from Religion" is as close to spurious as can be without going over (which is the Price is Right Corollary, of course).

The entire concept of "no state-sponsored religion, no state sponsoring of one religion over others" can be taken, at a high level, to exclude essentially any religion or religious action on the part of the state. Since it would be impossible to be all-inclusive, the state is de facto secular as a result. NOTE: this is in the ideal; keep that in mind as you read.

Of course, that does not exclude everything that could be construed as religious, as the change in your pocket would attest to, should it earn itself a brain and the ability to speak.

(Particularly if you want to consider "atheism" a religion in and of itself, you've just steamed a poop onto the distinction yourself - congrats!)

Also let's not compare nations that don't even operate under the same governing principles to the US situation - it's like saying that, although it was marred by things like the Black Sox in 1919, the World Series can be instructive on how to play contract bridge.

EDITED because holy crap there are a lot of i's in "religious"