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

gungadin09 -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 6:41:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy 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. You mean post #438? i don't know. That's still just a list of religions. Irreligion is not a religious denomination, and, frankly, i don't think strong atheism is either. i will do you the justice to say this: i think the founding fathers must have intended to protect irreligion and atheism. But since that's not precisely what they said... Or maybe i'm wrong. Maybe the courts DO have a certain amount of wiggle room when it comes to interpreting laws, because the amendment process is such a bitch. But if that's true for this case, then it's true for the other case. Either here or there, Heather's position is wrong. pam

xssve -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 6:50:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gungadin09 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 I don't know about illegal, they aren't making a new law, they are reinterpreting an old one, which is what they do - and contrary to popular perception, courts and judges do make law, it ain't really law until they say it is, otherwise the thing would rapidly get out of control - the courts are required to relate everything to the constitution, congress does shit like change the name of French Fries to Freedom Fries. Where is my masturbation emoticon? Admin? Annoying, if you care at all about the meaning of words - nobody has furnished a definition from the OED, without which I don't feel I can proceed much further on the subject - any real etymologists out there? All my consulting etymologists were on the NYT boards. Anyway, you have to call these groups something, which is where I'm at, and calling them religions is a convenient receptacle to solve the immediate problem, which is that if people can get together and talk about god and condescend and ooze false pity for people who don't believe in god, then people ought to be able to get together and not talk about god, or make fun of people who do - it's the American fucking way. I'm more interested in the externalities at this point, since as noted, atheists can now legally apply for faith based program funds, I think that's fair.

Kirata -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 7:05:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gungadin09 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Actually it can. Read Kirata's quote. That's still just a list of religions. Irreligion is not a religious denomination... Infidels of every denomination An "infidel" is someone who either has no religious belief, or who holds a different religious belief from your own; and a "denomination" is a name or designation for a class of things (not exclusively religious; we also speak of denominations of currency). K.

Kirata -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 7:16:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirstQuaker 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. Bingo. K.

gungadin09 -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 7:32:57 PM)
Ah, thanks. i figured "infidels" just meant anyone who didn't believe in the Christian god. So, it's very likely that Congress meant one thing, but in fact they actually said something different. How much lattitude do the courts have in interpreting the law? Maybe i need to agree with Heather's position on THIS thread and disagree on the other thread. Maybe the courts really do have the freedom to interpret the letter of the law rather broadly, when it's very likely that one thing was meant even though another was said. pam

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 7:38:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gungadin09 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy 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. You mean post #438? i don't know. That's still just a list of religions. Irreligion is not a religious denomination, and, frankly, i don't think strong atheism is either. i will do you the justice to say this: i think the founding fathers must have intended to protect irreligion and atheism. But since that's not precisely what they said... Or maybe i'm wrong. Maybe the courts DO have a certain amount of wiggle room when it comes to interpreting laws, because the amendment process is such a bitch. But if that's true for this case, then it's true for the other case. Either here or there, Heather's position is wrong. pam Perhaps you missed "infidels"? The original meaning is "Without faith", ie atheists.

GotSteel -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 8:31:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Since joining this section of the boards, I have been reading alot about atheism from Cline. He says that the dictionaries just dont do atheism justice as a definition. Do you agree? Historically the label has been defined by it's opponents and as such has not necessarily reflected the positions of those that it was being applied to with the greatest accuracy. However, in the last few years I've watched as dictionaries have started changing to reflect the positions that exist in the atheism community and I think the Wikipedia entry for atheism does a good job of describing it

xssve -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 8:33:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gungadin09 Ah, thanks. i figured "infidels" just meant anyone who didn't believe in the Christian god. So, it's very likely that Congress meant one thing, but in fact they actually said something different. How much lattitude do the courts have in interpreting the law? Maybe i need to agree with Heather's position on THIS thread and disagree on the other thread. Maybe the courts really do have the freedom to interpret the letter of the law rather broadly, when it's very likely that one thing was meant even though another was said. pam Well, this is a strict constructionist vs. living document question - the fact is, the world turns and things change, we don't wear powdered wigs any more, we wear parachute pants and we tlk lk ths. Some things never change however, people are as full of shit now as they ever were, the best you can do is try to keep the bullshit competitive, fight bullshit with bullshit, put 'em all in the same room and lock the fucking door - they'll either eradicate each other or find a way to get along. The constitution really is a remarkable document, and among it's more remarkable features is the First Amendment, which is the crux of democracy itself: the right to have and express an opinion - nobody has the right to put a gun to your head and force you to accept their bullshit over some other bullshit, they have to sneak it up on you, it's the law. And that ain't bullshit.

xssve -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 8:58:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata 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. Sure but most of those people had never seen a Hindoo, TJ had likely never seen a Hindoo, but he probably had read about them because he could read. And I get that revisionist bullshit mainly from revisionist reconstructionists who insist this is a "Christian country", no others need apply. Cain, mosques - ring any bells? In fact the whole "activist judges" meme is reconstructionist bullshit, they don't like the constitution because it doesn't say what they want it to say - what it says, is that this is not a neo-puritan theocracy and it ain't never gonna be. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth for RO, but them's the breaks - been here, done that, deal with it.

xssve -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 9:02:16 PM)
The trouble with strict constructionism is it still requires some creative interpretation, for example: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." "an establishment of religion..." what, "an establishment" like a bar? A church is "an establishment", a building basically, where certain activities take place - does that mean congress cannot pass laws about what you can or can't do in a church? It means we can't prosecute child molesting priests among other things, it would interfere withthe free exercise of their faith - all fucked up maybe, but that is a perfectly strict, literal interpretation. Without some common sense and judgement in good faith, the law becomes merely a justification for wealth and privilege, although Frank Herbert said it a little better. If you consider yourself a Christian, I direct you to the woes of the Pharisees, some fascinating stuff in that book.

Kirata -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 9:05:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve It means we can't prosecute child molesting priests among other things... You really do need to get that prescription changed. K.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 9:16:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve The trouble with strict constructionism is it still requires some creative interpretation, for example: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." "an establishment of religion..." what, "an establishment" like a bar? A church is "an establishment", a building basically, where certain activities take place - does that mean congress cannot pass laws about what you can or can't do in a church? It means we can't prosecute child molesting priests among other things, it would interfere withthe free exercise of their faith - all fucked up maybe, but that is a perfectly strict, literal interpretation. No, it isnt. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between a verb (as used in the Constitution) and a noun.

xssve -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 9:19:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: xssve It means we can't prosecute child molesting priests among other things... You really do need to get that prescription changed. K. It's a perfectly valid, literal interpretation, it says "an establishment", not "the establishment". They aren't here and we can't ask them, we have to decide something here about what they meant. And as I say the European immigrants were uniformly Christian, they had murdered everybody who wasn't a Christian in Europe at that point, other than the odd Jew, and had started on each other - the first group to be persecuted here were the Quakers, persecuted by the Puritans for some bullshit reasons I can't recall. It's a historical fact, you can't make this shit up.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 9:19:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy No, it isnt. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between a verb (as used in the Constitution) and a noun. His point is, I think, that if the judges can reinterpret the law at will, they can change the verb for the noun.

xssve -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 9:21:08 PM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion#United_States

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 9:26:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy No, it isnt. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between a verb (as used in the Constitution) and a noun. His point is, I think, that if the judges can reinterpret the law at will, they can change the verb for the noun. Not if the meaning is already total clear. No judge could change "to estabish" for "a church". Even Sotomayor or Kagan.

xssve -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 9:26:37 PM)
I suppose "an" could modify a verb, but it's more commonly used to signify a noun or an adjective. Gimme "an (verb)" in a sentence.

xssve -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 9:28:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy No, it isnt. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between a verb (as used in the Constitution) and a noun. His point is, I think, that if the judges can reinterpret the law at will, they can change the verb for the noun. Not if the meaning is already total clear. No judge could change "to estabish" for "a church". Even Sotomayor or Kagan. Activism, doesn't say "to establish" you're making things up, it says "an establishment".

xssve -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 9:37:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve I suppose "an" could modify a verb, but it's more commonly used to signify a noun or an adjective. Gimme "an (verb)" in a sentence. "An attempt". Best I can do right now.

GotSteel -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 9:38:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl What is an atheist vs an agnostic? And a follow up. What is the difference between a hard atheist, a "regular" atheist (if that term is appropriate) and a soft atheist as someone else has suggested? I sat down to write up a response to this and realized that wikipedia answers these questions more eloquently and in greater detail than I would have. I'd definitely recommend taking a look at those entries.

Page: << < prev 21 22 [23] 24 25 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875