U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: ATHEISM IS RELIGION

[dancindave]

2 Kings 19:35

2 cents worth of a waste of time…..

 

[Phantasmal]

2 Kings 19:35

Nice story, never happened

 

[Mason 22]

Is the Angel in Numbers 22:22
1.Melchizedek
2.Michael the Archangel
3. Milo Minderbinder
4. Tecumseh
5. All of the above

 

[dancindave]

View attachment 42992Is the Angel in Numbers 22:22
1.Melchizedek
2.Michael the Archangel
3. Milo Minderbinder
4. Tecumseh
5. All of the above

So Christiananality pedophilia more perfect union of fabricated events in history suicidal super egos for sociopsychopathogical homicidal human farming……as Christian Nation SCOTUS National Religion George Washington University Hospital Washington, D.C. born USA citizens are Islam……

 

[Into the Night]

Seems your religion doesn’t accept the well acknowledged nickname of Nazi Germany’s Christiananality pedophilia concentration camp doctor of demented and deranged medical pseudoscience just as those crooks on Capital Hill with Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate drug trafficking fiefdom enforcement of their not so master plan of 9/11 deeming George Washington University Hospital Washington, D.C. born USA citizens as Islam for a Bicentennial precedent in suicidal super egos master race patriot act…..

Try Englsh. It works better.

 

[dancindave]

Try Englsh. It works better.

As usual still avoiding acceptance that Christian Nation SCOTUS Rehnquist national religion of Klues Klucks duh Klans “what is 9/11 ?” rhetorical Freudian slip Fourth Reich July for the past 25 years…..

 

[Alter2Ego]

SCOTUS has held atheism falls under the Separation Clause of the Constitution. That, in that special application, atheism is considered to fall under the larger umbrella of religion.

SCOTUS did NOT rule that atheism was a religion. It merely expanded the Separation Clause to include non-religion as well.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985)

This is a bit more subtle and not quite exactly what you are saying. Be very careful in misrepresenting legal topics as they are often far more nuanced than you simplistic overreach.

While it may feel "good" to take the position you have taken there are a number of problems with it.

1. It does not appear to be in the "spirit" of what the Courts were actually ruling
2. It appears to hold "faith" to be a lower value epistemic position which means you disrespect your OWN faith by leveraging it thusly (If your "belief" is equavlent and indifferentiable from "non-belief" then what does that say about belief?)

Of course it did. Notice what's stated at paragraph 1 of the court transcript on the matter of Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), where the U.S. Supreme Court clearly states that the "freedom of belief and religion" for the Plaintiff (atheist Roy Torcaso) was "unconstitutionally" invaded.

"Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public, but he was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. Claiming that this requirement violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, he sued in a state court to compel issuance of his commission, but relief was denied. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing, without need for implementing legislation, and requires declaration of a belief in God as a qualification for office. Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. Pp. 367 U. S. 489-496.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Torcaso v. Watkins

supreme.justia.com

 

[Taichiliberal]

POST #617

 

[Into the Night]

Of course it did. Notice what's stated at paragraph 1 of the court transcript on the matter of Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), where the U.S. Supreme Court clearly states that the "freedom of belief and religion" for the Plaintiff (atheist Roy Torcaso) was "unconstitutionally" invaded.

"Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public, but he was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. Claiming that this requirement violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, he sued in a state court to compel issuance of his commission, but relief was denied. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing, without need for implementing legislation, and requires declaration of a belief in God as a qualification for office. Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. Pp. 367 U. S. 489-496.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Torcaso v. Watkins

supreme.justia.com

How does it violate the 1st and 14th amendments?
The State of Maryland is not the federal government.