Posted by Thinking (anonymous) on January 13, 2010 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You are hitting a on a major issue. However I would call them atheistic secular humanists. There is not a neutral position. Whether a person believes in God, does not determine whether their beliefs are a religion. Buddhists do not believe in ‘God’. Yet, everyone accepts them as a religion.
.
I hope that you understand the implications of your statement. Logically every argument you gave is an argument for putting God, the Christian God, back in public schools.
.
A quote from you slightly modified:
“Both of these definitions are from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. So, by definition that would make atheism a religion. If atheism is a religion, then the removal of Christian symbols from public [schools] is essentially official promotion of atheism over Christianity. That being the case, I would like to call on all Christians to stand up against atheism as the official, state-sponsored religion.”
.
So while I applaud your enthusiasm over fighting a cause across the country, I hope you and everyone who agrees will fight for the same cause close to home.
.
There are many who would jump on your band wagon, and decry the actions of Sonoma County for the same reasons you did. Then, on Monday, they send their kids to the Youth Ministry of Secular Humanism called Public Schools. Atheism is the “official, state-sponsored religion” in our Public Schools.

Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on January 17, 2010 at 10:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Atheism is not a religion. I'm not surprised that Mr. Tombrello conveniently left out the following more prominent definitions of 'religion' according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary to try to promote his dubious claim.

1 a : the state of a religious b (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

Atheism doesn't fit into these definitions so that's why the author left them out. Nice try, but real patriots support the separation of church and state like our founding fathers intended.

Posted by Thinking (anonymous) on January 19, 2010 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

AllSeeingEye wrote, “ I'm not surprised that Mr. Tombrello conveniently left out the following more prominent definitions of 'religion' according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary to try to promote his dubious claim”
.
As with anything you look up in a dictionary there are many definitions. We do not look to match to all definitions just one. In that case the original author was correct, atheism falls under one of the definitions. No one denies that one definition of religion specifically includes the belief in a deity. If we limit religion to a belief in God, then atheism would still be a religion. Its name is a statement about a belief in God. It might be non-belief, but it is a belief non-the-less. Christianity and atheism are accepted by faith, because, neither can be 'proved'. An atheist derives its morals, values, and life’s meaning from their beliefs as any other belief system.
.
.
Yet, the article is referring to atheism in a legal sense. The courts have acknowledged atheism as a religion.
.
In Kaufman v. McCaughtry (2005) a prisoner claimed his first ammednment rights were violated because he was not allowed to start an atheist group. He claimed the prison violated his religious liberties.
http://openjurist.org/419/f3d/678/kaufma...
.
“The problem here was that the prison officials did not treat atheism as a "religion,"”
.
“But whether atheism is a "religion" for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture.”
.
“A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths), see Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 & n. 11, 81 S.Ct. 1680, 6 L.Ed.2d 982 (1961); Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197, 200-15 (3d Cir.1979) (Adams, J., concurring); Theriault v. Silber, 547 F.2d 1279, 1281 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam)”
.
“We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir.2003) ("If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.").”
.
“The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2722, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2005).”
.
“Id. at 52-53, 105 S.Ct. 2479. In keeping with this idea, the Court has adopted a broad definition of "religion" that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones.”
.
“Indeed, Torcaso specifically included "Secular Humanism" as an example of a religion. Id. at 495 n. 11, 81 S.Ct. 1680.”

Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on January 19, 2010 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Religion implies organization. Atheism has none. Religion implies rituals. Atheism has none. Religion implies the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power or God. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Therefore, Atheism is clearly the opposite of religion.

To claim Atheism is the official religion of our government is a joke when everyone knows that our founding fathers fought a revolution to separate themselves from a government that had one official religion. The result is our great country and freedoms you enjoy today including the freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.

You can copy and paste all day if you want, but that is my opinion from my own brain. Whether you think that atheism is a religion or not, do you support the government endorsing one religion? It seems the author of this letter to the editor thinks that if people are fooled into believing Atheism is a religion like Christianity then the government should go ahead and endorse Christianity as the official religion of the US. I disagree since that goes against everything our country is suppose to be about but I do want to know what you think rather than what you can research online.

Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on January 19, 2010 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, I'd like to know from the author of this letter how it's promoting Atheism to remove stars and angels from a Christmas tree? If that simplistic claim were true then there would be no Christmas tree in the first place!

Our government should treat all religions equally as our founders intended. When's the last time you had a day off work for a Muslim holiday?

Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on January 20, 2010 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

'A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith'? That's all it takes to be a religion? Really? Then under that very loose definition for religion, the following should also be considered religions:

Evolution
Racism
Bigfoot
Aliens
Elvis is alive
Global Warming
Theory of gravity
Ghosts
Legalizing Marijuana
JR Bob Dobbs
Tiny elfs live in my belly button

I want my tax-exempt status for my "Holy Church of the Leprachaun!" Every other Friday is reserved for our Lucky Charm Sacraments and work is not allowed.

Beginning to see how stupid it sounds to claim Atheism is a religion yet? The only reason someone would make such a ridiculous claim (unless they are a moron) is for selfish political reasons and that's exactly what the author of this letter is doing.

Posted by rebeltaz (anonymous) on January 21, 2010 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am the author of the letter in question. I was not proposing that government actively promote Christianity as the official religion. What I intended, in a sarcastic manner which seems to have escaped some, was that by denying the freedom of one religion - Christianity - they were in effect promoting another - atheism.

My anger was that the political-correct offence of one person carried more weight than the feelings and desires of, what I must conclude was, the majority, since only one person complained. When you trample the religious believes of one group to avoid offending a single individual, then you no longer have freedom of religion.

BTW - I am far from a moron nor do I have a selfish political agenda. I think that label far better suits the 'gentleman' in Sonoma County who prompted this debate with his request to remove roadside crosses because he was offended.

Posted by alclegal (anonymous) on February 19, 2010 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To paraphrase Ben Franklin, any god who needs the support of a government isn't much of a god. And to paraphrase a great atheist, if atheism is a religion, then health is a disease. We are all bound by the First Amendment to not allow our government, in any capacity, to "establish religion." Establishment meant, from the time of the founding of this country to present day, to confer upon RELIGION any special backing or protection of the government, including taxes. Religion, of any kind, is NOT the business of government -- it is a matter strictly between the individual and whomever the individual selects. The more religious individuals try to force government into taking their side, in forcing everyone to agree with the majority, the more it devalues that religion and divides our people. If public displays of religiousity are necessary for your religion to exist, then by all means post your religion in your yard or on your car or in your place of worship. Why insist that the public square be your sole dominion when it's supported by the taxes of all people, including 15% of the population who are NOT religous? The Bill of Rights protect the individuals' liberties from the tyranny and whims of the majority, and both the religious and non-religious will benefit.