Hi Everyone

I have a question, and I want you to help me answer it. I want to know if it is fair to describe the following organization/body of beliefs (which I will call "X") as a religion. Please just read through the stuff below and post your judgment in reply: "Religion" or "Not a Religion". If you'd like, feel free to include a brief explanation for your answer.

************************************************

Here is how X describes itself:

"'X' is comprehensive, touching every aspect of life including issues of values, meaning, and identity. Thus it is broader than theism, which concerns only the existence of god or the supernatural. Important as that may be, there’s a lot more to life...and X addresses it."

"X is a lifestance: a body of principles suitable for orienting a complete human life."

"X provides a cosmic outlook - a world-view in the broadest sense, grounding our lives in the context of our universe and relying on methods demonstrated by science. Adherents of X see themselves as possessing unique attributes of self-awareness and moral agency."

"X hold that ethics is consequential, to be judged by results. This is in contrast to so-called command ethics, in which right and wrong are defined in advance and attributed to divine authority. 'No god will save us,' declared our founder (my note: let's call him "ABC"), 'we must save ourselves.' Adherents of X seek to develop and improve their ethical principles by examining the results they yield in the lives of real men and women."

Here are a few more facts about X.

The primary founder of X, ABC, writes that through adherence to X, all the people of the world will "develop radically new ways of thinking and feeling", such that they will all "develop a new identity". That "new identity" will eliminate "contentious ethnic differences".

To help forge that "new identity", ABC writes that "X Centres" should be built in which specially designated Teachers of X will do the following:

Teach adherents and investigators X ethics;

Teach adherents and investigators what politics they should have;

Teach adherents that "interpretations of reality" which differ from the X interpretation should be "rejected";

Moroever, these specially designated X teachers (who will be following, of course, ABC's teachings) will "provide counseling services for all age groups". ABC writes that this will include career counseling, drug and alcohol addiction counseling, grief counseling for those coping with tragedy and death, and even marriage and sex counseling.

ABC also writes that in these special centres, "rites of passage" will be performed and celebrated, including birth celebrations, weddings, and funerals. In X ceremonies, he writes, presents will be exchanged, songs will be sung, and poetry will be read.

Finally, each centre will be presided over by "someone qualified by knowledge and virtue".

Lastly, I should mention that X did attract followers; however, a portion of them came to believe that ABC was not radical enough in his teaching against certain non-X'ers, who they regarded as "enemies". As a result, they ejected him from the very organization he had helped found, and replaced him with someone far more aggressive in his teachings against these non-X'ers.

***************

So - based on the above, religion, or not religion?

Just curious.

Thanks!

the first question is so invalid that I didn't go any farther. "is comprehensive, touching every aspect of life including issues of values, meaning, and identity"

This assumes that life has "meaning". I see no reason to make such an assumption. It also assumes that all life has "values", again, I see no reason to make such an assumption.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2015 07:44PM by MJ.

If I had to choose one, it would be "not a religion." I don't know of any religion that teaches that "ethics is consequential, to be judged by results." However, I hate the idea of defining religion: I especially don't believe that government should be defining what a religion is or isn't or what valid religious practices are or aren't. I would place the idea of "freedom of religion" within the broader principles of "freedom of thought" and "freedom of association" and "freedom of action," the latter being restricted only when one's actions or the actions of a group trample on the rights of others. Bottom line: I don't believe religions should have any more rights than any other non-religious group has.

But, I've clearly gone beyond the scope of your question ... so I'll quit now. ; )

Religion

I'm with thingsithink

Religion

Sounds too much like scientology... I'm not sure that's a "religion" anymore than UFOlogy is one.

That's exactly what I though - sounds extremely like scientology.

Tom in Paris

Possibly a religion.

The difference between a religion and a philosophy or political
stand is that when you say "I believe X, Y, and Z because of
religious reasons" that ends the discussion. If you say, "I
believe X, Y, and Z because of philosophical reasons or
scientific reasons then you must support X, Y, and Z with
evidence and reason.

For example the medical community used to teach that
masturbation was evil because it lead to all manner of physical
and mental illness. Evidence and reason has shown that
viewpoint to be erroneous. However, the LDS Church has stated
that masturbation is evil because the leaders say so, and that
medical evidence is immaterial to their claim.

To me that's what puts something into the realm of "religion."

religion (noun):
a. The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe.

b. A particular variety of such belief, especially when organized into a system of doctrine and practice.

c. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Since I saw none of those things in your "how it describes itself" -- no. It's not a religion.

not a religion.

Sounds like a sort of humanist philosophy.

Knowing the OP, it's probably some atheist organisation which proves that atheism is a religion. Or something like that.

http://god-does-exist.org/2014/12/06/secret-goals-of-secular-humanism/



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2015 02:07AM by rt.

rt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knowing the OP, it's probably some atheist
> organisation which proves that atheism is a
> religion. Or something like that.

My first reaction, too.

So, Tal, are you going to come clean about what this is a "description" of? So we can determine how accurate your "description" was?

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, Tal, are you going to come clean about what
> this is a "description" of? So we can determine
> how accurate your "description" was?

The descriptions are on the website I linked to.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2015 11:35AM by rt.

rt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The descriptions are on the website I linked to.

OK, except those *aren't* an accurate description of secular humanism. They're a straw-man version, from a "god does exist" site that's trying to discredit secular humanism and encourage people to believe nonsense.

At any rate, secular humanism isn't a religion, so my assessment of even the incorrect description was valid.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK, except those *aren't* an accurate description
> of secular humanism. They're a straw-man version,
> from a "god does exist" site that's trying to
> discredit secular humanism and encourage people to
> believe nonsense.

Well, it wouldn't be Tal's thread if its premise wasn't based on a straw man, would it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2015 11:51AM by rt.

I agree,rt. The OP is specifically describing the AHA, which has a religious Humanist division that runs their celebrant ministry to provide alternative ceremonies to traditional religious weddings, memorial services, etc. I am a "minister" in this organization.

The AHA dropped the religious tax exempt classification years ago, but has retained their educational tax exempt classification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Humanist_Association

it's a religion.

It also sounded upon reading like the british government's current 'education' policy.

The signifier for me of religion is faith, faith in something. What is the faith aspect of X? Is it faith in the leader to answer all questions because he touches some kind of supernatural source of answers, or does he answer all questions because he's a really competent researcher? If the former, then I think it's a religion, an authoritarian cult centered on a charismatic central figure.

https://books.google.com/books?id=RWsoAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA237&lpg=PA237&dq=Precursors+to+an+American+Collapse&source=bl&ots=-TgsCjt-sY&sig=ZTGPHrl3t5crsru1m8h7FBp29EA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6xI5VY7-EcvooASpv4DoDg&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Precursors%20to%20an%20American%20Collapse&f=false

...as soon as I am finished, I'll take the test.

It has a founder and describes itself using a mish-mash of buzz words. Sounds like religion.

Sounds like a Cult masquerading as a religion, so I would say "not religion."

As I stated above, the OP is specifically describing the American Humanist Association.

The first Humanist Manifesto, written in 1933, describes humanism as a "new religion" and as "a religious movement meant to transcend and replace previous, deity-based systems."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto_I

Several early organizations later evolved into the AHA, which was organized in 1941. As I stated before, the AHA is recognized as a tax exempt educational organization.

Given that, I'm not sure what the OP's point is.

Polysemic Religion

It's fascinating, human minister, that what you call the AHA has been called by other posters here "a mish-mash of buzz words", "a Cult masquerading as a religion", possibly "an authoritarian cult centered on a charismatic central figure", and wildy (and I think accurately) sounding "like the british government's current 'education' policy", perhaps something similar to "scientology" or at the least to "a religion."

(The point: yes, religion is Protean, not protein.)

Human

Religion.

Any group that creates a feeling of elitism, or us vs them, mentality is dangerously tied to religion and for that reason I say this group is religious in principles if not nature.

Tal Bachman Wrote:
----------------------------------------
>
'No god will save us,' declared our
> founder (my note: let's call him "ABC"), 'we must
> save ourselves.' Adherents of X seek to develop
> and improve their ethical principles by examining
> the results they yield in the lives of real men
> and women."

The quote here is found in the Humanist Manifesto II, written in 1973 which states: "No deity will save us; we must save ourselves."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto_II

And I'm guessing Paul Kurtz is your mysterious founder, "ABC."

Info on Paul Kurtz:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kurtz

Here, let me impress upon you and your wanting mind my interpretations and beliefs about the world, let me teach you how and what to think according to my views …

Definitely a religion.

It may be a religion, but not one I want anything to do with. Too much is pre-decided for you.

But can’t you do this exercise with just about any human mental concept?

Neo-classical economics … placing nature into a meat grinder to produce imaginary money, and infinite growth projected onto a finite system.
A religion?

Nationalism … we are helping the world by impressing our so very smart applications of life onto other less-evolved barbarian cultures.
A religion?

Consumerism?
Education systems?

Religions of moulded thought, with arbitrary interpretations of right and wrong and better than, and taught ways to 'be'?