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.

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.

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]

quote:

What he said was that the meaning of the word "atheism" is much more complicated than the definition given in many dictionaries

quote:

Before we go any further

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?

quote:

It is undisputed that other religious groups are permitted to meet at Kaufman’s prison, and the defendants have advanced no secular reason

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?

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.

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]

quote:

Do you believe that irreligion is protected by the Constitution?

quote:

do you feel that defining irreligion as a "religion" stretches the meaning of the word religion at all

quote:

Obviously it's not that simple.

quote:

And this is what I meant when I said dialogue gets closed off.

Thank you.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

quote:

Do you believe that irreligion is protected by the Constitution?

There's nothing to protect.

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.

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