Mailbag: Freedom of Religion, Part 2
Subject: Roy Moore
I wonder why nobody has accused the government, including the courts of establishing a State Religion of Atheism or Agnosticism.
No one is accusing the government of "establishing a State Religion of Atheism or Agnosticism" because anyone who tried would look really silly. Neither atheism nor agnosticism are religions. Even if it were true that the government were promoting atheism or agnosticism, it would not be an establishment of a state religion. It's just not possible.
Texas had a similar case and argued that the Ten Commandments that were posted on our Capitol lawn had a historical not religious basis.
The argument that "the Ten Commandments are historical, not religious" only works if the Ten Commandments are presented on an equal level with other historical documents regarding the law and government. We should note that Roy Moore refused to do anything like that. When the point of a Ten Commandments display has nothing to do with religion, then supporters have a chance of making a successful argument for keeping the monument on government property. That, however, was not Roy Moore's purpose; indeed, he made a point of explaining that his purpose had everything to do with religion and God.
What do you think of my thoughts on the government's attempt to establish a State Religion of Atheism or Agnosticism in violation of the US Constitution?
I think that Larry doesn't have any idea how atheism, agnosticism, or religion are correctly defined. When a person starts from such faulty information, it's pretty easy to arrive at ridiculous conclusions. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
A man's faith and belief system is his religion. Atheism and Agnosticism are religions just like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or any of the others.
No, atheism and agnosticism aren't religions. Atheism isn't a faith. Agnosticism isn't a faith. Atheism isn't a belief system (it isn't even a belief, it's the absence of a particular belief). Agnosticism isn't a belief system.
Atheism and agnosticism can be part of belief systems and they can be part of religions - just like theism. They cannot, however, be religions by themselves because they don't meet even the most minimum requirements (unless, of course, we define "religion" so broadly that everything becomes a religions and, hence, the word looses all relevance).
Part one of this discussion appeared yesterday.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Comments
“Atheism isn’t a belief system (it isn’t even a belief, it’s the absence of a particular belief).”
I wonder if this would be easier for some people to understand if we referred to lack of belief in anything as “a” followed by whatever wasn’t believed in, e.g. aleprechaunism, afairyism, aBigfootism, etc.
While it doesn’t make it a religion in and of itself, I would argue that agnosticism is the ONLY acceptable viewpoint for the government to “endorse”- Doing so essentially defines the government’s position on religion as “We don’t know, go find out for yourself.”
Reverend:
The view of government isn’t exacty “I don’t know” as much as “I don’t care, as it’s well outside of my purview.”
Agnosticism spans quite an array of ideas, including “nothing can be known (by anyone) about god/s,” which I’m sure some religious people would have a BIG problem with.
I know that’s not how you’re presenting the term “agnosticism” here, but saying “I don’t know” almost begs for convincing (to a proselytizing theist). In other words, it leaves us with a hanging idea that if only the government DID know, they would/could endorse it. When, in reality, even if the government (if we could think of it as an entity) was thoroughly certain a god did exist, it really would make no difference, since the Constitution is the basis for our system of laws and government regulation, and not the will of a divine being.
Tracieh,
Just for the record
, I’m one who actually wouldn’t have a problem with the idea that nothing can be known of god- As most of my religion is based on symbolism as a mental tool, I could even accept the idea that the gods themselves are merely metaphorical constructs. (I believe otherwise, but wouldn’t presume to insist that I alone know the true nature of the universe- I could be just as wrong as anyone.)
While I would like to agree with the rest of your post, I worry that the people who would argue for a state religion would do so REGARDLESS of how we define the government’s position…
Hence my presence here- You guys are on the front lines of that battle, and as a non-Abrahamist I’ve got just as much to loose as you do- Maybe more.
Agnostics claim that we can’t know about gods, but how do they know that exactly? It seems to me that in order to come to the conclusion that gods cannot be known, they have to start by assuming that they know about the unknowable nature of gods, in which case they are contradicting themselves. In any case, they certainly are saying that if there are gods, they are not of the knowable kind, which of course begs the question “how do they know that?” I mean, the Greek gods were certainly knowable to the ancient Greeks. I mean, they even fornicated with humans!