I’m all for free speech and am glad that this group was allowed to display their thoughts, however if their goal is to enlighten people about their cause they should really think about the words they chose. Telling people that their god(s) don’t exist and that religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds doesn’t exactly warm them up to the ideas held by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. It’s about as effective as the door-to-door religions trying to explain their take on the bible to someone that isn’t receptive to it. It’s just annoying as hell. If the beliefs held by a person are strong enough, no sign or lecture will convince them otherwise, so why bother. Seriously!
The message is clearly anti-religion, yet The Freedom From Religion Foundation’s sign makes a case for those that consider atheism a religion itself.
Religion
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. 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.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one’s vow.
—Idiom
9. get religion, Informal.
a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b. to resolve to mend one’s errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.American Psychological Association (APA):
religion. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved December 02, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
Chicago Manual Style (CMS):
religion. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion (accessed: December 02, 2008).
Modern Language Association (MLA):
“religion.” Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 02 Dec. 2008..
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE):
Dictionary.com, “religion,” in Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Source location: Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion. Available: http://dictionary.reference.com. Accessed: December 02, 2008.
So, say hello kettle, and stop calling the pot black.
Lets take a look that the displays of this year and the past. A Christmas tree, a nativity scene, a menorah, and a sign that reads, “At this season of the winter solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”
The first three are symbols don’t say very much about the set of beliefs behind them. If someone existed, that had never ever heard of Christianity and they saw the tree or the nativity they really wouldn’t learn any more about it and the same for the menorah if they knew nothing of Judaism. They probably wouldn’t know that those things represent anything more than the objects they are. I realize that atheists don’t have a universally recognized symbol to call their own, and having one would require herding cats for further organization. Also having a symbol adds to the list of similarities of being their own religion, but the atheist sign posted in Washington State’s capitol is very much like the school bully telling the little kids that Santa doesn’t exist coupled with the close-minded and demeaning similarities to messages the Freedom From Religion Foundation condemns from other religions. Practice what you preach people, and good job posting ninety percent (give or take) of the world’s population as second-class citizens with their hardened hearts and enslaved minds; it really takes balls to further alienate the majority. It’s no wonder when Christians read, “separation of church and state” many see it as an attack on religion. Way to help the cause.
By the way, I know it’s merely semantics, but religion is very real. It’s the gods behind religion that an atheist questions. For next year’s sign may I suggest it read, “Token symbol to represent the atheist voice”.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:45 am
You can have a strong belief and faith without paying for some fast talking Bible beaters new car…You Rock Erica…G
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:09 am
This is a great post Erica!
My husband (an atheist) and myself (spiritual, but not religious) have these discussions frequently.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:31 am
** Theism is NOT a religion. Atheism is NOT a religion for the same reasons.
…It’s not enough to realize that the word ‘religion’ has many meanings — that merely establishes its ambiguity. But, it’s not enough to be clear, you must also be precise.
If you imagine that this is “mere semantics” you are quite mistaken. Sliding from one meaning of a word to another meaning without acknowledging the move results in a logical fallacy called ‘the fallacy of ambiguity.’
The Freedom from Religion Foundation as its name implies stresses that the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees “freedom from religion” that is freedom from any church established by government — the most obvious example, The Anglican Church which is still the State Church of England whose head is the sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II.
“One defining characteristic of ‘religion’ is that it form a recognizable social unit…” — that is, your meaning (2). More specifically, the meaning attached to the word ‘religion’ by FfRFwould be “organized religion.”
If you use more amorphous descriptions, you would end up including philosophy among organized religions, you would end up including theism among organized religions, neither of which is true of meaning (2). (There are religious philosophies like xian existentialism attributed to Kierkegaard — which falls under your meaning (1) above, but philosophy per se is not a religion of any kind.)
• Once you see that Theism is NOT a religion. Atheism is NOT a religion for the same reasons.
‘Theism’ is an abstract noun which collectively refers to every organized religion which espouses the existence of at least one god, usually one having a personality, which interacts meaningfully with human beings. Theism refers to a group of such religions, not any single one.
The group of theistic religions would include: Xianity, Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, ancient Greco-Roman polytheisms. It would not include: Theravada Buddhism or Chinese ancestor worship or Jainism. These are non-theistic religions.
Theist and atheist alike can agree about which organized religions are theistic. Organized religions are reasonably well-defined “objects” (groups, associations) which can be discriminated and counted. Such agreements, shared by supposedly antithetical camps, are for me “the salt which never loses its savour.”
Atheism is essentially a viewpoint which denies that any god whatsoever exists. For the Big-4 Near Eastern monotheisms, the atheist claims that of God and Yaweh, Ahura Mazda and Allah, not one of them exists. These fictional characters have no greater status as existing entities than Gilgamesh and Zeus, Sherlock Holmes and Batman.
• A religion is a praxis.
Let’s be clear. Theism is not a religion. Atheism is not a religion either.
One defining characteristic of ‘religion’ is that it form a recognizable social unit sharing common cultic practices, mythological and ideological commitments, corporate action, identifiable from within and without.
Despite its theistic stance, the Boy Scouts of America is not a religion. It is however a voluntary association. Of course there are voluntary associations like the Freedom from Religion Foundation which espouse atheism.
Atheism embodies no common praxis — it has no creeds, no rituals, it has no common symbols, no outward means of identification. Atheism is obviously not even a voluntary association. Atheism is not a religion of any kind.
bipolar2 ©2008
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:49 am
Honeybell – Thank you
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
G-Man – Thank you.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
bipolar2 – Are you just practicing your debate skills with me or did you cut and paste this from some other argument? I didn’t say that atheism was or is a religion. I said, “Freedom From Religion Foundation’s sign makes a case for those that consider atheism a religion”. I didn’t say it was a slam-dunk, a close case, or even a valid case. Maybe it would have been more precise of me to say that it *builds* a case that atheism could be considered a religion. It would be more precise for people to point to the Freedom from Religion Foundation and declare that it is religion, but they don’t. They point to atheism as if the Freedom from Religion Foundation speaks for all atheists and not just the ones who have an active membership.
My reference to semantics in regards to religion was in the fact that the Freedom From Religion Foundation put on their sign, “Religion is but myth”. It isn’t. It’s very real, as you yourself pointed out in your little spin-off tirade.
Thanks for the comment.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:17 pm
You can copyright your argument? Sweet!
Angels latest blog post… My Third Trimester Body
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:17 pm
That was an amazing post, and it earned you a new RSS subscriber. Keep up the good work!
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Angel – everyone can except you.
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Cesar Moves – Thank you.
December 5th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Wow. I’m jelous. How come I never thought to copyright my posts/comments?
Good piece.
December 6th, 2008 at 1:25 am
Agreed. I’m an atheist, and I wrote the following:
I Disagree with Dan Barker and the Freedom From Religion Foundation
http://tinyurl.com/6nkxu8
Thanks!
Josh Nankivel
http://non-theist.com
Josh Nankivels latest blog post… I Disagree with Dan Barker and the Freedom From Religion Foundation
December 9th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
What? That’s not what I meant! I am shocked! How could you take it that way! Just because I said “some people make a case that X should be pushed in front of a train” doesn’t mean I would ever argue that! How rude! But then, maybe I should have been more precise . . .
So, people that do not believe in Unicorns, like I do, are called A-Unicornists, and therefore worship fanciful creatures just like me. Aren’t we the same?
December 10th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Josh Nankivel – Thanks for the comment.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Bruce – Who the hell are you and what exactly did I take the wrong way? You haven’t commented here before so whatever you’re referring to must be from another site. A reference like would be helpful. And the last sentence of your comment on this blog makes no sense.
If someone doesn’t believe in unicorns I suspect that they wouldn’t worship these creatures in the same way you do. I’m guessing they wouldn’t worship them at all so the value placed on them would not be the same at all.