Atheism definition merits revision

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and most likely fall spectacularly, because I wish to address an issue concerning something that is not only controversial, but that is almost a dirty word in and of itself: religion.

Here's the issue: last week, the 'Nique reported that SGA passed its joint finance bill, which specifies how student government should allocate the Student Activity Fee, or more simply, who gets money and how much. While I usually gloss over the intricacies of monetary policy-I know nothing about it, I've never even balanced a checkbook, or owned one, come to think of it-one part jumped out at me.

For those as financially illiterate as me, I'll skip the fancy legal jargon and give my layman's interpretation of the clause: because of the separation of church and state, SGA can't fund religious group activities that "support religious worship and proselytizing." However, atheist groups can receive funding because Georgia law prohibits the inclusion of atheist groups in the definition of "church" as it is used in its separation of church and state clauses.

Here's where I take my leap of faith and pray for the best, because I realize that anything having to do with religion is a touchy subject. When I heard about that part of the new policy, it seemed somewhat unfair to me. I understand the separation of church and state, and I won't dispute that; I can also see why an atheist organization would not be classified under "church." But the whole thing still strikes me as funny.

Someone can get state funding to tell people not to believe in God, but can't get funding to tell them to believe in God. On the one hand, there's the promotion of disbelief in God and on the other hand, the promotion of belief in God. It's like looking at two sides of the same coin; aren't they both systems of beliefs?

I suppose it depends on how you define atheism and religion. Atheism is not classified as a religion, but it is religious in nature, and the activities that an atheist organization conducts can also be said to be religious in nature: members hand out tracts explaining what they are, actively try to recruit or convert others to their beliefs (which, by the way, is Webster's definition of proselytize), hold meetings where they discuss their beliefs (or rather, disbeliefs), invite leading proponents of their beliefs to speak at lectures on topics that support their claims, etc.

True, atheism is the very opposite of religion; it is its absence. But consider a color analogy: black is the absence of color, so does that mean it's not a color?

Consider Webster's definition of religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith; could that definition not be applied to atheism as well?

Atheists may not have faith in the traditional sense, but it may be safe to say that they have faith in what they believe, i.e., that there is no God. Don't forget, atheism is considered the official state religion of China, even if we don't classify it as a religion here.

I know this issue goes beyond anything at Tech, because it speaks to the very principle of separation of church and state that this country was founded upon. The first amendment of the Constitution, that most prized guarantor of civil liberties, starts with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The very first right listed is not freedom of speech, or freedom of the press, or the right to assembly, but the right to expect a separation of church and state and freedom of religion. To many people, that right is sacred: there should not be a state religion and people should be free to worship as they please.

But is separation of church and state truly being upheld here? By funding atheist organizations and refusing to fund religious organizations that conduct many of the same activities that atheists do (they hand out tracts, recruit members, hold meetings, invite religious leaders to speak on campus; just substitute "God" or "Allah" or "Krishna" for "lack of deity"), is the state, implying, however implicitly, that it supports atheist organizations and therefore atheism?

If the First Amendment says that the government should not show favoritism to any system of beliefs, doesn't this law show favoritism to atheism?

The entire issue is complex, and honestly, I'm tired of discussing legalities and definitions, and I'm not sure that I'm qualified to figure it out.

There's a lot to consider, but I believe that it should be considered, if only to get people with and without faith talking. These days, it seems like people either tiptoe around anything having to do with religion or have shouting matches about it.

I know it's hard for people of different faiths to discuss their faiths without having it sound like a criticism of others or going on the defensive-and having random people come to campus, professing your faith, tell people they're going to hell and holding "God hates homosexuals" rallies probably doesn't help.

But truth be told, faith, religion, spirituality-whatever you call it-holds a vastly important place in many people's lives, and until we can talk about it without hostility and without being labeled "intolerant" for believing what we do, more sticky issues will go unresolved and unspoken.