atheists and agnostics, what do you think of this?

[Mrs Mungo]

Atheist group seeking recognition as a faith group.

[Carrie12345]

SO many mixed feelings. I can't begin to type them out with a baby in hand. For now, put me down for a like and a dislike.

[HistoryMom]

Interesting. I get squirmy when people call atheism a religion, but I completely understand this point:

 

"[A religious group categorization] might seem contradictory for a group defined by its lack of belief, but it means MASH's [Military Atheists and Secular Humanists] literature would be available along with Bibles and Qurans. It could raise funds on base and, its members say, they could feel more comfortable approaching chaplains for help with personal problems. Recognition would also be an official sign that not believing in God is acceptable, something members say is lacking now."

 

Also, if the group has to be "recognized" as something in order to have permission to meet on base, then a religious designation does work as a categorizing tool. Good for them for standing up and being counted.

[kalanamak]

I once had a boss who was sympathetic to this and did let non smokers have these break times.

 

This also makes me think of how hospitals will offer to send a priest, etc to talk to one at their bedside. I don't want to talk to a priest, but I might appreciate a friendly visit. There is nothing like that for someone who isn't religious.

 

Luckily, most hospital chaplains I've met have really tried to walk the step of the person they are visiting. I think they figure if they come in and are pleasant, and the person knows they are the chaplain, the patient will bring up a "faith need" if they want to.

 

I agree about the smoke breaks. Only problem, if you have someone snappy and gritchy over jonesing for smoke, I'd rather they take the break.

 

And after years of working every holiday you can imagine, from Duvali to Chinese New Year, for other people, darned few of them are willing to give up their lottery Thanksgiving, e.g. for you. I've had no pats on the back for not having extra demands. But, such is life, and it's not worth converting just to have some perks. :)

[freethinkermama]

Atheist group seeking recognition as a faith group.

 

Hmm.

Well, atheism and agnosticism aren't faiths.

However, where this move comes from is a large faith-free event that was nixed at the last minute at Fort Bragg.

There was an enormous Evangelical event (called "Rock the Fort"), which received military money last year and brought in Billy Graham. Several soldiers who did not were reprimanded.

 

This year, an atheist soldier got the backing of Fort Bragg to host an atheist/skeptic/faith-free event, inviting atheist thinkers, musicians, and comediens from all over the world, and then it was basically called off because of last-minute restrictions put on the show. They weren't given any funds (which the Evangelical group was), and they were provided with a venue that wouldn't support the numbers of people that were to show up, etc.

 

You can read all about it at Rockbeyondbelief.com

 

A link which provides the best details is here

http://rockbeyondbelief.com/2011/03/07/demand-equal-treatment-for-the-armys-non-religious-soldiers/

 

 

This move (to get the atheist/agnostic group labeled as a faith group) is simply to get the recognition that religious groups get (which up to this point has been preferential). If religious groups can get funds from the military to promote their faith, surely non-religious military people shouldn't be denied the same sorts of events that promote skepticism and reason.

 

I seriously doubt you'd find a single atheist/agnostic among those starting this group who would say that their non-belief is a religion. They just have to go by these guidelines in order to have the same support religions have.

 

My 2 cents

Edited April 3, 2011 by freethinkermama
Ohh, the spelling, grammar-fail!

[Geek]

They want the privileges and access that the religious get. I'm cool with that.

 

That said, I think the long-term goal should be to recategorize things, not seek to define atheist groups as faith groups. But at the present time they have to work within the system. I just know that will backfire at some point, though, in favor of people who thrive on saying atheism is a belief system in order to denounce it. Some will make the connection that these atheists were forced to redefine themselves in order to work within the system, but some won't and will want to wield it as a weapon. (Lot of alliteration there, lol.)

 

I can't help wondering what would happen if groups like this get large enough to seek the tax-exempt special privilege. ;)

Edited April 3, 2011 by Geek

[freethinkermama]

They want the privileges and access that the religious get. I'm cool with that.

 

That said, I think the long-term goal should be to recategorize things, not seek to define atheist groups as faith groups. But at the present time they have to work within the system. I just know that will backfire at some point, though, in favor of people who thrive on saying atheism is a belief system in order to denounce it. Some will make the connection that these atheists were forced to redefine themselves in order to work within the system, but some won't and will want to wield it as a weapon. (Lot of alliteration there, lol.)

)

 

It's a "deal with the devil" for sure ;)

[AngieW in Texas]

If that's what it takes, then I'm fine with it. It will put atheism/agnosticism on an even basis with the religious groups. If there was a way to do it without calling it a religion, then I'm sure they'd do it that way.

[Mrs Mungo]

This year, an atheist soldier got the backing of Fort Bragg to host an atheist/skeptic/faith-free event, inviting atheist thinkers, musicians, and comediens from all over the world, and then it was basically called off because of last-minute restrictions put on the show. They weren't given any funds (which the Evangelical group was), and they were provided with a venue that wouldn't support the numbers of people that were to show up, etc.

 

Actually, that is a misunderstanding of how such things work. The funds provided for the religious concert came out of tithes from Christian-service-attending Ft Bragg soldiers and families. The chaplains sort out the money into funds. So, Wiccans have a fund of their tithes, Buddhists have a fund of their tithes, etc. The money given for the Christian concert came out of the Christian fund.

 

eta: I found a link talking about this

http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2011/03/09/1076742?sac=Local

 

From History Mom:

Also, if the group has to be "recognized" as something in order to have permission to meet on base, then a religious designation does work as a categorizing tool. Good for them for standing up and being counted.

You could form a private organization on post to meet and raise money without becoming a faith group. I ran a La Leche League group that met on post, raised money, sought donations from on-post groups, had tax-free status as long as we didn't raise beyond a certain amount per year, etc. You don't have to be a faith group to accomplish any of that.

 

I can understand the literature thing, that is a good point. But, as far as chaplains go, most are trained in secular counseling and use it in addition to their religious training.

 

I'm not arguing with anyone, I'm just trying to think through each of these points. Aside from the literature thing, I don't understand what the benefit is.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[Karen in CO]

If that's what it takes, then I'm fine with it. It will put atheism/agnosticism on an even basis with the religious groups. If there was a way to do it without calling it a religion, then I'm sure they'd do it that way.

:iagree:

[freethinkermama]

Actually, that is a misunderstanding of how such things work. The funds provided for the religious concert came out of tithes from Christian-service-attending Ft Bragg soldiers and families. The chaplains sort out the money into funds. So, Wiccans have a fund of their tithes, Buddhists have a fund of their tithes, etc. The money given for the Christian concert came out of the Christian fund.

 

eta: I found a link talking about this

http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2011/03/09/1076742?sac=Local

 

 

 

Ah! That's enlightening, then! I'd have to think more on that.

If the groups have the money to do that, fine. They should be provided with the appropriate space for whatever they can host. And no one should be forced to attend.

[Mrs Mungo]

And no one should be forced to attend.

 

I totally agree with that, so does the Army. Those NCOs got in trouble.

[Geek]

You could form a private organization on post to meet and raise money without becoming a faith group. I ran a La Leche League group that met on post, raised money, sought donations from on-post groups, had tax-free status as long as we didn't raise beyond a certain amount per year, etc. You don't have to be a faith group to accomplish any of that.

You're right: you don't have to be a faith group to accomplish any of that. But perhaps this is an "official recognition" sort of thing? Official recognition is at least a small nod, whereas forming a private group without any acknowledgement may feel a bit like second-class citizenship.

 

Just a thought.

[Mrs Mungo]

You're right: you don't have to be a faith group to accomplish any of that. But perhaps this is an "official recognition" sort of thing? Official recognition is at least a small nod, whereas forming a private group without any acknowledgement may feel a bit like second-class citizenship.

 

Just a thought.

 

I can understand that. I guess it is sort of funny to me because it sounds like they want to form a church without being religious (or UU), when many Christians don't like to be associated with things that go on in churches, kwim?

[Geek]

 

I can understand that. I guess it is sort of funny to me because it sounds like they want to form a church without being religious (or UU), when many Christians don't like to be associated with things that go on in churches, kwim?

They want all of the special perks that religions get. Seems logical to me.

[mommymilkies]

In that context it makes sense. There are certain perks given to religious groups and they want some of the perks. This reminds me of smokers at jobs I've worked at. They would often go outside several times a day to smoke. I felt that was unfair because I didn't get to go outside several times a day to do something. It amounted to them getting more break time. I once had a boss who was sympathetic to this and did let non smokers have these break times.

 

And in the case of the military I imagine these types of groups are helpful. Some may get more involved with a religious group while in the military (even though they weren't ever involved in a religious group before or not to that extent) for the extra support/friendships. So this could fill that void for those who don't want to be involved in a religious group.

 

This also makes me think of how hospitals will offer to send a priest, etc to talk to one at their bedside. I don't want to talk to a priest, but I might appreciate a friendly visit. There is nothing like that for someone who isn't religious.

:iagree: I have had the same experience as a non-smoker working in the hospital. And just because someone is atheist or agnostic does not mean they don't have any spiritual or moral beliefs. I consider myself a spiritual agnostic.

[freethinkermama]

 

This also makes me think of how hospitals will offer to send a priest, etc to talk to one at their bedside. I don't want to talk to a priest, but I might appreciate a friendly visit. There is nothing like that for someone who isn't religious.

 

*NOT TRYING TO DERAIL!* Promise!

 

Just wanted to nod. I wonder about that too. When I was in the hospital once, a woman came by to give comfort care foot massages. It was a wonderful half-hour we spent. Chatting about everything and the joy of a foot-rub on top of it.

 

As much as I would try to be grateful for a religious person, whose job is religion, to come and comfort me, it would never be far from my mind that their major concern for me is to get me converted to their god so their god won't send me to everlasting (or perhaps only temporal--whatever, who cares? :)) punishment.

 

It's something I've been dealing with and thinking about lately, that's just why I mention it here.

 

It a country that is strongly religious, it can be hard sometimes to be not.

 

But, maybe comfort masseuses, rather than chaplains, would be a good option for non-religious folks in hospitals :)

Edited April 3, 2011 by freethinkermama

[Lady Florida.]

If that's what it takes, then I'm fine with it. It will put atheism/agnosticism on an even basis with the religious groups. If there was a way to do it without calling it a religion, then I'm sure they'd do it that way.

 

:iagree: I doubt they would call their atheism a religion, as it's mostly non-atheists who call it that. But they probably can't come up with another way to get their group the same rights that religious groups get.

 

Mrs. Mungo, would LLL have the same rights as a religious group? I'm asking because as you pointed out, there are recognized groups that aren't faith based. So, my theory would be that it's a particular set of rights they are looking for. I don't know anything about military life though, including these kinds of rules.

[Mrs Mungo]

:iagree: I doubt they would call their atheism a religion, as it's mostly non-atheists who call it that. But they probably can't come up with another way to get their group the same rights that religious groups get.

 

Mrs. Mungo, would LLL have the same rights as a religious group? I'm asking because as you pointed out, there are recognized groups that aren't faith based. So, my theory would be that it's a particular set of rights they are looking for. I don't know anything about military life though, including these kinds of rules.

 

I don't know of any rights that are accorded to a religious group that are not accorded "private organization." For example, there are plenty of groups with non-profit status that are not faith-based. Maybe I'm not sure what you mean by rights?