Regardless of religion [LWN.net]

Regardless of religion

Posted Sep 20, 2018 5:27 UTC (Thu) by Nemo_bis (guest, #88187)
Parent article: Code, conflict, and conduct

Quoting from the adopted document:

> everyone, regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, <b>religion</b>, or sexual identity and orientation

There is no need to give special status to religious people compared to non-religious people, effectively discriminating atheists and humanists. While centuries of interpretation have ended up affirming, in most countries, that constitutional clauses for the freedom of religion equally protect the atheists, a document adopted in the 21st century should get such things right from the start.

Even in USA the law now states "conscience, non-theistic views, or" before "religious belief or practice" and "The freedom of thought, conscience, and religion is understood to protect theistic and non-theistic beliefs and the right not to profess or practice any religion."
https://www.atheists.org/legal/faq/first-amendment/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_R._Wolf_International...
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114hr1150enr/html/BIL...

to post comments

Regardless of religion

Posted Sep 20, 2018 9:23 UTC (Thu) by sdalley (subscriber, #18550) [Link] (7 responses)

Well, if you subscribe to the notion that atheism is itself a religion that just "worships one less god than [the theists] do" as I've heard them claim, you should be fine...

On the wider point, that list in the CoC is meant to be exemplary rather than exhaustive, maybe a few words to that effect would have been helpful. I know and respect several upright and sincere atheists, even though my beliefs happen to include spiritual truths and theirs don't.

Regardless of religion

Posted Sep 20, 2018 15:41 UTC (Thu) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link] (6 responses)

> Well, if you subscribe to the notion that atheism is itself a religion that just "worships one less god than [the theists] do" as I've heard them claim, you should be fine...

Where did you hear that? In my experience the idea that atheism is a form of religion is typically advanced by non-atheists hoping to establish a false equivalency (that "atheism requires just as much faith as theism"). The quote that an atheist "just 'worships one less god than [the theists] do'" *is* attributable to atheists, but it's been taken out of context. (Paraphrasing: Theists are atheists with respect to every god humanity has ever worshipped save one; atheists just take this process one god further.)

To coin another phrase: Atheism is a "religion" in exactly the same way that not collecting stamps is a "hobby".

> On the wider point, that list in the CoC is meant to be exemplary rather than exhaustive, maybe a few words to that effect would have been helpful.

I agree. Ironically, it would probably have helped if the list were *less* exhaustive—as it is, it seems like there are just a few categories which were omitted, which leaves people wondering if they were left out for a reason. If they had limited themselves to just a few marginal examples to define the scope, while omitting several more obvious ones, people would be less inclined to perceive the list as potentially exhaustive.

Regardless of religion

Posted Sep 20, 2018 19:52 UTC (Thu) by davidstrauss (subscriber, #85867) [Link] (1 responses)

> In my experience the idea that atheism is a form of religion is typically advanced by non-atheists hoping to establish a false equivalency (that "atheism requires just as much faith as theism").

It's not always used as a malicious false equivalency. In the United States, courts generally treat atheism as a religion, but they do so as a sort of legal fiction [1]. To these courts, atheism is only a "religion" in the sense that any laws regarding religion apply in equivalent ways to non-practice and non-belief. For example, the protected class (in terms of non-discrimination) that covers religion also applies to non-believers [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction
[2] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/are-atheists-prot...

Regardless of religion

Posted Sep 21, 2018 15:59 UTC (Fri) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]

> To these courts, atheism is only a "religion" in the sense that any laws regarding religion apply in equivalent ways to non-practice and non-belief.

That much I can agree with, but to me it implies only that laws about religious discrimination apply just as much to discriminating on the presence or absence of religion as they do to discrimination among different religions—not that atheism is itself a religion.

I think the problem is that we are mixing up "religion" as a subject with "religions" as particular systems of faith and worship. Atheism is properly part of the subject of religion (as a negative position), but not *a* religion. Religious discrimination refers to the subject matter; you don't need to belong to any particular religion to be covered.

Regardless of religion

Posted Sep 28, 2018 20:26 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (3 responses)

> To coin another phrase: Atheism is a "religion" in exactly the same way that not collecting stamps is a "hobby".

I think you're confusing atheism and agnosticism.

Atheists *believe* there is no god. As do *several* religions, I believe. But notice that I said atheists *believe*. In other words a religion.

People who don't collect stamps *don't* *care*. Agnostics *don't* *care*. I wouldn't call agnosticism a religion - it's just an observation that "gods don't matter to me". It is also noticeable that Atheists typically attempt to convert other people to their beliefs - yet another defining characteristic of a religion. (Agnostics, again, *don't* *care* whether you agree with them or not.)

Cheers,
Wol

Regardless of religion

Posted Sep 28, 2018 21:26 UTC (Fri) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link]

Atheism and agnosticism both come in pragmatic and dogmatic variants.

The pragmatic atheist is merely adopting the null hypothesis (since no deities can be adequately shown to exist, proceed as if no deities exist) in the absence of sufficient evidence to believe in any particular deity; the dogmatic atheist actively believes there are no deities.

The pragmatic agnostic has no experience that they interpret as being experience of a deity or deities. The dogmatic agnostic believes that experience of deities (at least in life) is impossible. One can be agnostic (pragmatic or dogmatic) and still believe that deities exist, of course.

The dogmatic modes of each rather resemble religious doctrines, though I would hesitate to call them religions in the absence of additional premises attached thereto.

Regardless of religion

Posted Sep 28, 2018 21:54 UTC (Fri) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link] (1 responses)

> I think you're confusing atheism and agnosticism.

No, what I am describing is atheism: the absence of belief in a god or gods.

Agnosticism addresses a different question altogether: whether it is possible in principle to know whether or not god(s) exist. There are agnostic theists, and agnostic atheists, as well as theists and atheists who are not agnostic. Demanding evidence to justify belief, with absence of belief as the default in the absence of evidence, does not make one agnostic; it makes one a rationalist. The agnostic view is that there can be no evidence one way or the other, that belief and absence of belief are both equally "leaps of faith", and that all positions on the presence or absence of god(s) should be granted equal credibility.

Atheists, as a rule, *don't* *care* whether you personally agree with them or not, as long as you keep to yourself and don't make trouble. However, unlike agnostics, non-agnostic atheists are unlikely to grant your beliefs equal credibility, and will tend to see any attempt to spread such beliefs in the absence of evidence as tantamount to fraud.

> Atheists *believe* there is no god. But notice that I said atheists *believe*. In other words a religion.

Some atheists assert that there is positive evidence for the absence of god(s). This is sometimes referred to as "strong atheism". Not all atheists hold this position. More to the point, even "strong atheism" is not a religion. A religion involves worship as well as belief. One can *believe* that the sky is blue, or that there are no invisible pink unicorns living in one's back yard, without making a religion out of it. None of the myriad varieties of atheism involve any form of worship; ergo, atheism is not a religion.

Regardless of religion

Posted Sep 29, 2018 8:45 UTC (Sat) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link]

>A religion involves worship as well as belief.

I prefer "observance" to "worship", since IIRC Buddhism says that worshipping gods keeps you trapped in samsara (because you are worshipping a being who is themselves trapped in samsara).

Regardless of religion

Posted Sep 20, 2018 14:44 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Yes, but what that actually means is that you should not denigrate people posting patches on the grounds that they have the wrong religion, etc. This is only likely to be controversial on the kernel lists if 'religion' includes one's choice of text editor. :)