A Response to Claims of Atheistic Persecution

I was recently sent the article Persecution of christians?? Oh, really??. In it, meterologist Chuck Doswell, attempts to make the point that atheists are being persecuted in America like Christians claim to be. Below is my response.

Atheists can have tax exempt status if they file as a non-profit. And since most of us already agree that atheism (once it is practiced) is a religion, they could also start an atheistic church. I know atheists don't like being considered a religion, but they are not the ones who get to decide. Most Christians would also like to say they aren't a religion. Both stances are fairly ludicrous and discussion devolves into a game of semantics.

Doswell also misreads the right-wing politicians. They aren't trying to force their religion on people. They are trying to pass laws that would express their moral convictions, and a rational person cannot separate their moral convictions from what they believe. Just like Doswell would want laws that spring out of what he believes, these politicans want laws that spring out of what they believe. The disagreement comes in the realm of beliefs. Even though I have no love politically for the politicians he mentioned, I think he misunderstands what they are trying to do. They don't want to become the pastor-in-chief. They wouldn't make Christianity America's state religion. They just want laws that are an outgrowth of their beliefs. This isn't evil. It is all anyone wants.

Christians do use the word persecution too much. There is a great difference between persecution and discrimination.

Doswell seems to think that the majority of American are believing Christians while most of them are just Christians in name only.

We are free from persecution here in the United States. Most of the time.  However, a radical Christian receives similar "persecution" as he describes atheists receiving. I can recall real, unquotationed marked  persecution directed toward atheist and Christian conscientious objectors during World War II. During that time, many Christians stood up for the rights of the atheists. And we will again if another situation arises.

 With laws like those mentioned under "real persecution", it seems like atheists have bigger fish to fry than going after people praying at school sporting events or nativity scenes in the public courtyards. They would have my support in trying to take down laws that prohibit atheists from serving in public office. I wonder why they don't focus on the "real persecutions." Maybe it is because there isn't any? Those laws wouldn't be enforced. If they were, they would be overturned. I could be wrong. If so, please show me a news story that shows a recent prohibition of an atheist serving in public office due to one of the states' Constitutions.

By the end of the article, Doswell does what he accuses Christians of doing in the beginning. He tries to paint a picture of persecution when I don't think anyone is really persecuted here in the United States. (Except maybe for some Muslims who are being held in a prison without a trial.) Don't confuse persecution with discrimination.

Is Atheism A Religion?

It is a typical rebuttal from atheists that atheism is not a religion. When the subject is further discussed, it will often devolve into leprachauns, goblins, unicorns and the like. For an example see the answer to this question: Are atheists in the exact same religion as Jews and Christians?

Dictionary.com describes religion as:

1. 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. 

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Under definition #2 and somewhat in #1 and #5, atheism would qualify as a religion.

At this point, I want to move into my view of what a religion is and how atheism stacks up with those views. Feel free to comment below if you think that I have missed a key element that defines religion in general.

A religion is something where people have shared beliefs. An anti-belief that is held as a belief is still a belief no matter how much one wants to pretend that an anti-belief is not a belief. Shared beliefs among atheists are that there are no gods, science can explain everything eventually, and reason is king. Please correct me if I am wrong and have misrepresented atheism.

A religion has shared prophets. Jesus, for lack of a better term for this discussion, and Paul are shared prophets of the Christian religion. Modern-day prophets could be John Piper, Rob Bell, or Pat Robertson. Each would give you a whole different approach to the Christian faith. Moses is a prophet for the Jews. Mohammad is a prophet for Islam. Joseph Smith is a prophet for Mormonism. In atheism, we have Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins. Like in all religions, atheism can then produce a variety of world views. As both Ayn Rand and Karl Marx claimed to be atheists yet their approaches if adhered to would create two divergent worlds. 

Having shared ethics is not essential to being a religion. If ethics were necessary to be a religion, then that would eliminate Christianity. Once you zoom in and have a closer look at all the diverse expressions of Christianity (Reformed, Baptist, Methodist, etc.), you would see shared ethics, but Christianity is still a religion without the shared ethics that comes only from zooming in on particular subsets of the Christian religion.

Religions typically proselytize. Richard Dawkins spends nearly a half hour in Richard Dawkins On Militant Atheism encouraging atheists to be more evangelistic about their lack of belief. Atheists do this more aggressively than any group except Christianity in my experience. It is understandable for a person who believes their view is the best for humanity to then share that view with the rest humanity. Actually, I would not respect the person who did otherwise.

A bad religion demonizes those that don't agree with them. Unfortunately, many atheists also frequently fall into this category. They label believers in gods or God as idiots and unintelligent, frequently mocking them. You can see this in I Hate Religion, And Jesus Too, a rebuttal to the recent internet phenom poem Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus.

Obviously, "religion" has a negative connotation in atheist circles. But if we don't categorize atheism as a "religion", what should we categorize it as? A world view? A belief system? An anti-belief system? It gets difficult because atheism is usually contrasted with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or Buddhism. They all compete in the same societal space for the mind of humanity. What is the broad category that includes all of these competing ideas for the mind?

By saying atheism is not a religion, I think atheism runs into the arrogance that I see Christianity run into when they try to claim that Christianity is not a religion. "It's not a religion because it's right" is the arrogant mentality that some Christians have. Others proclaim, "It's a relationship, not a religion." "Religions are [this] and [that], but we are not [this] and [that]."

Back to the leprechauns.  If 60% of the population believed in leprechauns, lived their life according to the teachings of the imaginary leprechauns as explained by their prophets, and the other 40% didn't, I would think we would have two different religions. More than likely, the other 40% might fragment into other groups, and we would have more than just two religions. The goblin followers, the followers of no one but the thoughts of man, and the followers of the moon. What is the overarching category to contain all 100% of human beliefs, even if they are crazy? Is not "religion" a good word for this?

Then again, maybe not. The big question is what broad category contains all of those competing ways of thinking about God or not about god. For most, "religion" is the word used. It's only derogatory to atheists because they don't like religion. But don't feel bad, my atheist friends. You are not alone. Christians who don't want to be called a religion feel the same way.

**

A few useful links (all from an atheistic perspective) that I found in the follow-up discussions to this post:

Different Types of Atheism by Martin Willett
Belief Vs Disbelief by Austin Cline
Philosophy Vs Religion by Susan Quilty

**

You might also be interested in a few other posts.
A Response to Claims of Atheistic Persecution
Tax The Churches

True Religion, Atheism, and the Quest for Truth

I recently read an article from Tara Stiles entitled What Would God Do For You? The article turns into an atheistic rant against Christianity. This is my response.

We can sit around and focus on all of the bad actions that religious people have done through the years as a means of discrediting religion. Likewise, we can sit around and focus on all of the bad actions that atheists have done in the twentieth century as a means of discrediting atheism. To discredit either argument based upon bad actions is intellectual disingenuousness at best.

In an article like Tara Stiles', the bad actions of "religious" people in the past are brought up as a way to trick the audience into not liking God. Nobody in their right mind would like a God that encouraged bad religious people to do bad religious actions. Religious people oftentimes take the same approach to atheism. Both belief systems have enough battle scars for those who want to discredit an idea based on battle scars to easily scoff at the other side. What this approach ignores is that every belief will be morphed and manipulated because of power hungry people, but that does not mean we should not believe anything. Should we just go around being apathetic and not believe? (And I believe atheism is believing - agnostics do not believe.)

What gives the ideas value are the good actions that people do as a result of believing them. There are many good things that Christians have done. Habitat for Humanity, American Red Cross, Salvation Army, many medical clinics, most of our hospitals, and the list can go on. Don't throw the baby out with the pooped in bath water.

Many Christians have done many stupid things, but that does not mean the gospel of Jesus is not true. There are many Christians who sincerely believe in Jesus and are trying to bring about his kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. They don't follow to use Jesus as a tool for eternal life or to make themselves feel superior to the "nonbelievers" but live their lives, like Jesus did, as an example of how we are supposed to live by serving one another.