SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
AlterNet reports
In a classic case of "unintended consequences", the recently signed Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in Indiana may have opened the door for the establishment of the First Church of Cannabis in the Hoosier State.
While Governor Mike Pence (R) was holding a signing ceremony for the bill allowing businesses and individuals to deny services to gays on religious grounds or values, paperwork for the First Church of Cannabis Inc. was being filed with the Secretary of State's office, reports RTV6.
Church founder Bill Levin announced on his Facebook page that the church's registration has been approved, writing, "Status: Approved by Secretary of State of Indiana - "Congratulations your registration has been approved!" Now we begin to accomplish our goals of Love, Understanding, and Good Health."
Levin is currently seeking $4.20 donations towards his non-profit church.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tathra on Monday April 06 2015, @07:53PM
"atheism" counts as a "religion" for the purpose of this argument. take your pedantry elsewhere.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Monday April 06 2015, @08:05PM
No, it doesn't.
"I refuse to do this because I don't think it's right" does not carry the same weight as "I refuse to do it because it goes against the bible that the president used when he got sworn in"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @08:39PM
> "I refuse to do this because I don't think it's right" does not carry the same weight as "I refuse to do it because it goes against the bible
In whose mind?
In objective reality they are the same thing. Ultimately unprovable beliefs are the basis of all our own personal definitions of "right." Some people pick a religious tradition, some pick a superficially rational philosophy, others pick half-truths that satisfy their biases. But in the end it all comes down to something or another that can't be proven.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday April 06 2015, @08:48PM
lets look at the definition: [reference.com]
for #1, the "superhuman agency" considered is that there isn't one
for 2, 3, and 6, the shared, fundamental belief to which one is devoted is that there is no god. its still a belief system.
there's also arguments made by others about how atheism is a religion. [strangenotions.com]
but regardless, i already stated flat-out that for the purposes of this argument i am considering it a religion. saying "Nuh uh!" doesn't change that. for the purposes of my argument (constitutionality), atheism is considered as a religion. unless you'd really like to argue that the right to believe in no god is not guaranteed by the 1st amendment and that 'religious laws' like this aren't guaranteed by the 14th amendment to also apply to atheism...
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday April 06 2015, @09:44PM
> there's also arguments made by others about how atheism is a religion[link].
Interesting, but flawed logically: he says that the answer to "are you religion_n" is often "no I am atheist", and uses it to imply that atheism is like religion.
To see why it's wrong, rephrase it:
- are you in the blue boat, the red boat, or the yellow boat?
- No, I'm swimming
Swimming is not a boat type. It is an individual behavior. (Your definition #6 is wrong in the regard: it's not a definition, but an common extension of the term. Religions always require multiple people.)
He uses the same flawed logic to say that Atheism is a double-negative.
Religions specify a construct for the divine and/or afterlife. People believe in the specific construct (otherwise, they wouldn't fight about it).
Atheism does not provide a NULL construct. You don't "religiously believe" in nothingness after death anymore than you "religiously believe" in the void of an empty container.
> unless you'd really like to argue that the right to believe in no god is not guaranteed by the 1st amendment
Read it:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."
Atheism is constitutionally protected as free speech, not as a non-interference of .gov into religion.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Monday April 06 2015, @09:57PM
Yesterday I ran across a little controversy Neil DeGrasse Tyson set into motion:
"He has as much interest in meeting with other people to discuss their absence of belief in God as in meeting with non-golfers to talk about their absence of a passion for watching golf." http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/12/08/369356881/what-if-atheists-were-defined-by-their-actions [npr.org]
The article is somewhat interesting -- I skimmed it a little because it seems to get bogged down and repetitive in certain areas. Anyway, the upshot is that some labels are more useful at categorizing people than others, i.e., "pentacostal" is going to let you make presumptions that have a much better chance of being correct than "atheist" is. But aside from all that, as a non-golfing atheist, I love that non-golfer metaphor. It's really true -- the reason you don't see all the atheists in the world gathering for services or whatever it would be called, is because atheism is a category that crosses over many differing groups of people who don't really hang out together in the first place. Like all the non-golfers of the world -- it just isn't enough to form an association who share that one single non-interest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @02:07AM
Post theological
http://thehumanist.com/magazine/january-february-2008/features/the-post-theological-umbrella [thehumanist.com]
Opening paragraphs:
An American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) from 2001 indicates that over 13 percent of the population identifies as secular/nonreligious, but only 1 percent identify as atheist, agnostic, or humanist.
The University of Minnesota results no doubt help to explain the results of the ARIS survey. That is, the fact that atheists are so vilified explains why only less than 1 percent of the population will identify as atheist, even though over 13 percent will identify as secular/nonreligious.
For humanist activists trying to advance their worldview in a culture that discourages open nontheism, there have traditionally been two ways of dealing with this issue. Some do so by trying to hide the nontheistic nature of humanism, avoiding discussion of nontheism with the hope that maybe nobody will notice it. This approach rarely works, however, because most discussions of humanism with nonhumanists inevitably result in the question: So are humanists atheists?
Another way to address the issue is to attempt to improve the public’s perception of the atheist identity. This is a worthy goal, and surely it should be encouraged. Given time, the image of atheism in America might improve, as people slowly realize that atheists are more likely to be found in research labs than in prisons or drug hideouts. But this approach, even if it works, will take time, and one must consider whether other strategies might be possible.
This question of atheism, and specifically how the public’s poor image of atheists makes the advancement of humanism difficult, became a topic of discussion with a friend at a recent conference. Her response pointed to a third way to address the issue: “When people ask me about atheism,” she said, “I just tell them I consider myself post-theological.”
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday April 07 2015, @08:10AM
That is actually a useful metric. Some people DO practice Atheism as a religion. They do get together and talk about not-believing. Or more accurately, they can't resist long conversations about why not not believing is harmful and stupid. If anyone says anything that even hints that there might be the possibility that they may harbor the vague notion that anyone in the room might believe in anything not immediately visible, it's off to the races!
Others just don't believe.