RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion

RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 2:07:35 PM)
quote: All the 1st does is protect EVERYONE from establishment of a Federal religion, so to that extent it protects the religious, agnostics and atheists. Not quite. That is the case with the "establishment clause", it not only protects against the establishment of a Federal religion, it also prohibits the banning of a particular religion, as any such law would, by definition be "respecting the establishment of religion", allowing or prohibiting any religion is outside the pervue of the Government. And, if you read a little further.... quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof This second clause is where your right to practice your religion comes from, and that is the clause in play in this particular case.

Real0ne -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 2:13:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: All the 1st does is protect EVERYONE from establishment of a Federal religion, so to that extent it protects the religious, agnostics and atheists. Not quite. That is the case with the "establishment clause", it not only protects against the establishment of a Federal religion, it also prohibits the banning of a particular religion, as any such law would, by definition be "respecting the establishment of religion", allowing or prohibiting any religion is outside the pervue of the Government. And, if you read a little further.... quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof This second clause is where your right to practice your religion comes from, and that is the clause in play in this particular case. but it is ignored! the right to exercize your religion ends at their atheist deMOBcracy policy and and many people have taken both maxims of law and their religion (Christian and otherwise) into court as "their" personal governing law and they got creamed! On appeal, creamed! Institutionalized atheist deMobcracy policy IS the only thing that the courts will "allow", hence destroying ALL culture creating the melting pot into atheistic police state penal society. quote: PREAMBLE We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, form a more perfect government, insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare, do establish this constitution. ARTICLE I. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS Equality; inherent rights. SECTION 1. [As amended Nov. 1982 and April 1986] All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain *inherent (NOT certain unalienable* "rights" as declared in the DOI, but CIVIL privileges called-rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. [1979 J.R. 36, 1981 J.R. 29, vote Nov. 1982; 1983 J.R. 40, 1985 J.R. 21, vote April 1986] Freedom of worship; liberty of conscience; state religion; public funds. SECTION 18. [As amended Nov. 1982] The right of every person to worship (NOT exercise!), Almighty God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any person be compelled to attend, erect or support any place ofworship, or to maintain any ministry, without consent; nor shall any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship; (that includes individuals! ) nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or religious or theological seminaries. [1979 J.R. 36, 1981 J.R. 29, vote Nov. 1982] I dont remember having the opportunity to vote on any of that crap! Take note that there is NO MENTION OF FREEDOM TO EXERCIZE! and rather than acknowledge all religions they instead say fuck religions, the state is aitheist and will recognize NO RELIGION. Talk about a mind fuck contradiction of terms. The dictates of conscience are given mere lip service because YOUR governing law of conscience cannot be heard in a government court because they interprested that to mean "preference be given by law"!** So rather than to hear cases where each culture can bring in their law and unalienable rights and live life by their own conscience it is simply ignored and purely bullshit and the atheist police state will take you out one way or another. Financially ruin you, put you in jail and if you stick your nose into taxation or banks, you will be fertilizer.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 2:23:54 PM)
quote: What he said was that the meaning of the word "atheism" is much more complicated than the definition given in many dictionaries And that's where he is redefining the word, because the meaning really isn't very complicated, people are just making it so in order to further their arguments. It's a very simple word with a very simple meaning, there's nothing complicated about it really. Go back and look at all the various definitions I posted here and look at the common theme of all the definitions without trying to parse the hidden meaning in the exact wording of each definition. That is what "atheism" means. If you want to buy into all this strong/weak atheism bunkum, fine. I don't. Strong atheism is just atheism, and weak atheism doesn't exist. That is a perfect example of redefining the word to make it fit an agenda. And no, I am not acting as a self-appointed expert, because I am not giving interviews and lecturing people on what my particular take on atheism is, and I haven't chosen any definition, I have looked at a large number of them and seen what the word means based on the consensus of those different wordings. As to others twisting things to try prove a point, well a certain Iberian fellow has been doing exactly that. I haven't, to my knowledge, twisted anything, or at least that hasn't been my intent, but if somebody perceives what I've said as having done so, well so be it. I simply have no interest in arguing over the precise meanings of words we all know the meaning of. That's a pointless exercise that will go nowhere, and that is the entire purpose of those who bring it up, to obscure and distract, to pull the discussion away from the actual point and to focus it on an unresolvable irrelevancy.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 2:27:25 PM)
quote: Before we go any further We've gone as far as we're going to. There's nothing further about Cline's opinions to discuss. If Cline wants to come on here and express himself directly I'll talk to him, but I have no real interest in discussing some random guy who happens to be an atheist's opinions second or third hand. There are plenty of atheists posting on here who's opinions I can discuss first hand if I want an opinion on what atheism is or isn't.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 2:40:20 PM)
quote: Would it be safe to say that you do not consider irreligion (what i call agnosticism) to be a religion, or even a belief? First of all, agnosticism is not the same as what I am referring to as irreligion, which is why I have used that word, specifically to differentiate between the two. Agnosticism holds that one either does not have, or cannot have the knowledge to answer the question. Irreligion simply never asks the question. Irreligion, as I am using the word, means the complete lack of any opinion whatsoever, even saying that one doesn't know is an opinion. Do you see the difference? So, by definition, the 2nd clause of the 1st amendment has no bearing on an irreligious person as there is nothing for such a person to practice, though, upon reflection, I suppose it could be said that it protects such a person's choice to practice nothing and to have no opinions on the subject whatsoever.

Real0ne -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 2:52:35 PM)
FR and lets keep in mind that the dictionary does not give the meanings of words, but the common usage of the time! The true meaning of the word comes from the roots and etymology structure and stems etc.... Case in point 100 years ago gay was happy now its homosexual, holocaust was a burnt offering to God now its genocide, land ownership was feudal tenure (subinfeudination), now its substitution grantor grantee, all by creative characterization to start and promote agenda's of one nature or another to circumvent and defeat the beliefs of conscience. Its well known that its common practice for attorneys to lie in court without repercussion! Its allowed to go on even though the judege as t"trustee" is sworn to protect everyones rights. How can an atheist swear to tell the truth in court? This has been the way of the elite to trap those less educated to stay one step ahead of them in the courts and of course that means lots of taxation and nice sit on their ass do nothing income that the dummys happily give them because they cannot afford to fight it in court. Ever wonder why top judges are "appointed" not elected? Ever wonder why the judicial is a branch of government (control) and not separate? Ever wonder why the government makes perpetual oath to itself for its own survival? things to ponder.

Kirata -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 2:56:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather And, if you read a little further.... quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof This second clause is where your right to practice your religion comes from, and that is the clause in play in this particular case. Actually, the Free Exercise Clause is precisely NOT the clause in play here. Kaufman argues that the defendants’ refusal to permit him to meet with other atheist inmates to study and discuss their beliefs violates the Free Exercise Clause... In the context of the Free Exercise Clause, Kaufman must first establish that his right to practice atheism was burdened in a significant way... He failed utterly to do so. Kaufman introduced no evidence showing that he would be unable to practice atheism effectively without the benefit of a weekly study group. The defendants apparently allow him to study atheist literature on his own, consult informally with other atheist inmates, and correspond with members of the atheist groups he identified, and Kaufman offered nothing to suggest that these alternatives are inadequate. The decision turned on the Establishment Clause: The same is not true with respect to Kaufman’s Establishment Clause claim. A government policy or practice violates the Establishment Clause if (1) it has no secular purpose, (2) its primary effect advances or inhibits religion, or (3) it fosters an excessive entanglement with religion... The Establishment Clause also prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another without a legitimate secular reason... It is undisputed that other religious groups are permitted to meet at Kaufman’s prison, and the defendants have advanced no secular reason why the security concerns they cited as a reason to deny his request for an atheist group do not apply equally to gatherings of Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or Wiccan inmates... We therefore vacate the grant of summary judgment in the defendants’ favor on Kaufman’s claim under the Establishment Clause and remand for further proceedings. GotSteel posted the reference earlier in the thread, and I repeat it here: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/C4176HER.pdf K.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 3:00:25 PM)
Thanks for the clarification, I don't really remember the details of the decision any more. I was wrong in which clause was applicable.

Real0ne -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 3:03:18 PM)
interestingly" The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion. Now they cannot escape secular also being the establishment of a religion. quote: It is undisputed that other religious groups are permitted to meet at Kaufman’s prison, and the defendants have advanced no secular reason The only possible way for a government to be legitimate is in an advisory capacity, (with exception to injury/wrong to persons or equity), the rest left the rest should be left of to "jury courts" being avised by learned judges demoted to ministers or advisors. Makes me wish I was 20 again, cant wait to see how this shakes out if people actually continue to push for their "unalienable" rights, the rights of Kings and Queens rather than civil slavery we have now.

gungadin09 -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 3:29:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather ... the meaning really isn't very complicated, people are just making it so in order to further their arguments. Out of curiosity, what argument do you think i'm trying to further by claiming that atheism is complicated? i don't have a dog in this fight. i've already said that i'm happy that the court decided to let this guy form his group. i have no interest in defining atheism in a certain way. Actually, scratch that, i do. As a matter of fact, i would like the Constitution to protect atheists, agnostics, conscientious objectors, Zen Buddhists, etc., and so i have an interest in proving that it does. However, it's not a question of what i would like to believe, but whether the Constitution actually says that. Like you, i am trying to examine the words to see what they really mean. It's a very simple word with a very simple meaning, there's nothing complicated about it really. Go back and look at all the various definitions I posted here ...and THAT is exactly what i mean by picking and choosing definitions to suit your own purposes. Do you think i couldn't pull just as many definitions that would give the same definition as the Oxford Dictionary? That's the whole point. It's a complicated issue, and there are various valid points of view. and look at the common theme of all the definitions without trying to parse the hidden meaning in the exact wording of each definition. i call it like i see it, and in this case i see it as "there are a number of distinct definitions of the word atheism that have merit". Crazyml said to me earlier, I envy you your clarity when it comes to the word "belief". i might as well say to you, i envy you your clarity when it comes to the words "religion" and "atheism". i'm glad it is that clear for you, but if i've learned anything from this thread it's that: it is NOT that clear to everyone else. In fact, there is a great deal of dispute over the exact meaning of those words. If it really were as simple and as clear as you say, there would not have been pages and pages of argument over those definitions. Obviously it's not that simple. That is what "atheism" means. If you want to buy into all this strong/weak atheism bunkum, fine. I don't. i buy into the idea that there can be more than one valid definition of a word, as well as more than one valid point of view. i buy into the idea that there are a number of people on this thread whose understanding of religious/philosophical ideas and terms is MUCH more profound than mine is, and that talking down to them only makes ME look ignorant. i also buy into the notion that making things appear simpler than they really are, makes me look ignorant. Strong atheism is just atheism, and weak atheism doesn't exist. That is a perfect example of redefining the word to make it fit an agenda. What agenda do you think that i, or crazyml, or SpanishMatMaster are trying to push by defining atheism in that way? pam

tazzygirl -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 3:32:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: Before we go any further We've gone as far as we're going to. There's nothing further about Cline's opinions to discuss. If Cline wants to come on here and express himself directly I'll talk to him, but I have no real interest in discussing some random guy who happens to be an atheist's opinions second or third hand. There are plenty of atheists posting on here who's opinions I can discuss first hand if I want an opinion on what atheism is or isn't. And this is what I meant when I said dialogue gets closed off. Thank you.

gungadin09 -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 3:43:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather So, by definition, the 2nd clause of the 1st amendment has no bearing on an irreligious person as there is nothing for such a person to practice, though, upon reflection, I suppose it could be said that it protects such a person's choice to practice nothing and to have no opinions on the subject whatsoever.[/color] You have gone to great lengths to prove that atheism must be placed on equal terms as other "religions". That atheism qualifies as a religion, and that NOT affording it the same priveledges as other religions is in fact religious discrimination, and therefore unconstitutional. That that it true because it fits the definition of a religion. Irreligion clearly does NOT fit the definition of a religion. Do you believe that irreligion is protected by the Constitution? ETA: If so, do you feel that defining irreligion as a "religion" stretches the meaning of the word religion at all? pam

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 4:13:55 PM)
quote: Do you believe that irreligion is protected by the Constitution? There's nothing to protect. quote: do you feel that defining irreligion as a "religion" stretches the meaning of the word religion at all Well given that I am using the word "irreligion" in the sense of "without religion", yeah, I'd say its a bit of a stretch.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 4:27:37 PM)
quote: Obviously it's not that simple. It is to me, and that's all that's really important to me. If you, and others have a hard time understanding some very simple concepts, I'm sorry, but these things are very simple, and very obvious to me. Look, nothing said on this thread has altered the meanings of these words, or anybody's opinion as to the meanings of these words.It's a waste of time and effort to argue the meanings when we all know what they mean, Thye problem is that people are fixating on the wording chosen by the dictionary writers and playing constitutional lawyer with dictionaries. There are no hidden meanings or subtle implications in the wording of a dictionary definition. Rather than looking at the wording look at the intent of the definitions, and the way you find the intent is to look at many different wordings and then see what concept fits them all. I didn't cherry pick those definitions, I googled "online dictionary" and just went down the page skipping only the Oxford, because we already had that definition, and my point was to show that one could easily find definitions with different wordings. Anyway, this is the last I am going to say on the meanings of common words. You can define them any way you want, if I feel a word is being used in a way I don't recognize, I'll ask for clarification. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, the definitions issue is a closed one, it's a dead end designed specifically to detract from discussion of the actual question. That's it, that's all.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 4:36:01 PM)
quote: And this is what I meant when I said dialogue gets closed off. Thank you. You're welcome. However, just because you want to discuss Cline's ideas, doesn't in any way oblige me or anybody else to discuss them. Sorry, but I just don't care what he has to say about atheism, because I really couldn't care less one way or another about the perceived intricacies of one man's atheism. It's just another doctrine/viewpoint/philosophy that has no bearing whatsoever on my life, and my interest just isn't piqued enough at the moment to bother. These days I am interested in learning about Zoroastrianism, because that religion's world view is of interest to Cheri, so I am setting out to learn about it and understand it so I can talk about it with her.

Kirata -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 4:36:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gungadin09 Of course strong atheism CAN be considered a religion. It's just that, what is obvious to me is that it's also legitimate NOT to consider it one. Personally, I think people who run around issuing proclamations of fact about the existence or non-existence of God belong on the same ward. K.

FirstQuaker -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 4:37:14 PM)
Freedom of religion generally includes freedom from religion. But this is something Canada is gonna have to deal with in the Dominion's various school systems one of these days, and it likely will not be pretty. Even Toronto, along with it's segragated schools also has its own state funded Catholic schools system, Quebec has divided the masses by if they were French or English speakers in a token replacement of the Catholic/Protestant ones it had. And then there were the residential schools. . . . quote: Each province deals differently with private religious schools. In Ontario the Catholic system continues to be fully publicly funded while other faiths are not. Ontario has several private Jewish, Muslim, and Christian schools all funded through tuition fees. Since the Catholic schools system is entrenched in the constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that this system is constitutional. However, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has ruled that Ontario's system is discriminatory, suggesting that Ontario either fund no faith-based schools, or all of them.[34] In 2002 the government of Mike Harris introduced a controversial program to partially fund all private schools, but this was criticized for undermining the public education system and the program was eliminated after the Liberals won the 2003 provincial election. In other provinces privately operated religious schools are funded. In British Columbia the government pays 50% of the cost of religious schools that meet rigorous provincial standards. The province has a number of Sikh, Hindu, Christian, and Muslim schools. Alberta also has a network of charter schools, which are fully funded schools offering distinct approaches to education within the public school system. Alberta charter schools are not private and the province does not grant charters to religious schools. These schools have to follow the provincial curriculum and meet all standards, but are given considerable freedom in other areas. In all other provinces private religious schools receive some funding, but not as much as the public system. An example of how schools can be divided by religions in Toronto includes the Toronto Catholic District School Board and Toronto District School Board. Religious schools It was not that long ago when all of the provinces had similar religious schools funded by the Crown.

gungadin09 -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 4:40:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: Do you believe that irreligion is protected by the Constitution? There's nothing to protect. If i remember correctly, earlier in the thread you used hiring practices as an example of religious discrimination. i think you said (something to the effect of) the 1st Amendment makes it illegal for a employer to favor a religious candidate over an atheist one. You have also argued that this is true only because atheism can be defined as a religion, and therefore it falls under the protection of the 1st Amendment, which specifically prohibits the favoring of one religion over another. Well, it seems the court is also taking that law to include irreligion, because in the U.S. employers are most certainly prohibited from favoring a religious candidate over an irreligious one. i've never seen such a court case, but i can assure you that that's true. The irreligious are also being protected from religious discrimination under the 1st Amendment. How is that so, unless the court is redefining the term "religion" to include irreligion? pam

Kirata -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 4:40:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather Thanks for the clarification I finally read it only just today... a bit late in the discussion, eh? [:D] K.

tazzygirl -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 4:43:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: And this is what I meant when I said dialogue gets closed off. Thank you. You're welcome. However, just because you want to discuss Cline's ideas, doesn't in any way oblige me or anybody else to discuss them. Sorry, but I just don't care what he has to say about atheism, because I really couldn't care less one way or another about the perceived intricacies of one man's atheism. It's just another doctrine/viewpoint/philosophy that has no bearing whatsoever on my life, and my interest just isn't piqued enough at the moment to bother. These days I am interested in learning about Zoroastrianism, because that religion's world view is of interest to Cheri, so I am setting out to learn about it and understand it so I can talk about it with her. Actually, the original question was posed directly to Got Steel. If you dont wish to discuss this, then dont. My original comment still stands....Once someone feels something is challenged, the dialogue closes. quote: These days I am interested in learning about Zoroastrianism, because that religion's world view is of interest to Cheri, so I am setting out to learn about it and understand it so I can talk about it with her And I am interested in learning more about atheism. to each their own. Im sure someone will come along and help me grasp a better understanding. [:D]

Page: << < prev 19 20 [21] 22 23 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625