Why not an Atheist "religion"

[Elind]

First, I have to say that my gut finds that somewhat disagreeable, but there is a practical aspect to the issue.

After all, if a for profit self help program like Scientology can be called a religion, why not Atheists?

As to the practicalities - Churches receive enormous financial, legal and other benefits as well as being recognized voting blocks courted by politicians and businesses alike. If it is true that atheists constitute at least 5% of the US population, and perhaps over 10% if one includes agnostics or "non religious", then that would be the largest and certainly best educated minority group in the country.

Jews are less than 3%, and they certainly get attention, and respect.

Wouldn't it make sense for some brave group to petition the IRS for tax exempt status on the basis of their religious beliefs (I think it could be called a religious belief and still keep a straight face). Scientology did.

Isn't it time we got our share of our taxes back to build some cool meeting halls and not pay property taxes. To get school vouchers for atheist schools, to get government grants to wean people off other religions, to be allowed to hire only atheists and to sue Bill O'Reilly for hate crimes?

I'm sure I've missed something in the pot, but seriously, could it be done?

[ruach1]

Religion differs from ideology in that religion professes the existence and connection with (a) God.

Thus an atheist organization could not get religious tax exemption for an ideology.

However, if you're serious about this subject, I would recommend calling the nearest chapter of the ACLU.

[geni]

It has been done quite a few times.

[Elind]

Religion differs from ideology in that religion professes the existence and connection with (a) God.



I used scientology as the primary example. They don't believe in a "god". Neither do Buddhists for that matter.

[Elind]

It has been done quite a few times.
If you care to save me some research, can you give any examples?

[cyborg]

I used scientology as the primary example. They don't believe in a "god". Neither do Buddhists for that matter.

That would make them atheist organisations!

[Marquis de Carabas]

I don't even like atheist organisations, much less a church. I can't see the point of joining a group based on a negative. It's silly. It'd be like the International Society of People Who Don't Watch Basketball on Television.

[Soapy Sam]

Oi! I happen to be a life member in good standing of ISPWDWBT.

[brettDbass]

Regarding it having been done before the CoR (http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/different/) may be a good place to start.

[Upchurch]

I used scientology as the primary example. They don't believe in a "god". Neither do Buddhists for that matter.

That would make them atheist organisations!
Unitarian Universalists are collectively agnostic, but individually could be anything from hard atheist to (rarely) fundamentalist theist.

Of course, within UU, there are more definitions of the word "god" than you can shake a stick at, fwiw.

[tkingdoll]

I don't even like atheist organisations, much less a church. I can't see the point of joining a group based on a negative. It's silly. It'd be like the International Society of People Who Don't Watch Basketball on Television.

I agree, however it is a sad fact that many, many atheists have experienced prejudice, hate or discrimination because of their lack of belief. I think an organisation is about strength of numbers and support rather than just having a lack of something in common.

If people who don't watch basketball on TV lost a job because of it, or couldn't join the boyscouts, perhaps they would want to club together to get a united voice.

Just a thought.

[This Guy]

I think Atheist should form a religion.

Then we could all get together every Sunday, and not worship God together.;)

More seriously though, there is something to the saying "strength in numbers".

But personally, I would not get along with those who's main purpose in life is to tar and feather Christians. I may disagree with what Christians believe, but I support their right to believe it. As long as they respect my right not to believe it.

Point being, while I view myself as atheist, I'm not sure how well I'd fit in with others that would claim that title. I think we're a fairly loose knit group of individuals myself, and I'm not sure how well we'd flock together ;-) But this isn't something I've studied, or have enough experiance in to say.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I agree, however it is a sad fact that many, many atheists have experienced prejudice, hate or discrimination because of their lack of belief. I think an organisation is about strength of numbers and support rather than just having a lack of something in common.

If people who don't watch basketball on TV lost a job because of it, or couldn't join the boyscouts, perhaps they would want to club together to get a united voice.

Just a thought.
I think it's a sad fact that many, many atheists have persecution complexes.

My aversion to atheist churches/organisations is probably just a specific iteration of the more general fact that I am not a joiner. Maybe I should start a club for other non-joiners like myself...

[ruach1]

I used scientology as the primary example. They don't believe in a "god". Neither do Buddhists for that matter.
Yes. I should have been more inclusive. Buddhists do believe in a "transcendent other" which adherents have to engage in some type of religious practices in order for them to contact or have communion with said transcendent other.

Scientologists may also claim that Xenu or the Thetans are the "transcendent other" and that their practices to become "clear" are the relgious practices necessary to contact their metempsychosised inner soul from another planet.

(I can barely believe I typed that last sentence in the attempt at making a rational response to Elind's post. :) )

[tkingdoll]

I think it's a sad fact that many, many atheists have persecution complexes.

My aversion to atheist churches/organisations is probably just a specific iteration of the more general fact that I am not a joiner. Maybe I should start a club for other non-joiners like myself...

Some do, some don't. I've never had a problem as an atheist, but I've had a lot of problems as a Jew, including having my life threatened, and yet many people accuse Jews of having a persecution complex too, and wonder why it's such a closed community.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Some do, some don't. I've never had a problem as an atheist, but I've had a lot of problems as a Jew, including having my life threatened, and yet many people accuse Jews of having a persecution complex too, and wonder why it's such a closed community.
Thank you for the lovely non-sequitur.

[tkingdoll]

Thank you for the lovely non-sequitur.
Pleasure. I have a variety of them here in different colours. I favour the gold non-sequitur for extra safety.

[the_bgma]

Here's the list of larger "Atheist Religions" that look similar to traditional religions:


Unitarian Universalism: ranges from Atheist to Theist, pretty liberal.
www.theinfidels.org


Buddhism: Sort of Atheist in some versions, but not really Naturalist, believes in the supernatural

Secular Humanism: A very good replacement for religion, leans a little left
www.secularhumanism.org
www.americanhumanist.org


Humanistic Judaism: for those raised in a Jewish home, this provides all the traditions without the supernatural
www.shj.org
www.csjo.org
www.iishj.org


And of course there are the meetup groups:
atheists.meetup.com
brights.meetup.com
humanism.meetup.com
universist.meetup.com
skeptics.meetup.com

*****************

If you want a BIBLE for that atheist religion, I might know of a book... ;)


******************************************
The Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist (http://www.freewebs.com/thebgma/index.htm)

[Marquis de Carabas]

Pleasure. I have a variety of them here in different colours. I favour the gold non-sequitur for extra safety.
Could I have a lovely Finnish blue?

OK, sorry, folks... you can have your thread back now.

[Jorghnassen]

Let me join Marquis de Carabas in the "I don't want any sort of atheist club" Club.

[elliotfc]

Let me join Marquis de Carabas in the "I don't want any sort of atheist club" Club.

Not even "Brights"?

-Elliot

[Ipecac]

My aversion to atheist churches/organisations is probably just a specific iteration of the more general fact that I am not a joiner. Maybe I should start a club for other non-joiners like myself...

From Futurama when Fry visits the booth of the Apathy Party:

Fry: "Now here's a party I can get excited about. Sign me up!"
Apathy Party Guy: "Sorry, not with that attitude."
Fry: "Ok, then screw it."
Apathy Party Guy: "Welcome aboard, brother!"
Fry: "Alright!"
Apathy Party Guy: "You're out."

[elliotfc]

From Futurama when Fry visits the booth of the Apathy Party:

Fry: "Now here's a party I can get excited about. Sign me up!"
Apathy Party Guy: "Sorry, not with that attitude."
Fry: "Ok, then screw it."
Apathy Party Guy: "Welcome aboard, brother!"
Fry: "Alright!"
Apathy Party Guy: "You're out."

Isn't the apathy party guy being non-apathetic by a)welcoming someone, and b)calling a non-blood brother a brother?

Yes I "get" the humor, but I can't help but be skeptical.

-Elliot

[Marquis de Carabas]

Not even "Brights"?

-Elliot
In my case, no, not even Brights. If they manage to slip the word into the vernacular as they wish to (unlikely), I guess I'll be one, same as I'm a person who doesn't watch basketball on telly, but I have no interest in joining.

[wastepanel]

Wouldn't an Atheist church eventually have dogma just like any other religion? That is the reason I see alot of you post your aversion to religion.
I know that I wouldn't want a group to dictate my beliefs...

[CaptainManacles]

After all, if a for profit self help program like Scientology can be called a religion, why not Atheists?

Because athiesm is too broad a term. As you yourself pointed out, scientology and buddhism are both athiestic religions. If you want an athiest religion join one of them. Otherwise, it's like asking "why can't monothieism be a religion".

[Elind]

I don't even like atheist organisations, much less a church. I can't see the point of joining a group based on a negative. It's silly. It'd be like the International Society of People Who Don't Watch Basketball on Television.

I think I said as much in the OP, but this was a question regarding if it could be done with a slick enough argument. Unfortunately I'm not sure I can come up with that argument. Geni says it's been tried. Denied by who on what basis? (Perhaps they didn't threaten the IRS with as many lawyers as the scientologists did?)

[Lamuella]

I really don't like this idea.

For one thing, as someone who takes part in a lot of evolution/creationism debates, a card the creationists pull out a lot is "atheism is a religion too! You're violating the first amendment by teaching atheistic evolution in schools!". Any atheists declaring themselves to be a religion add fuel to their fires of idiocy.

[Jorghnassen]

In my case, no, not even Brights.

Ditto.

[Elind]

I really don't like this idea.

For one thing, as someone who takes part in a lot of evolution/creationism debates, a card the creationists pull out a lot is "atheism is a religion too! You're violating the first amendment by teaching atheistic evolution in schools!". Any atheists declaring themselves to be a religion add fuel to their fires of idiocy.

I never said teach "atheism" in schools. I suggested simply that atheists could have their own for those that wanted it (as they no doubt could today), but also pay no taxes and claim government support just like the ones with the crosses down the street.

I thought it kind of obvious that my focus on the financial benefits as being the justification (say, like gay mariage) was signal enough that this was an intellectual question more than a serious proposal I'd stick my head out for.


There is another aspect of this, and that would be that any such claim by atheists to be treated on the same "secular" level as recognized "churches" would create a healthy debate on just why those churches don't pay for the services that they receive.

[Lamuella]

I never said teach "atheism" in schools.

you never did, but creationists equate teaching good biology (evolution) with teaching atheism. A "church of atheism" would allow them to say "see? There IS a plot to take over this country that was founded on christian values blah blah rant rant..."

[RSLancastr]

It'd be like the International Society of People Who Don't Watch Basketball on Television.I belong to one of its offshoot organizations, the International Society of People Who Don't Watch Basketball on Television but Who Never Really Get Together So Why Are We Even a Society Oh F*** It Let's Disband.

The tattoo's a bitch.

[Meadmaker]

If you care to save me some research, can you give any examples?

Someone already mentioned Humanistic Jews, but even Reform Judaism actually has a fair share of agnostics, and a few pretty much closet atheists. Their statements of principles say something along the lines of "allowing a wide range of concepts about God". Some of them, including some clergy I've met, don't believe in anything that would normally be called "God", by most monotheists.

In other words, we say "God" a lot, but everyone understands that you don't have to really mean it.

[Elind]

you never did, but creationists equate teaching good biology (evolution) with teaching atheism. A "church of atheism" would allow them to say "see? There IS a plot to take over this country that was founded on christian values blah blah rant rant..."

Irrelevant. They say that anyway.

[Elind]

Obviously this is an emotive issue, not only believers in God. Let's rephrase the OP and replace the word Atheism with Existentialism.

It's called The Church of Existentialism and the purpose is to allow like minded people to meditate on themselves and the universe, while receiving the same breaks that the other churches do.

Atheists are welcome to join. Agnostics too; and those who just want to take advantage of the social atmosphere.

So, my question is still, what would it take to become recognized by the powers that be? Is it just a matter of numbers? I doubt it, as there are plenty of small groups of "religions" around.

Perhaps I'm assuming there would be a problem; maybe all is takes is to register the name and stay out of politics?

[Elind]

Wouldn't an Atheist church eventually have dogma just like any other religion? That is the reason I see alot of you post your aversion to religion.
I know that I wouldn't want a group to dictate my beliefs...

Don't we all have a "dogma"? (A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.)

So? You don't have opinions on those matters? Most people belong to one church or another because they prefer that dogma to the one across town.

[Elind]

Unitarian Universalists are collectively agnostic, but individually could be anything from hard atheist to (rarely) fundamentalist theist.

Of course, within UU, there are more definitions of the word "god" than you can shake a stick at, fwiw.

Of course, I've been remiss in omitting UU. Probably the closest thing going to an atheist (sorry; existentialist) chuch, but from my understanding a little too much of what I might call vague superstition involved.

[Elind]

Here's the list of larger "Atheist Religions" that look similar to traditional religions:


Unitarian Universalism: ranges from Atheist to Theist, pretty liberal.
www.theinfidels.org (http://www.theinfidels.org)


Buddhism: Sort of Atheist in some versions, but not really Naturalist, believes in the supernatural

Secular Humanism: A very good replacement for religion, leans a little left
www.secularhumanism.org (http://www.secularhumanism.org)
www.americanhumanist.org (http://www.americanhumanist.org)


Humanistic Judaism: for those raised in a Jewish home, this provides all the traditions without the supernatural
www.shj.org (http://www.shj.org)
www.csjo.org (http://www.csjo.org)
www.iishj.org (http://www.iishj.org)


And of course there are the meetup groups:
atheists.meetup.com
brights.meetup.com
humanism.meetup.com
universist.meetup.com
skeptics.meetup.com

*****************

If you want a BIBLE for that atheist religion, I might know of a book... ;)


******************************************
The Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist (http://www.freewebs.com/thebgma/index.htm)

Thanks for the research; now, how many of those got faith based grants from Bush?:rolleyes:

[Elind]

I agree, however it is a sad fact that many, many atheists have experienced prejudice, hate or discrimination because of their lack of belief. I think an organisation is about strength of numbers and support rather than just having a lack of something in common.

If people who don't watch basketball on TV lost a job because of it, or couldn't join the boyscouts, perhaps they would want to club together to get a united voice.

Just a thought.

I think not a very good analogy. Atheism is as much, and perhaps more, thoughtful speculation on existence than most blind faith religions (who glory in the blind part). Why should not that have equal standing (social standing that is) with any other philosophy of life?

[wastepanel]

Don't we all have a "dogma"? (A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.)

So? You don't have opinions on those matters? Most people belong to one church or another because they prefer that dogma to the one across town.

Actually, most people are a certain religion because of proximaty and convenience.

What I'm saying here is atheists claim to be the most educated "sect" of religions (for lack of better term). Now, let's say there was a church of atheism. What standard of principles would be followed or taught? There are many atheists that are pro-life, and many that are pro-choice. What should be taught?

Also, in order to get tax exempt status, a church must establish a charter outlining its purpose. It must collect donations to run its operations. It must spend those donations, or lose its 990 status. What will the church spend its money on? What if you don't agree with it?

[Ipecac]

Isn't the apathy party guy being non-apathetic by a)welcoming someone, and b)calling a non-blood brother a brother?

Yes I "get" the humor, but I can't help but be skeptical.

-Elliot

I guess a conversation between two true apathy guys would be pretty silent. :)

[Meadmaker]

I've been thinking about this, and I think wastepanel hit it on the head.

What would be the purpose of such an organization? If their only purpose was to say, "We aren't religious", it wouldn't inspire much attendance.

It would be like going to a meeting of People Who Don't Collect Stamps.

[Just Me]

I think you all have missed the point.
Think of the religious holidays!!
I nominate July to be the holimonth!!

[Meffy]

I'm with the Marquis. Beg pardon for "reasoning by analogy" but I find it helps me to frame things. Corrections and adjustments are welcome.

Most people live indoors. But there are a lot of people who, for one reason or another, live and sleep outdoors. Does it make any sense to hypothesize an intangible, indetectable building -- the "Non-Building-Dwellers' Apartments" -- in which they (somehow) live?

After all, we might be used to thinking of people according to where they live, and if someone hasn't a home at all it's hard to think about them in the same way we're used to. We'd have to judge them not on their homes but their personalities, their presences. It's easier to make up the imaginary apartment building and be done with it.

To me that's a fair analogy for an "atheistic religion." It just doesn't make sense.

[edit] There's the "Starlight Motel," always available for men of the open road... but that's not the building I meant. ;-)

[Dogdoctor]

There needs to be something other than atheism to form durable group. In the case of a atheist religion there would need to be other beliefs held in common by the congregation.

[Ryokan]

Buddhists do believe in a "transcendent other" which adherents have to engage in some type of religious practices in order for them to contact or have communion with said transcendent other.

No.

[Elind]

I think you all have missed the point.
Think of the religious holidays!!
I nominate July to be the holimonth!!

Thank you:D

[Elind]

Also, in order to get tax exempt status, a church must establish a charter outlining its purpose. It must collect donations to run its operations. It must spend those donations, or lose its 990 status. What will the church spend its money on? What if you don't agree with it?

So? This is not a suggestion for a national church of atheists, just that a bunch of guys at the4 bar should have the same right to form one as the seventh day whatevers at the next bar.

All "churches" are not the same, except in that they don't pay taxes and can collect money from republicans. Why shouldn't atheists be allowed to do the same if they wish? Don't get too philosophical on this; it's a simple matter of equal rights.

[Elind]

What would be the purpose of such an organization? If their only purpose was to say, "We aren't religious", it wouldn't inspire much attendance.

It would be like going to a meeting of People Who Don't Collect Stamps.

So? The meeting hall would be subsidized by all the taxpayers in the neighborhood. More money for video games.

[Meadmaker]

So? The meeting hall would be subsidized by all the taxpayers in the neighborhood. More money for video games.

If all you want is tax exempt status, that's easy. Check out section 501 c(3), for educational organisations. I'll bet JREF is tax free, isn't it?

[Elind]

If all you want is tax exempt status, that's easy. Check out section 501 c(3), for educational organisations. I'll bet JREF is tax free, isn't it?

Bet they pay property tax on their building, and have never heard an offer from Bush for faith based donations.

[ruach1]

No.
yes

[Meadmaker]

Bet they pay property tax on their building, and have never heard an offer from Bush for faith based donations.

Tax laws vary from state to state,I'm sure. I'll bet that at least in some states, non-profits are exempt from property tax. I don't know for sure, though.

That second part would be an interesting test case. If an atheistic group was performing charity work, could they get a faith based grant? I may do a bit of research on that.

There's one problem with testing that theory, though. Very few atheistic groups actually perform charity work. That says something in itself, I suppose.

[Ryokan]

yes

No.

I'm a Buddhist, and have no idea what a 'transcendent other' is. But if it is what I believe it is, a persistant persona or a soul, then Buddhists believe in no such thing. And there is no religious practice to 'contact or have communion' with 'it' either.

[ruach1]

No.

I'm a Buddhist, and have no idea what a 'transcendent other' is. But if it is what I believe it is, a persistant persona or a soul, then Buddhists believe in no such thing. And there is no religious practice to 'contact or have communion' with 'it' either.
I would refer to the Buddha-nature, the Dharma-Kaya, and the Tri-Kaya in general as a "transcendent other." This transcendent other may not have personal qualities as a personal god, but it is transcendent in general definition.

Meditation, even the most austere and Buddha-less Zen practices, can be defined as religious practices--especially when it comes to tax exemption.

[Ryokan]

I would refer to the Buddha-nature, the Dharma-Kaya, and the Tri-Kaya in general as a "transcendent other." This transcendent other may not have personal qualities as a personal god, but it is transcendent in general definition.

Buddha-nature is a state of being, it's not a metaphysical state. It's simply a complete understanding of the Dharma and the Four Noble Truths.

Most, if not all, 'kaya' ideas are from Mahayana, though, and I'm far from an expert on that direction of Buddhism, so if they believe as you say, I will plead ignorance on the matter.

Meditation, even the most austere and Buddha-less Zen practices, can be defined as religious practices--especially when it comes to tax exemption.

I will, of course, accept that it can be defined as a religious practice. Meditation is older than Buddhism, though, and practiced by many non-religious groups throughout the world.

The argument of tax exemption applies only to your country.

[Elind]

Tax laws vary from state to state,I'm sure. I'll bet that at least in some states, non-profits are exempt from property tax. I don't know for sure, though.

That second part would be an interesting test case. If an atheistic group was performing charity work, could they get a faith based grant? I may do a bit of research on that.

There's one problem with testing that theory, though. Very few atheistic groups actually perform charity work. That says something in itself, I suppose.

I don'tbelieve anyone except "religion" are exempt, not to mention exempt from normal reporting requirements. You may prove me wrong if you wish.

As to charity work, no doubt many religious groups do good work, but perhaps the conclusion is that without state support they would do less?

[Elind]

I would refer to the Buddha-nature, the Dharma-Kaya, and the Tri-Kaya in general as a "transcendent other." This transcendent other may not have personal qualities as a personal god, but it is transcendent in general definition.

I mean no offense, but that means absolutely nothing to me. Call me ignorant if you will, but it sounds little different to what any "new agers" preach.

I have no problem with meditation as a principle of understanding the self, but I doubt it understands anything else; nor does it qualify as a religion in my mind, except historically speaking.

[Elind]

The argument of tax exemption applies only to your country.

Not entirely. In other countries there are taxes levied on everyone to support religion. Perhaps not Buddhists, but the principle is there, except in the form of accounting. However you are right, I am talking of the US primarily.

[ruach1]

I mean no offense, but that means absolutely nothing to me. Call me ignorant if you will, but it sounds little different to what any "new agers" preach.

I have no problem with meditation as a principle of understanding the self, but I doubt it understands anything else; nor does it qualify as a religion in my mind, except historically speaking.
None taken.

Here's a site which may help make my post more clear. Believe me, I'm no new ager. I just know some of the Buddhist lingo and beliefs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trikaya

[Meadmaker]

I don'tbelieve anyone except "religion" are exempt, not to mention exempt from normal reporting requirements. You may prove me wrong if you wish.

As to charity work, no doubt many religious groups do good work, but perhaps the conclusion is that without state support they would do less?


I did some very brief googling. (20 minutes or so?) It varies from state to state, and htere are all sorts of different reporting requirements. I can only assume that this has been challenged in court, but I don't know if the Supremes have ever taken a case. On one site, that particular state (don't know which) specifically only allowed property tax exemption for the building in which worship is conducted. Since atheists don't "worship", it's hard to say whether they could meet the requirement. Again, I don't know the status of any court challenges to these laws.

Someone else will have to do that bit of research. As for the federal status, churches are in the same 501 c3 section as educational organizations, so I know that atheist groups could fit into that area.


I also checked with the Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives. Any organization, whether or not they are faith based, is eligible.

[Elind]

Since atheists don't "worship", it's hard to say whether they could meet the requirement.

That was my point. Atheists can worship if they say they do; no? Worship what? The universe perhaps.

As to the other points; I do believe that it is a fundamental of the "separation" issue that churches (religions) are not taxed, locally or federal, anywhere, nor are they required to report what they do to the same extent except in as much as to not appear to be "front" for something else. There are many prosecuted for the latter offense all the time (but not enough), and I've run into those in business dealings on several occassions.

Here in Florida we have the sorry case of a state senator wanting to have an exception for a biblical theme park near Orlando that owes some $300,000 in property taxes that they don't want to pay, because they say the park supports their church (as long as they don't pay their other dues).

To restate the point I'm making; if anyone who says they form a "christian" church is allowed to exempt from key taxation (and be carried by everyone else as a result), then why shouldn't anyone that says they want to worship whatever takes their fancy be allowed to do so?

I don't think there is a criteria, except historical examples, with the exception of Scientologists, and I still don't understand how that group of SHAMs got it. They have a really good thing going. One of their cons is to invest in businesses (which do pay real estate taxes, and others), but they hire many scientologists to work there and pay them very good salaries for doing little, in return those use a major portion of their income as donations to the "church" to pay for their mind numbing treatments. Needless to say those donations are tax deductible by the employee and not taxed on the "church". Get the idea? All legal too.

So, why shouldn't we do it, legally?

[Meadmaker]

So, why shouldn't we do it, legally?

I guess there's two questions. With respect to federal taxes, you can, sort of. There are a wide range of activities you can engage in and claim a tax break, and you can probably get away with it, like the scientologists do. That doesn't exactly make it "legal", but it does make it difficult to prove it isn't legal. You can take a chance, the way they do.

With respect to state laws, if your state allows exemptions for things other than churches, there is no issue. If your state only allows the exemption for churches, my guess is that if you can convince a bunch of atheists to show up once a week to go through a ritual in which they denounce belief in God, it would probably work as well. However, neither you nor a Christian could get the tax break if you opened up a bar, and before every drink said, "Long live the Pope" or "Down with the Pope", then claimed it was a worship service.

[blutoski]

First, I have to say that my gut finds that somewhat disagreeable, but there is a practical aspect to the issue.

After all, if a for profit self help program like Scientology can be called a religion, why not Atheists?

As to the practicalities - Churches receive enormous financial, legal and other benefits as well as being recognized voting blocks courted by politicians and businesses alike. If it is true that atheists constitute at least 5% of the US population, and perhaps over 10% if one includes agnostics or "non religious", then that would be the largest and certainly best educated minority group in the country.

Jews are less than 3%, and they certainly get attention, and respect.

Wouldn't it make sense for some brave group to petition the IRS for tax exempt status on the basis of their religious beliefs (I think it could be called a religious belief and still keep a straight face). Scientology did.

Isn't it time we got our share of our taxes back to build some cool meeting halls and not pay property taxes. To get school vouchers for atheist schools, to get government grants to wean people off other religions, to be allowed to hire only atheists and to sue Bill O'Reilly for hate crimes?

I'm sure I've missed something in the pot, but seriously, could it be done?

I'm not sure how this works in the US, but in Canada, atheist organizations set themselves up as NFPOs which are tax-exempt for donations and some aspects of capital/expense spending. It's roughly equivalent to the status religions have. It's not clear what would be economically gained by rebranding atheism as a religion.


There is a bigger costs, though: if an atheism really is a religion, then is a secular scientific worldview promoting it? If so, then science is getting government funding to practice this religion, and the religious will pursue strategies toward getting this stopped. Same with science education.

[Elind]

I started this commentary really as a critique of what I believe are historically out of date "entitlements" claimed by traditions religions (and scientologists), which derive from the separation of church and state issue in the US. Of course many of those religious supporters today claim there is no such "separation", but they'll be damned before they give up their perks at the same time.

My suggestion was to claim the same breaks for example, atheists, on the basis that it is also a philosophical perspective on the meaning of life, if you will, that is every bit as valid as the others, and has a substantial, if silent, following.

In other words, any group of atheists should be able to file for the same benefits for a meeting hall, library, or facility dedicated to the pursuit of that philosophy.

Now if that would succeed or not is a good question but, if not, at least it would be, to borrow a strategy from the IDers, a worthwhile wedge approach.