So I came upon a realization today after reading up on some of the current events concerning protection of freedoms and the clause in the U.S. Constitution that prohibits the establishment of any religion by the government.
It seems that many times when atheists fight for their rights, opponents try to strike it down with the argument that Atheism is not a religion, and therefore not protected under the First Amendment.
However, if Atheism is not a religion, then it is not covered under the clause that prohibits establishment of a religion, and nothing would stop a municipal government from creating laws specifically protecting or endorsing atheism.
This would inevitably lead opponents to try to say that it is actually establishing or promoting a specific religion, in which case atheists could turn around and say, "Ok, if it's a religion, then we get the same protections and perks as other religions" (tax exemption, etc).
The way I see it, this would create circular reasoning (lol take that jesus) that would have to be stopped at either:
a) The municipal's aforementioned laws being declared unconstitutional, but thereby establishing Atheism as a recognized religion by legal precedent
or
b) Atheism being ruled not a recognized religion, but thereby upholding the municipal laws protecting or endorsing atheism.
In conclusion: Who's down for buying a bunch of land and creating Atheistown, USA? Nomations for a location begin now. (Texas doesn't have a state income tax wink wink.)
In all seriousness though, what are your thoughts?
I think the way it is being interpreted is that atheist falls under the religious category because it relates to religious thinking. That's why there are a few atheist churches out there who have tax free status.
"congress shall make no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
not to mention that the underlined portion alone protects atheist rights and prevents the creation of an atheist nation....you can't deny atheists the right to be atheist and still allow the free exercise of a religion and you can't make everyone be atheist without allowing the free exercise of religion.
So...it's not a loophole unless crazy fundamentalists want to change the current interpretation to mean that atheists aren't protected. Considering how quick they are to claim atheist is a religion just like christianity and both require faith I don't think they will be able to find any firm ground from that direction anytime soon.
Often in politics opposing groups both go to extremes just to keep things balances. I wonder if atheists aren't typically extreme enough to get what we want. Although I would hate to see it happen...