Atheists religions; a rose by another name

Not exactly. Not the government per se. U.S. nationalism is quasi-religious, and patriotism in general has rudimentary religious aspects. The government is, of course, the body of persons directing the national community. Government officials may be, and typically are, promoters of patriotism thru national holidays, patriotic ceremonies, etc., along with private political actors who have interests in promoting it. But the organization we call the government itself--i.e., the officials--is relatively lacking in meaningful religious characteristics--i.e.:
(1) Relatively lacking in a common sustained spirituality. Many of the officials are very nonspiritual in their values, often concerned with their own careers, tenure and advancement above all else. Significant numbers of Americans don't feel an emotional sense of devotion or connection to the government per se, nor consider it a source of meaning in their lives, but they love their country anyway.
(2) it is relatively lacking in a shared creed in any meaningful sense--partisan divisions often over-riding concern for the country as a whole. The population as a whole is divided on a wide range of basic issues concerning government. (Even democracy and devotion to the Constitution are no longer common beliefs). My own strong sense of patriotism is to the that document and the republic--"one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"; but I fear that may no longer be typical. Our prevailing competing ideologies have tended to center on favorable (liberal) versus unfavorable (conservative) views of government and its proper role.
(3) there is relatively little sense of community within "the government", because the country is highly pluralistic and competing sub-group loyalties to constituencies take precedence over country for many elected officials. That waxes and wanes with outside threats--World War II, the Cold War and 9/11 bringing about a sense of unity that dissipated after the perceived common danger.

Members of the national community who make up the national community ordinarily share a common devotion to their country and feel patriotic sentiments that can be considered quasi-religious. ("America, Love it or leave it!". "My country, right or wrong! U.S.A.! God Bless America! etc.). But as was the case in Weimar Germany after World War I, the devotion of many citizens is mainly to country and nation, not to the government and/or its politicians and bureaucrats.

This debate is becoming tedious. I get the point. With sufficient ingenuity, it's possible to stretch the meaning of words so that they become meaningless. Ordinarily, we use judgment in applying terms. For example, I've said that the atheist group I attend isn't a religion. But with more determination, I could make it one. We meet and eat together (community?), at scheduled times (ritual?) to discuss religion (creed?) and basically have a common moral/ethical values which we share with the rest of society (code?) But in my judgement it would be meaningless and misleading to do so. Apart from the monthly meeting, we have no other contact and apart from an interest in religion, nothing in particular in common. I'm a church-going Christian, and they know that. We have no opening and closing rituals, unlike other atheist groups I've been involved in. And we don't have a common understanding or agreement on the readings--just critical discussion. If we really put our minds to it, we could probably argue that HF is a religion in the same sense. But I think most of us, using our judgment, can distinguish between that kind of group and the American Humanist Society or the North Texas Church of Freethought. Then, too, I've cited a number of scholars who seem to have arrived at conclusions similar to my own--and even law cases. So I think I've made a prima facie case that atheism can be (but usually isn't) a religion.

I do sense a strong resistance to this idea that goes beyond the facts and arguments. I wonder why? Is it because of such a strong attachment to atheism and aversion to religion, that you consider it unthinkable that any atheist could also be religious in any real sense? Or perhaps you're aware that various right wing legal eagles have been trying to argue that because the Supreme Court has found secular humanism to be a religion, that can be used to challenge things like the teaching of evolution, LGBTQ issues, etc., in the classroom on grounds that it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Their efforts to make that linkage are as strained as your own arguments that atheism can't possibly ever ever ever be a religion. And the courts ordinarily use judgment in separating sound from specious analogies. (Depending on the outcome of the election tomorrow, that may change)! Faced with the choice of saying that nothing can be a religion unless it meets traditional concepts of the Old Time Religion and the alternative of noticing strong similarities between traditional religions and other phenomena, I think more can be gained in a concept of religion that can accommodate the latter alternative.

 

It goes without saying

I see. Category1. Convinced at the start that religion=Old Time Religion ; atheism=Old Time Atheism. "As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be!" Further discussion futile.

Good talking to you, as always.

 

I'll take 'things that never happened' for 100 Alex!