TULSA's C Streeters: THE GATHERING!?

[cannon_fodder]

Has anyone on here ever been?

No sir.  But I greatly appreciate any insight you have to share.  I hope thats end this pointless debate. And welcome to Tulsa Now!  Please stay in spite of this thread.    

- - -

Conan:

Sorry buddy.  But I stand by my definition:

Webster's:

   * Main Entry: re·li·gion
   * Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\
   * Function: noun
   * Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
   * Date: 13th century

1 (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Near Antonyms  agnosticism, atheism, secularism

Atheist:
   * Main Entry: athe·ist
   * Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\
   * Function: noun
   * Date: 1551

: one who believes that there is no deity

Another characteristic worth noting is the idea of "rules."  Religious people do this or that because God commands them to.  No one does or refrains from doing anything because the rules of atheism or agnosticism says they should.  No atheist has ever invaded a country because they believe in a rival God.  No atheist has ever bombed people for their beliefs (not implying any particular sect has, just saying many things happen for GOD).  No atheists wears special clothes, breeds a certain way, sacrifices animals or really does anything based on their lack of belief in a deity.  It isn't the belief system most people in Oklahoma are familiar with because it is the dismissal of that belief system.

Atheism is as close to the opposite of religion as you can get, by definition.  Religion is belief on faith.  If you don't believe in a God or aren't sure that you do, you aren't religious.  

[Conan71]

Sounds like more of an Oktoberfest weekend conversation over your home brew, CF.  Beer WILL be back on the menu by then.

[dbacks fan]

Sounds like more of an Oktoberfest weekend conversation over your home brew, CF.  Beer WILL be back on the menu by then.

I miss Oktoberfest. They have one here, one day from 10 am to 9 pm.

http://www.phoenixoktoberfest.com/

[Red Arrow]

Sara Robinson is one of the few trained social futurists in North America, and will complete her MS in Futures Studies from the University of Houston in 2009.

A few is too many.

[sgrizzle]

I've seen the future and it will be
I've seen the future and it works
And if there's life after, we will see
So I can't go like a jerk

Systematic overthrow of the underclass
Hollywood conjures images of the past
New world needs spiritually
That will last
I've seen the future and it will be

[Conan71]

Okay CF, you made me look.  According to a court in Wisconsin, athiesm is a religion and according to SCOTUS in 1961 secular humanism was ruled a religion:

Court rules atheism a religion
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 20, 2005
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com

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.


The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court's ruling "a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence."

"Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said Fahling.

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.

Fahling said today's ruling was "further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence."

"It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts' is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited," Fahling said.

[cannon_fodder]

I appreciate the research, but I believe the 7th Cir. Court spoke poorly (Circuit Court's can also have many desperate rulings amongst and between themselves).  Furthermore, it appears the Court held that Atheism is THAT inmates religion; which is different from holding it as a religion in general.  But I have not reviewed that case as it was not cited and I don't want to look it up at the moment.

However, Atheism is entitled to the same protection as religious belief as it generally serves as an alternative to religious belief.   The Supreme Court has said repeatedly that the non-belief in a deity is equally protected under the 1st Amendment and should therefor enjoy the same protection as religion.  Essentially, the freedom TO practice religion must necessarily include the freedom FROM practicing religion if one so chooses. 

The issue in Torcaso v. Watkins was whether the State of Maryland could force an individual to profess a belief in God as a requirement to hold public office.  Torcaso was appointed, but as an atheist (not a Secular Humanist) refused to make such a profession and was therefor refused office.  The Circuit court held that Torcaso wasn't compelled to hold public office and that such was not a right, therefor the litmus test was OK.  The Supreme Court disagreed.  A full text of the case can be found, for free, here:  Torcaso v. Watkin, 367 US 488 (1961)

The holding of the Supreme Court doesn't declare atheism a religion in any way.  It does give an entire list of "religions" which profess no belief in God or Gods in a footnote to the holding: Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism ( Torcaso v. Watkins, FN 11).   That list confounds the proscriptive definition of "religion" and could be extrapolated to include any belief structure.   But that is done by reference in a footnote and serves as an explanation of "other religions."  It does not define atheism as a religion.

The Court goes on to make an interesting point about using the power associated with religious conformity to run a State.  Which, I assume, is what FOTD is concerned about in a round about conspiratorial way.  Noting that 

it was largely to escape religious test oaths and declarations that a great many of the early colonists left Europe and came here hoping to worship in their own way. It soon developed, however, that many of those who had fled to escape religious test oaths turned out to be perfectly willing, when they had the power to do so, to force dissenters from their faith to take test oaths in conformity with that faith. This brought on a host of laws in the new Colonies imposing burdens and disabilities of various kinds upon varied beliefs depending largely upon what group happened to be politically strong enough to legislate in favor of its own beliefs. The effect of all this was the formal or practical "establishment" of particular religious faiths in most of the Colonies, with consequent burdens imposed on the free exercise of the faiths of nonfavored believers.

We renew our conviction that `we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion/

Torcaso v. Watkins, 368 US at 489.


The basis of the religious clause is covered succinctly herein:

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 368 US at 491; quoting Everson v. Board of Education, 367 U.S. 488, 493.

The case has tons of good language on the separation of Church and State.  But declare Athesim a "religion" it does not.  It merely makes it very clear that one can not deny public office based on the belief or disbelief in God.  By extension and by reference, it supports the interpretation of the 1st Amendment which enables Americans to be free to practice in religion and to be from from religion. 

However, I readily grant you that atheism and agnosticism are readily treated like religions.   Similarly, many Eastern "religions" offer no belief structure in a deity - but because they profess to offer a way of life they are more easily classified as a religion.   My hold out is in both the definitional semantics of the word "religion" as well as the practical use of the word therein.

Aren't First Amendment cases fun!  Thanks for the discussion Conan.  I was not aware of the 7th Cir. ruling and may try to look that up later.

[Conan71]

Sheesh dude, go sue someone.  Your last post is the precise reason I am not a practicing attorney, all the citations make my eyeballs spin.

My take:

Athiesm is the anti-religion religion

Agnosticism is the don't know/not sure/undecided religion 

The point could be argued ad nauseum, but I think I'll go ahead and puke at this point.