Atheism: The next big religion?

In her post on March 10^th, L.A. radio host Kennedy described the public reaction to her comment on Real Time with Bill Maher, that Atheism is a religion. The reaction to the comment was dramatic; to say ther least, with Kennedy’s Facebook and Twitter feed becoming “engorged with angry responses.” the question posed by this blog, over whether or not Atheism is a religion, could have far reaching effects on how the First Amendment is interpreted and applied.

The United States has been trying to deal with the position of religion since its inception and, as Kennedy points out, a lot of the difficulties that arise can be attributed to the lack of a clear definition of religion. Sadly, if I have learned anything as a Religious Studies student, it is that defining religion is as easy as telling someone who had never had a banana what a banana tastes like. The fundamentally subjective nature of religion allows the definition to be tailored to the user’s purpose. For example, one could argue that religion is the belief in a god or gods, which control human destiny. Based on this definition, Buddhism, one of the world’s largest religions would be excluded, due to its lack of a central deity(s).

The argument over the religious nature of Atheism appears to be a problematic one at first glance, but that issue disappears when you examine the definition of theism which according to the OED, means, Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism. Atheism then would fall into the same category as Buddhism, with there being no “divine” deity. While some might argue the Buddha is their deity, I would respond by saying that there are many Buddha’s and everyone has the potential to achieve this state. In fact, for a long time the U.S. court systems would not accept witness testimonies from Buddhists because they did not believe in a god, negating the swearing in process.  Since then Atheism has become a religion in its own right, and is an active participant in “religious” debates.

I believe the strong reaction to the argument that Atheism is a religion stems from Atheism’s adversarial position in relation to Theistic religious traditions, and the hostile nature that frequents their dialogues. The only impediment I see in Atheists succeeding is the number of self-identifying Atheists, who also identify with recognized religious traditions. Kennedy points out in her post that both sides are in agreement as to the non-religious status of Atheism, seemingly making this a moot point. I would argue that much of the publicly stated positions for both sides, are merely instances of posturing within the context of their appearance to the public and the consequences thereof.