# The Atheist Religion - Part 3 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 14, 2000, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-religion-part-3/17447 "2000-01-14T22:27:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Glitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/0ea827/32.png) [@Glitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Glitch)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2000, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-religion-part-3/17447/21 "2000-01-17T06:25:00Z")
It is amazing to discover just how much something affect your life even if you never fully realized it. I originally read a translation of the Bushido about 17 years ago. I am sure I must have re-read it since then but I don’t recall when. Anyway I picked up a pick Friday “Code of the Samurai: A Modern Translation of the Bushido Shoshinshu of Taira Shigesuke” by Thomas Cleary. > [@](#): > > Right and wrong mean good and evil. Right is good, wrong is evil. Ordomary people are not totally devoid of understanding of good and evil, right and wrong, but they find it boring and tiresome to act rightly and strive for goodness. Acting wrongly and behaving badly is fun and familiar, so they drift towards things that are wrong and bad… > > The complete moron who cannot distinguish good and bad … is not even worth talking about. … This is the epitome of the immaturity of modern times. Its origins might be attributed to lack of endurance in people. … > > Now then, there are three ways of doing right. > > … truly done right. > … done right out of a sense of shame. > … do right out of shame in relationship to others. > > … the practice of doing right begins with the fear of being disrespected … then advances to refraining from doing wrong … for fear of incurring the shame of being censured and ridiculed by society at large… > > So when it comes to doing right and being courageous, there is nothing to go on but a sense of shame. If you do wrong, unconcerned that people will say it is wrong, or if you are cowardly without caring that people will laught at you for spinelessness, there is nothing anyone can teach you. No if you compare this to my views on atheistic morality, i.e. that people do good because it makes them feel proud and confident, but they avoid doing bad because it makes them feel bad and unable to look in the mirror, the similarity is obvious! The part about morality and endurance is very similar to my comments on the Spirit of Osu! Wild to think that something I read so long ago affected my current thoughts so much. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2000, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-religion-part-3/17447/22 "2000-01-17T06:43:00Z")
Seems natural to me, Glitch. Most of us don’t recognize our own biases. Heck, some of us won’t even admit that we _have_ any biases. But that’s the nature of the beast. A bias, once acquired, makes itself at home, becomes a part of you, and sort of says, “don’t mind me.” Sometimes it stays around for a long long time, and sometimes it is a good thing. All discrimination is not bad. How long have you been into martial arts? ---
**Author:** ![Glitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/0ea827/32.png) [@Glitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Glitch)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2000, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-religion-part-3/17447/23 "2000-01-17T06:48:00Z")
I have been a martial arts student for 22 years. 17 years of that I spent teaching (14 years in my own dojo). ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2000, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-religion-part-3/17447/24 "2000-01-27T15:29:00Z")
Libertarian: I suggest you pick up this month’s (Ok, labeled “February”) _Discover_ magazine. It has an article about apes, morals, empathy, etc. I think you would be interested in it. While I’m on a related subject and resurrecting this thread, the current (Jan. 31) _U.S. News & World Report_ has a feature article on various conceptions of Hell – how a lot of people are now viewing it as permanent separation from God as opposed to fire and brimstone. * * * Ignorance is Bliss. Reality is Better. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2000, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-religion-part-3/17447/25 "2000-01-28T06:34:00Z")
Thanks, David. I used to like that mag. I read the teaser on their site. I assume you mean “Polly wanna PhD?”. * * * I still don’t understand why atheists don’t think we’re delusional. I mean, if I were an atheist, I think I might go, “So let me get this straight, you believe, despite what your empirical senses tell you, that there exists this spirit thingy and that you know it, excuse me, him personally?” I might not say anything out loud, just to be nice. But I sure would think they don’t quite have all their oars in the water. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2000, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-religion-part-3/17447/26 "2000-01-28T06:51:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Libertarian: > Thanks, David. I used to like that mag. You don’t any more? Or you just don’t get it any more? > [@](#): > > I read the teaser on their site. I assume you mean “Polly wanna PhD?”. Nope, that’s from the January issue. You’ll need to go to the library or bookstore to get the Feb. issue, as it’s not on their site yet (and they don’t post full articles usually anyway). > [@](#): > > I still don’t understand why atheists don’t think we’re delusional. I mean, if I were an atheist, I think I might go, “So let me get this straight, you believe, despite what your empirical senses tell you, that there exists this spirit thingy and that you know it, excuse me, him personally?” > > I might not say anything out loud, just to be nice. But I sure would think they don’t quite have all their oars in the water. Well… 😉 * * * Ignorance is Bliss. Reality is Better. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2000, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-religion-part-3/17447/27 "2000-01-27T19:09:00Z")
David: Oh, I still like it fine. My sub lapsed, and I just kind of forgot about it. I think it’s a lot better than Omni anyway. When we can dig out of the ice and snow, I’ll pick up an issue. And thanks for being honest. I would have insulted Billy Joel up until the other night, because I’d always thought he came a bit too close to Elton John’s style and substance. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2000, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-religion-part-3/17447/28 "2000-01-27T19:13:00Z")
> [@](#): > > I would have insulted Billy Joel up until the other night, because I’d always thought he came a bit too close to Elton John’s style and substance. Huh? I gotta tell you, you lost me on that one. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2000, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-religion-part-3/17447/29 "2000-01-27T19:16:00Z")
Lib, have you ever heard of sanity being defined by popular opinion? I forget where I read it, but basically if one person believes that Invisible Pink Unicorns exist, they’re insane; if all but one person believes it, the one person who _doesn’t_ is insane. Amazingly, I don’t really have a problem with the idea that people can look at the same thing and draw different conclusions. Heck, there are hundreds of different philosophies out there. While I think I am correct, I accept that I am not necessarily in possesion of The Truth©. Honestly, the older I get the less I care about people’s abstract beliefs and philosophical systems; I only care if they seem to impede/help the health, well-being, honesty, kindness and morality of that person. I would not call a theist deluded, but perhaps mistaken; and I count it entirely possible that I am mistaken too. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2000, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-religion-part-3/17447/30 "2000-01-27T19:23:00Z")
David: _Island Girl_ and _Uptown Girl_ is one example that comes to mind. Gaudere: Okay. You probably told me this long ago, but after getting to know you better, I might understand better. Would you just explain briefly why you’re not considered an agnostic rather than an atheist? ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2000, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-religion-part-3/17447/31 "2000-01-27T19:30:00Z")
I keep this link bookmarked because it comes up so often: [http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html#atheisms](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html#atheisms) I am a soft atheist, which means I lack beleif in God but do not deny that I could be mistaken. I just think the possibility is very, very low. It’s kind of a toss-up as to whether to use the term atheist or agnostic, but since I can say whole-heartedly that I lack belief in any sort of supreme metaphysical being, I figure “atheist” is the best description. If I used the term “agnostic” I think people would expect me to have no opinion on the existence/non-existence of God at all, when clearly I do have an opinion. Most of the atheists here are “soft atheists”, BTW; I think Sake might be the only exception. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2000, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-religion-part-3/17447/32 "2000-01-27T19:39:00Z")
…And I’m sorry, my disclaimer about not knowing The Truth is revoked for this one thing: Billy Joel rules! I like Elton, though, too. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2000, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-religion-part-3/17447/33 "2000-01-27T19:41:00Z")
Gaudere said: > [@](#): > > Lib, have you ever heard of sanity being defined by popular opinion? I forget where I read it, but basically if one person believes that Invisible Pink Unicorns exist, they’re insane; if all but one person believes it, the one person who _doesn’t_ is insane. In the book _Battling the Inner Dummy_, David Weiner makes a case that _everybody_ is a little insane in certain areas. I don’t necessarily disagree. (Well, except me, of course. 😉 ) Lib, I still have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. More specifically, why are you bringing up Billy Joel and Elton John at all? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2000, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-religion-part-3/17447/34 "2000-01-27T19:48:00Z")
Gaudere: Interesting article, and very informative, thanks. I wish I had a good label for myself. Arg asked me my denomination, and I just told him to call me an Objectivist Christian. That should piss off both Ayn Rand and Jerry Falwell! 🙂 One thing from the article I noticed was the denial that atheism is a religion. Okay, I get his (or her) point, but for whatever it’s worth (and that’s probably not much), I recall that the Supreme Court in effect ruled at least once that atheism is a religion when it is used to claim rights (as if rights must _be_ claimed, but that’s another topic) under the first amendment. I’ve looked it up before, but it took something like all day. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2000, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-religion-part-3/17447/35 "2000-01-27T19:53:00Z")
I think you’re right, Lib; David probably has more information on that. I would say atheism is not a religion, but if the Supreme Court decides it has to call it one to keep other people from stomping all over our rights, well, what can we do? We can’t even get “In God We Trust” off the money. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2000, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-religion-part-3/17447/36 "2000-01-27T19:59:00Z")
Don’t know for sure if it was the Supreme Court, but some court did rule atheism to be a religion. But, as Gaudere noted, the courts “think” “In God We Trust” isn’t religious, and Christmas isn’t a Christian holiday, so what the hell do they know? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2000, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-religion-part-3/17447/37 "2000-01-27T20:00:00Z")
Clarification: Gaudere didn’t “note” those things – she made an allusion to the coins one and that’s it. Yeah, I know, you could look directly above and see it, but I wanted to make sure to clarify. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2000, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-religion-part-3/17447/38 "2000-01-27T20:01:00Z")
David: > [@](#): > > Lib, I still have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. More specifically, why are you bringing up Billy Joel and Elton John at all? Gosh, I’m sorry. I guess I think a lot faster than I type. You must have thought I was insane. I hated Billy Joel since, oh, forever. With the notable exception of _Piano Man_, I just thought that he had always pretty much taken Elton John type chord sequences, rehashed them, altered the melody slightly, and released them as his own. But there was a special on PBS the other night about music. I’m not a PhD in music, or anything, but I have studied it about as much as a layman can. Music, math, logic — it’s all the same thing. Anyway, the special dealt with some interesting aspects of music theory that are some of my favorites, like harmony, scales, genres, and so on. A _lot_ of musicians were interviewed for their opinions and contributions. They all have varying skills and training in music. Paul McCartney, for instance, was a moron, and pretty much admitted it. “Duh, what?” was about all he had to say most of the time. But to my utter surprise, Billy Joel was not only familiar with advanced music theory, he was eloquent and interesting about it. He even explained a couple of things that had confused me in a way that I now understand them. (For instance, blues is not predicated on the dominate seventh, but on the minor third. [!!!]) So obviously, I was wrong. I thought Billy Joel was just an Elton John knock-off, incapable of composing his own orginal music. But now I know that he is a capable musician with great skill and knowledge. So, like I say, as an atheist, I might be prone to think theists are nuts, but if I were to haul off and insult them, they might turn out to be like Billy Joel was to me until the other night. You know, it’s kinda like Captain Kirk and the T’ur. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2000, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-religion-part-3/17447/39 "2000-01-27T21:05:00Z")
I think I found it. I hope it will be readable. I don’t think there’s a copyright on it or anything. Case Name: UNITED STATES V. SEEGER 380 U.S. 163 NO. 50. ARGUED NOVEMBER 16-17, 1964. - DECIDED MARCH 8, 1965.\* - 326 F.2D 846 AND 325 F.2D 409, AFFIRMED; 324 F.2D 173, REVERSED. \*TOGETHER WITH NO. 51, UNITED STATES V. JAKOBSON, ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT, AND NO. 29, PETER V. UNITED STATES, ON CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. THESE THREE CASES INVOLVE THE EXEMPTION CLAIMS UNDER SEC. 6(J) OF THE UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS WHO DID NOT BELONG TO AN ORTHODOX RELIGIOUS SECT. SECTION 6(J) EXCEPTS FROM COMBATANT SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES THOSE WHO ARE CONSCIENTIOUSLY OPPOSED TO PARTICIPATION IN WAR BY REASON OF THEIR “RELIGIOUS TRAINING AND BELIEF,” I.E., BELIEF IN AN INDIVIDUAL’S RELATION TO A SUPREME BEING INVOLVING DUTIES BEYOND A HUMAN RELATIONSHIP BUT NOT ESSENTIALLY POLITICAL, SOCIOLOGICAL, OR PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS OR A MERELY PERSONAL MORAL CODE. IN ALL THE CASES CONVICTIONS WERE OBTAINED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS FOR REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO INDUCTION IN THE ARMED FORCES; IN NOS. 50 AND 51 THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND IN NO. 29 THE CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED. HELD: 1. THE TEST OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EXEMPTION IN SEC. 6(J) IS WHETHER IT IS A SINCERE AND MEANINGFUL BELIEF OCCUPYING IN THE LIFE OF ITS POSSESSOR A PLACE PARALLEL TO THAT FILLED BY THE GOD OF THOSE ADMITTEDLY QUALIFIED FOR THE EXEMPTION. PP. 173-180. (A) THE EXEMPTION DOES NOT COVER THOSE WHO OPPOSE WAR FROM A MERELY PERSONAL MORAL CODE NOR THOSE WHO DECIDE THAT WAR IS WRONG ON THE BASIS OF ESSENTIALLY POLITICAL, SOCIOLOGICAL OR ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS RATHER THAN RELIGIOUS BELIEF. P. 173. (B) THERE IS NO ISSUE HERE OF ATHEISTIC BELIEFS AND ACCORDINGLY THE DECISION DOES NOT DEAL WITH THAT QUESTION. PP. 173-174. © THIS TEST ACCORDS WITH LONG-ESTABLISHED LEGISLATIVE POLICY OF EQUAL TREATMENT FOR THOSE WHOSE OBJECTION TO MILITARY SERVICE IS BASED ON RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. PP. 177-180. 1. LOCAL BOARDS AND COURTS ARE TO DECIDE WHETHER THE OBJECTOR’S BELIEFS ARE SINCERELY HELD AND WHETHER THEY ARE, IN HIS OWN SCHEME OF THINGS, RELIGIOUS; THEY ARE NOT TO REQUIRE PROOF OF THE RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES NOR ARE THEY TO REJECT BELIEFS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT COMPREHENSIBLE. PP. 184-185. 2. UNDER THE BROAD CONSTRUCTION APPLICABLE TO SEC. 6(J) THE APPLICATIONS INVOLVED IN THESE CASES, NONE OF WHICH WAS BASED ON MERELY PERSONAL MORAL CODES, QUALIFIED FOR EXEMPTION. PP. 185-188. UNITED STATES V. SEEGER. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. THESE CASES INVOLVE CLAIMS OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS UNDER SEC. 6(J) OF THE UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 456(J) (1958 ED.), WHICH EXEMPTS FROM COMBATANT TRAINING AND SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES THOSE PERSONS WHO BY REASON OF THEIR RELIGIOUS TRAINING AND BELIEF ARE CONSCIENTIOUSLY OPPOSED TO PARTICIPATION IN WAR IN ANY FORM. THE CASES WERE CONSOLIDATED FOR ARGUMENT AND WE CONSIDER THEM TOGETHER ALTHOUGH EACH INVOLVES DIFFERENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. THE PARTIES RAISE THE BASIC QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE SECTION WHICH DEFINES THE TERM “RELIGIOUS TRAINING AND BELIEF,” AS USED IN THE ACT, AS “AN INDIVIDUAL’S BELIEF IN A RELATION TO A SUPREME BEING INVOLVING DUTIES SUPERIOR TO THOSE ARISING FROM ANY HUMAN RELATION BUT NOT INCLUDING ESSENTIALLY POLITICAL, SOCIOLOGICAL, OR PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS OR A MERELY PERSONAL MORAL CODE.” THE CONSTITUTIONAL ATTACK IS LAUNCHED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT’S ESTABLISHMENT AND FREE EXERCISE CLAUSES AND IS TWOFOLD: (1) THE SECTION DOES NOT EXEMPT NONRELIGIOUS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS; AND (2) IT DISCRIMINATES BETWEEN DIFFERENT FORMS OF RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. JAKOBSON (NO. 51) AND PETER (NO. 29) ALSO CLAIM THAT THEIR BELIEFS COME WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECTION. JAKOBSON CLAIMS THAT HE MEETS THE STANDARDS OF SEC. 6(J) BECAUSE HIS OPPOSITION TO WAR IS BASED ON BELIEF IN A SUPREME REALITY AND IS THEREFORE AN OBLIGATION SUPERIOR TO ONE RESULTING FROM MAN’S RELATIONSHIP TO HIS FELLOW MAN. PETER CONTENDS THAT HIS OPPOSITION TO WAR DERIVES FROM HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF A UNIVERSAL POWER BEYOND THAT OF MAN AND THAT THIS ACCEPTANCE IN FACT CONSTITUTES BELIEF IN A SUPREME BEING, QUALIFYING HIM FOR EXEMPTION. WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN EACH OF THE CASES BECAUSE OF THEIR IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT. 377 U.S. 922. WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT CONGRESS, IN USING THE EXPRESSION “SUPREME BEING” RATHER THAN THE DESIGNATION “GOD,” WAS MERELY CLARIFYING THE MEANING OF RELIGIOUS TRAINING AND BELIEF SO AS TO EMBRACE ALL RELIGIONS AND TO EXCLUDE ESSENTIALLY POLITICAL, SOCIOLOGICAL, OR PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS. WE BELIEVE THAT UNDER THIS CONSTRUCTION, THE TEST OF BELIEF “IN A RELATION TO A SUPREME BEING” IS WHETHER A GIVEN BELIEF THAT IS SINCERE AND MEANINGFUL OCCUPIES A PLACE IN THE LIFE OF ITS POSSESSOR PARALLEL TO THAT FILLED BY THE ORTHODOX BELIEF IN GOD OF ONE WHO CLEARLY QUALIFIES FOR THE EXEMPTION. WHERE SUCH BELIEFS HAVE PARALLEL POSITIONS IN THE LIVES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE HOLDERS WE CANNOT SAY THAT ONE IS “IN A RELATION TO A SUPREME BEING” AND THE OTHER IS NOT. WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE BELIEFS OF THE OBJECTORS IN THESE CASES MEET THESE CRITERIA, AND, ACCORDINGLY, WE AFFIRM THE JUDGMENTS IN NOS. 50 AND 51 AND REVERSE THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 29. ``` THE FACTS IN THE CASES. ``` NO. 50: SEEGER WAS CONVICTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK OF HAVING REFUSED TO SUBMIT TO INDUCTION IN THE ARMED FORCES. HE WAS ORIGINALLY CLASSIFIED 1-A IN 1953 BY HIS LOCAL BOARD, BUT THIS CLASSIFICATION WAS CHANGED IN 1955 TO 2-S (STUDENT) AND HE REMAINED IN THIS STATUS UNTIL 1958 WHEN HE WAS RECLASSIFIED 1-A. HE FIRST CLAIMED EXEMPTION AS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR IN 1957 AFTER SUCCESSIVE ANNUAL RENEWALS OF HIS STUDENT CLASSIFICATION. ALTHOUGH HE DID NOT ADOPT VERBATIM THE PRINTED SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM FORM, HE DECLARED THAT HE WAS CONSCIENTIOUSLY OPPOSED TO PARTICIPATION IN WAR IN ANY FORM BY REASON OF HIS “RELIGIOUS” BELIEF; THAT HE PREFERRED TO LEAVE THE QUESTION AS TO HIS BELIEF IN A SUPREME BEING OPEN, “RATHER THAN ANSWER ‘YES’ OR ‘NO’”; THAT HIS “SKEPTICISM OR DISBELIEF IN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD” DID “NOT NECESSARILY MEAN LACK OF FAITH IN ANYTHING WHATSOEVER”; THAT HIS WAS A “BELIEF IN AND DEVOTION TO GOODNESS AND VIRTUE FOR THEIR OWN SAKES, AND A RELIGIOUS FAITH IN A PURELY ETHICAL CREED.” R. 69-70, 73. HE CITED SUCH PERSONAGES AS PLATO, ARISTOTLE AND SPINOZA FOR SUPPORT OF HIS ETHICAL BELIEF IN INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL INTEGRITY “WITHOUT BELIEF IN GOD, EXCEPT IN THE REMOTEST SENSE.” R. 73. HIS BELIEF WAS FOUND TO BE SINCERE, HONEST, AND MADE IN GOOD FAITH; AND HIS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TO BE BASED UPON INDIVIDUAL TRAINING AND BELIEF, BOTH OF WHICH INCLUDED RESEARCH IN RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL FIELDS. SEEGER’S CLAIM, HOWEVER, WAS DENIED SOLELY BECAUSE IT WAS NOT BASED UPON A “BELIEF IN A RELATION TO A SUPREME BEING” AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 6(J) OF THE ACT. AT TRIAL SEEGER’S COUNSEL ADMITTED THAT SEEGER’S BELIEF WAS NOT IN RELATION TO A SUPREME BEING AS COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD, BUT CONTENDED THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO THE EXEMPTION BECAUSE “UNDER THE PRESENT LAW MR. SEEGER’S POSITION WOULD ALSO INCLUDE DEFINITIONS OF RELIGION WHICH HAVE BEEN STATED MORE RECENTLY,” R. 49, AND COULD BE “ACCOMMODATED” UNDER THE DEFINITION OF RELIGIOUS TRAINING AND BELIEF IN THE ACT, R. 53. HE WAS CONVICTED AND THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING THAT THE SUPREME BEING REQUIREMENT ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2000, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-religion-part-3/17447/40 "2000-01-27T21:24:00Z")
I don’t think that’s it, Lib (as near as I can tell from trying to wade through all those caps; oh, my poor head). “NONE COMES TO US AN AVOWEDLY IRRELIGIOUS PERSON OR AS AN ATHEIST”…so atheism is explicitly rejected. They seem to object to a purely personal moral system as cause for a conscientious objector exemption, but will accept a belief in some sort of “supremeness”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-religion-part-3/17447.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-atheist-religion-part-3/17447.md?page=3)