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 4:48:01 PM)
quote: Once someone feels something is challenged, the dialogue closes Meh. I suppose, but as nothing was challenged, I don't see how it was an appropriate comment, but whatever, be as right as you want to be, it really doesn't matter because its an irrelevant point. quote: 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. See, I'm not an atheist, so I can't really help you with that.

xssve -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 4:51:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion. While I'm pleased that the court allowed the formation of the study group, I find it difficult to imagine what else besides a Deity could occupy "a place parallel to that filled by God" in Theism. Somewhere along the way to this decision we've fallen down the rabbit hole if jailed brokers can start religious study groups on the grounds that their god is Money. K. What, you never heard of Joel Osteen?

gungadin09 -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 4:52:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Personally, I think people who run around issuing proclamations of fact about the existence or non-existence of God belong on the same ward. Aw, Kirata, let's just say You kick my ass, and leave it at that. pam

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 4:56:01 PM)
I suppose. I did earlier say that it could be interpreted as protecting my right to not have an opinion, so I'm really at a bit of a loss as to why you are continuing to hammer away at this. quote: 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. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3884745

tazzygirl -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 4:58:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: Once someone feels something is challenged, the dialogue closes Meh. I suppose, but as nothing was challenged, I don't see how it was an appropriate comment, but whatever, be as right as you want to be, it really doesn't matter because its an irrelevant point. quote: 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. See, I'm not an atheist, so I can't really help you with that. Then why attempt to answer questions in relation to that? Confusing. Who asked you what was relevant? If you find its not relevant in your mind, then dont bother answering.

xssve -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 5:03:54 PM)
quote: 2: a: a disbelief in the existence of deity. b: the doctrine that there is no deity quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: "The arguments used by atheists for these errors are about the same as those used by theists-which is not a surprise because I think that they are both working from common cultural misconceptions, in particular an evangelical culture in which all sorts of misconceptions about science, philosophy, religion, and culture are operative. Offering the dictionary definition of atheism is popular, of course, but always involves either a highly abridged pocket dictionary or a willful disregard of anything in the definition that doesn't fit with one's preconceptions. In other words, he wants to redefine the word to suit his purposes, and is dismissing anybody who doesn't see it his way as falling prey to "misconceptions about science, philosophy, religion, and culture". Lucky for us, Mr. Cline, the self-appointed expert, has come along to set us all straight and show us the error of our ways, to reveal to us the truth about "science, philosophy, religion, and culture", that only he sees. No. 2: a: a disbelief in the existence of deity. b: the doctrine that there is no deity There are here, as you see, two different meanings described here, a: and b: a: is merely a disbelief in a deity, b: makes it a doctrine, and these things are usually defined in a hierarchy, order of usuage, with the most common usage or understanding first, corollary definition/s following, in order of common usage. So semiotically, you could rephrase this, correctly, to say: "Atheism is primarily a disbelief in the existence of a deity, secondarily, a disbelief which some elevate to the status of doctrine". i.e., pretty much what SMM said.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 5:07:02 PM)
quote: 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. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3884834

tazzygirl -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 5:08:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gungadin09 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 I would agree you cannot favor one person over another for a job because of religion.. with the exception of religious schools. I would also agree that if one group is allowed a particular freedom, then all groups must be allowed the same freedom... irrespective of their religious beliefs. I would tend to see that as more along the lines of a peaceful assembly rather than the religious aspect of that Amendment.

FirstQuaker -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 5:09:27 PM)
I think it amounts to people being free to beleive what they want, regarding the philosophical/religious "order of the universe," without being penalized or rewarded, or encouraged or discouraged, by the government for having any given or possible set of these beliefs.

gungadin09 -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 5:11:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather I suppose. I did earlier say that it could be interpreted as protecting my right to not have an opinion, so I'm really at a bit of a loss as to why you are continuing to hammer away at this. quote: 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. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3884745 Goes to what i was saying much earlier, and what you said yourself on another thread. That the courts do NOT have the authority to change the meanings of words for their own convenience. That they are obliged to follow the letter of the law, until such time as the law is amended. That it's just as illegal for them to creatively interpret the word "religion" as it is for them to creatively interpret the phrase "shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" (...assembly, petition, etc.) That if that's how the courts are interpreting the law like that, they are seriously overstepping their authority. pam

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 5:14:22 PM)
quote: Then why attempt to answer questions in relation to that? What question are you referring to? There's two main points in the post you quoted, so your question is unclear. If you meant the discussion being shut off, there was no question, if you meant the one in the OP, well why not, and if you meant my response regarding the Cline quote, well because you quoted him in reply to something I said. quote: Confusing. Maybe to you. quote: Who asked you what was relevant? Nobody, who asked you? quote: If you find its not relevant in your mind, then dont bother answering. I'm sorry, just when did you gain the authority to tell me what I can and can't reply to?

xssve -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 5:14:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy 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 if atheism isnt a religion! Repeat: It protects EVERYONE from the establishment of a Federal religion. It doesnt matter one whit if atheism is a religion or not. Well it makes sense to define atheism as a religion if you're a pucker case who thinks liberals will outlaw religion, but redundant, it's already a First amendment guarantee. i.e., next time someone objects to some conspicuously Christian display at public expense, somebody will sue on the grounds it's an attempt to establish atheism as a state religion, it's about your speed. The establishment clause means that for all practical purposes, public officials are either atheists or deists when they're on the clock, they can do whatever they hell they want otherwise, as long as it's not on the public dime. You people just can't seem to function without a sense that you're being oppressed can you? Healthy White people not having their religious beliefs subsidized by taxpayers isn't oppression, it's dramatism. On the other hand, atheists can now collect their share of the loot you've already managed to pry out of the taxpayers, by applying for faith based funding...

tazzygirl -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 5:17:05 PM)
quote: I'm sorry, just when did you gain the authority to tell me what I can and can't reply to? The same person who made you the authority on what was relevant and what wasnt.

xssve -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 5:18:10 PM)
quote: 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! No, it ends at the property line between a privately funded religious establishment and a taxpayer funded political establishment, such as the Statehouse, or the courthouse. See above. [sm=boohoo.gif]

xssve -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 5:38:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gungadin09 quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather I suppose. I did earlier say that it could be interpreted as protecting my right to not have an opinion, so I'm really at a bit of a loss as to why you are continuing to hammer away at this. quote: 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. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3884745 Goes to what i was saying much earlier, and what you said yourself on another thread. That the courts do NOT have the authority to change the meanings of words for their own convenience. That they are obliged to follow the letter of the law, until such time as the law is amended. That it's just as illegal for them to creatively interpret the word "religion" as it is for them to creatively interpret the phrase "shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" (...assembly, petition, etc.) That if that's how the courts are interpreting the law like that, they are seriously overstepping their authority. pam I'm not sure about that: again, this is 18th century language, religion had a specific meaning, and everyone understood the word "religion" at that time to refer to the various Christian sects that were already dragging the religious wars of Europe into the Colonies, there were no Muslims or Buddhists, or Atheists for that matter, if there were, they had either been burned or tortured to death already, or they were laying very low. It's a bit more complicated now: we have a lot of neo-religious political-economic institutions, Scientology, the LDS, Moonies, etc., hard to tell where the politics ends and the religion begins, and the definition of religion is already pretty strained w/respect to a colloquial 18th century understanding of it. So, either a bit looser legal definition of "religion" is necessary, or a new, more generalized word that means the equivalent is required. Quicker and easier to just redefine religion, formal attempts at linguistic reform are notorious fails, it's an informal process. Also hard to tell where all this will all end, as long as Christians keep queering the deal by trying with grandstanding attempts to turn the government into a religious establishment, in bad faith and violation of principle.

Kirata -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 5:44:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve You people just can't seem to function without a sense that you're being oppressed can you? Healthy White people not having their religious beliefs subsidized by taxpayers isn't oppression, it's dramatism. Well fuckity fuck, I'd never have thought anybody could find a way to work the race card into this one. Maybe racism should be considered a religion too. We wanna be ecumenical, yanno. K.

xssve -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 5:55:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion. While I'm pleased that the court allowed the formation of the study group, I find it difficult to imagine what else besides a Deity could occupy "a place parallel to that filled by God" in Theism. Somewhere along the way to this decision we've fallen down the rabbit hole if jailed brokers can start religious study groups on the grounds that their god is Money. K. What, you never heard of Joel Osteen? And there aren't any brokers in jail the last time I looked, Mammonism is already the de-facto state religion, one can do no wrong in the name of profit. And we give thanks to the quarterly report, from whence all bonuses flow...

Kirata -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 6:15:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve this is 18th century language... and everyone understood the word "religion" at that time to refer to the various Christian sects... Excuse me? What kind of Christian revisionist crap are you trying to peddle here? ...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words "Jesus Christ" ...the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. ~Thomas Jefferson K.

gungadin09 -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 6:18:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve Quicker and easier to just redefine religion... Obviously it's quicker and easier, my point is it's also illegal. The legislature makes laws, the courts only interpret them, and the word "religion" cannot reasonably be interpreted to mean "irreligion". THAT isn't "interpreting" the law, it'a making a new law. It is illegal for the courts to do so. The Constitution very clearly does NOT say that, and in order to change it they would have to pass an amendment. That was Heather's whole point on THIS thread... www.collarchat.com/m_3862511/mpage_1/tm.htm where she said: "I get the impression that Congress and the Supreme Court have, over the years, come to the conclusion that the Constitution as written is an unworkabley idealistic document, and have decided to basically just over ride it when it is inconvenient. I'm sure they have come up with some pretty elaborate and fanciful interpretations to justify it, but "shall make no law" is really pretty unequivocal, so is "shall not be infringed". In fact, the wording throughout is pretty hard to interpret other than as written. The intent is quite clear, at least to me. I think if i were a U.S. citizen, I would be pretty miffed about that." My point is, she was right the first time. The court is not allowed perform magic tricks with words. The law doesn't SAY that. A new amendment must be made that protects irreligion and atheism from discrimination. Neither, in my opinion, can reasonably be interpreted as "religions". i mean, come on. If irreligion can be called a religion, then what on earth CAN'T be called that? pam

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 6:24:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gungadin09 Obviously it's quicker and easier, my point is it's also illegal. The legislature makes laws, the courts only interpret them, and the word "religion" cannot reasonably be interpreted to mean "irreligion". Actually it can. Read Kirata's quote.

Page: << < prev 20 21 [22] 23 24 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625