Posted on 08/20/2005 12:11:11 AM PDT by Lexinom
A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
"If athiesm is a religion, does the banning of Christian and Jewish symbols (such as Nativity displays, the Menorah, and the Ten Commandments) from public places constitute an unconstitutional endorsement by the State of athiesm as a religion."
Here I was just about to get in your face mad about this issue and you go and make me have such an EVIL grin.
I think this definition of religion, having an element of supreme being, is drawn from 'Western' tradition: Judaism, Christianity, Islam. Do Buddhists, for instance, believe in a supreme being? Is becoming a Buddha constitute as 'a supreme being'? Perhaps some Buddhist FR can answer this.
A lot of room for thought in this...
Sounds a lot like Orwell's 1984 ("War is Peace", etc.)
Is secularism a form of religion ("Worship of the state")?
Can PETA supporters be characterized as animal worshipers?
Can Sierra Club be characterized as nature worshipers?
They already enjoy some of the benefits of religions in that they don't pay taxes, but none of the restrictions in that they are able to actively advocate and support political positions.
This could really be a change in how many institutions and organizations are classified. Don't think that was what this court intended but the genie may be out of the box now...
bump for later
Let's say I walk out into the pedestrian park of downtown Metropolis USA one bright, Saturday morn. As I walk along I hear snippets of conversations. At one point I hear a conversation about birds, so I pass on. At another point, I hear a group discussing the weather, so I pass on. At another, two men are engaged in a serious discussion of politics. I pass on.
At one point in my journey through the pedestrian park, I overhear a small group discussing their Southern Baptist faith. I blow a whistle and over comes a judge who rules that these folks have imposed a religion on innocent passers-by who might be offended by their religious discussion. After all, the judge would say, this is a public area, and we do not want to offend those who are of a minority religious view or of no view at all.
Specifically, a Southern Baptist, religious world-view is being filtered out of that particular public park. In general, any religious worldview (including Jewish) would be filtered out because "non-Jewish and non-religous" folks might find themselves offended.
You object and say, "But they were in a public place." OK, let's simply change the setting. Change it to a courthouse and the conversation being held in the hallways by employees in the courthouse. Birds, Weather, Politics, etc., would be OK. But, then there are a group of southern baptist employees discussing loudly enough to be overheard by passers-by.
But...but....someone might object: "Those are private conversations."
Good. Then we are agreed that personal religious views are permitted to be overheard in public venues by public employees.
Then....why the problem with the judge who had a visible copy of the ten commandments on his desk? It's ok for him to have pictures of birds on his desk, a weather radio on his desk, and a picture of Ronald Reagan. But he cannot have a copy of the ten commandments???
Hmmmmmmmmm
The nation was founded by Christians who required their elected state leaders to be christians.
Any claim to “morality,” or any associated concept, is based on the presupposition that some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
An atheist or anyone else saying something is immoral is no different than a preacher or rabbi saying you are a sinner...
Only if they allow atheist symbols to remain in place, while removing others.
"No understanding" = "understanding"
"No faith" = "faith"
"No reason" = "reason"
"No X" = "X"
"No air" = "air"
"No life" = "life"
"No brain" = "brain"
"No child" = "child"
"No God" = "God"
Wow! Your new logic opens up a whole new world of nonsense!! I'm so excited about this revelation!
Indeed. I suspect it is a simple list, with one item reading "None of the above."
My own studies of Buddhism includes a few years of regular training in the art of zen sword at a Buddhist temple in my area. The master was a Korean who displayed astonishing sword skills. His bio says that he attained enlightenment with his vision of this martial art, called Shim Gum Go ("Mind Sword Path) during a 90-day solo meditation on a mountain top in South Korea. Having lost his rice provisions on his way up the mountain to begin his meditation, he battled virtual starvation throughout the next three months.
Anyway, the official Proclamation of Shim Gum Do includes the following language:
Avatamsaka Sutra says, "If you want to understand that all the three worlds are Buddha, you must perceive world substance. All things are created by mind alone." This means that if you want to understand the true way you must perceive where name and form come from and you must understand that name and form are created by mind. In this world, one by one, each thing is complete; one by one, each thing has substance. If you cut off all thinking, return to before thinking then this is your substance and universal substance. We call this 'primary point'. If you keep this mind, you and everything, you and the universe, become one. Clear like space, without name and form, without opposites, that is the Absolute. We call it Mind or Buddha or God or Truth or Energy. This is Shim.
I would submit that the concept of Mind as the creative fore of everything qualifies as a belief in what some have called "the Universal Mind Substance," which is close enough to a Supreme Being for purposes of my definition.
The nature of our relationship with that Mind may be completely different from the Judeo-Christian concepts relating to God.
But based on my study and admittedly limited understanding, I believe that Buddhism nevertheless does have at its core some recognition of a supreme creative force, and thus qualifies as a religion.
LOL. Maybe not a hair color, but definitely a hair style.
BINGO!
Pascal starts with an artificially truncated base set of Given variables. His Outcome combinations are thus similarly artificially truncated. Ludicrously so.
I would be deeply pleased if Pascal's Wager were forever abandoned by those seeking to offer Grounds For Belief. It is silly.
However, using that argument, to some degree, communism, etc., also believe in the society as the supreme being. (Durkheim, IIRC, argues that religion is actually the manifest of the society itself). So, it brings back to my first posting that questioning why 'religion', seen as a philosophy, is single out as 'bad'.
Sure there is: Agnosticism. But you are certainly correct that atheism is a religious belief.
Does this mean atheist buildings in Wisconsin will be tax-exempt?
Moral Absolutes Ping.
Interesting court decision and very interesting discussion on the thread.
Some said this could "level the playing field". The other day someone posted a few dictionary defitions of religion, one of the 4 included any philosophy or world view that one believed in and followed. So according to that definition, atheist (especially for the avowed, public atheists) would be a religion.
It's about time that the "separation of church and state" myth is put to rest.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
Elegantly simple and straightforward, I'd say. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.