Do You Consider Atheism a Religion?  No?  Well You Should.

When I answer with Atheism to the question: “What religion are you?” I often get responses like, “Atheism isn’t a religion; it is the absence of religion.” Mike Newdow handles the topic pretty well in a sermon presented to his church, the First Amendment Church of True Science. While I’m not going to regurgitate everything that he has said so far, I am going to focus on a separate issue, with this being that Atheism should be considered a religion, else Atheists will have fundamentally less rights than America’s traditionally religious folk.

Let us assume that I, Christopher Robert Prokop, want to get into the business of murdering children by means of abstaining from vaccinations, like our good friends the Christian Scientists. Under many state’s laws, people are allowed religious exemption rights if a government policy explicitly violates the codes of their religion (in the Christian Science case, it is the rejection of germ theory, the most important, experimentally verifiable development in biology of the past millennia). In this case, Christian Scientists fundamentally have a choice, and thus more rights, in a situation where other religions do not. This rule exists in many different permutations, but if your ideology isn’t divinely inspired, you are shit out of luck. As a fundamental rule, Atheists have less rights than mystical religions; how can this problem be solved? The first step is demanding all basic rules that religions get and apply them to the non-theistic beliefs. The morality of Secular Humanists, Agnostics, and Atheists still deserve the same respect that Christians, Muslims, and Hindu get.

The other breaking point is tax exemptions. When people spend their time frightening impressionable youths with tales of fire and sodomy, they get rewarded by the government with a tax exemption. Meanwhile, if I were to preach the word of immorality, personal freedom, and logic, my paltry income would still be taxed. Why are organizations founded in faith and dogmatism viewed as more worthy of tax exemptions than those that require open discussion and the development of ideas? If those dependent upon Houses of God, Allah, or Zysnarch can take their income tax free, then so should the International House of Prokop.

All non-theists, not just Atheists, deserve the same benefits that believers receive. If this requires labeling your belief system as a ‘religion’, so be it. It does nobody any good to waive fundamental rights over semantics.

Slapdash Metaphysical Philosophy

As emotional appeals are all the rage nowadays when trying to make sure more people die, Laci Peterson’s mother took the stand and said a bunch of things that really make no sense at all. Amongst the claims

1) Laci Peterson has no arms in heaven, as her decomposing body lost said limbs during the months of decomposition.

2) She will be seasick for all of eternity, because she died on a boat.

Is this how a lot of people view heaven? That the final physical and mental state a person ends up in before they die reflects how they will spend the rest of eternity? I’m pretty sure that is what Sharon was getting at, although I’m not quite sure she realizes that death and the severing of each limb must have come in some discrete order. I’m pretty damn positive that Scott (or the REAL killer) did not sever anything while Laci was still alive, if at all. Therefore, if Sharon believes that Laci has no arms in heaven, she is implying that whatever happens to somebody’s body after they die affects their state in the afterlife.

Do people in heaven slowly ‘grow’ worms and maggots?

Do people that get cremated roam heaven as anthropomorphic piles of ash?

Do people that die in pain carry that pain for all eternity, effectively making the afterlife hell, regardless of where they end up?

The most frightening prospect is that these bizarre and inconsistent metaphysical ramblings of a distraught woman will eventually decide what fate Scott receives.

Related link: Laci’s Mom gives testimony.