Looks like you’re about to join me. The pussy can’t take the heat.Oh no..... please don't, I'll be so sad. I guess calling someone a liar is agreeing without being disagreeable, right? Too funny. Grow a pair, pal.
U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: ATHEISM IS RELIGION
- Thread starter Alter2Ego
- Start date
Let’s see the “policy”.they have a policy of telling children to keep secrets from their parents.
you being ok with this really is why you're losing.
So, he calls me a liar, embittered, tries to state my position for me, but OMG there was a curse word that offends his Christian ears. Man, Jesus wouldn't appreciate him giving up so easily. Just sayin'
That’s OK. I guess he can’t turn the other cheek.
Jesus forgives him. Everybody else though, thinks he’s an asshole.
I think he is trying to convince himself that HIS cult is the one true cult. His claim that science supports the creation story is laughable on its face. Science does not deal with the supernatural, because it can only observe that which exists in the natural world. Until God shows up in Times Square at lets scientists measure his shoe size, science cannot take a position on God, and the creation theory cannot exist without it. If you want to have blind faith, that's fine. Trying to make yourself feel better by claiming that science and the law support your position demonstrates abject insecurity.
I have watched many a podcast, debate, and “evidence” from many apologists. They fall flat every time. They have to resort to incredible mental gymnastics to explain all the errors, inconsistencies and outright violation of physics and biology in their scriptures. Not to mention the amount of savagery and violence and the inability to explain suffering in the context of a benevolent god.
Litmus
Verified User
do you deny it exists in many municipalities?
Let’s see the fucking “policy”.
Litmus
Verified User
Let’s see the fucking policy you claim exists.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Then there you go. We agree.
Correct. 100% of the legislative power of the federal government is in Congress. Ergo, no court has any legislative power; no court gets to interpret any law.
You fail to understand that Section 8 is only one section. The full extent of Congress' power is granted by all of Article 1, and some other bits and pieces in other Articles as well.
You do not get to discard all but Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
There is no "because" other than Congress simply has never done it. We've been over this as well. Just because Congress has never declared an official language doesn't mean that Congress is therefore prohibited from declaring an official language. Just because Congress has never defined the term "religion" doesn't mean that Congress is therefore prohibited from defining the term "religion."
Nope. The States have the final say on amending the Constitution to address conflicts and doubt, not the courts.
They were settled by existing law. This does not prohibit Congress from defining the word "religion."
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Nope. You are clinging tightly to your misconception.
TRUMP v. UNITED STATES, Argued April 25, 2024, was decided entirely on existing law on July 1, 2024.
Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
Held: (1) Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” §1, cl. 1. The Presidenthas duties of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” Trump v. Vance, 591U. S. 786, 800. His authority to act necessarily “stem[ s ] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Youngstown Sheet &Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 585. In the latter case, the President’s authority is sometimes “conclusive and preclusive.” Id., at 638(Jackson, J., concurring). When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions.
The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.
There is nothing to interpret. The Court's conclusion is logical and straightforward from the reading of existing law.
It is 100% of the legislative powers for the federal government but the states retain the legislative power for the reserved powers. The courts can declare acts of Congress (and the states) unconstitutional as they have done many times. They also interpret both congressional legislation and constitutional issues as the recent case on presidential immunity.
Our constitutional history is all about court interpretation of the Constitution and congressional legislation--something you say they cannot do.
But Congress cannot add to the Constitution which includes defining constitutional terms. Congressional laws defining religion or anything else changes the potential meaning of those terms as interpreted by the courts.
Marbury v. Madison was about adding material to the Constitution which was found unconstitutional. That is another reason Congress cannot define religion.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Stay focused. You need to show that legislation defining the word/term "religion" has somehow been reserved to the States, while Article 1 clearly grants all legislative powers to Congress.
I'm all ears. The floor is yours.
What existing law that determined the president had immunity? It certainly is not contained in the Constitution. If you are referring to Youngstown Steel, Trump v. Vance those are based on court interpretations. Your claim that the Constitution is clearly written and requires no interpretation is not found in these cases.
You claim the decision was "logical" and "straightforward." But it creates a presidential immunity which is clearly not included in the Constitution or any congressional legislation. It might be logical but that logic is based on reasoning by the Supreme Court, not any documents.
So, despite your claim that the courts cannot interpret the Constitution you present a case in which they did that very thing just as it did in previous cases about immunity. They were not based on any constitutional or legislative power.
I never claimed the power to define religion is reserved to the states. To the contrary, neither the states or Congress can define it. The federal and state governments cannot add or change constitutional passages and I think the 1st amenment prohibits such actions.
Some cases, which I cannot name without research, were struck down because government attempted to regulate religion by claiming something was not a valid religion. I think some involved the right to be excluded from the military draft for religious reasons.
A very few atheists are not all atheists. Secular Humanism is not all atheists. Your argument is false and no one would extend the legal definition of atheist to be a religion based on this foot note. If we accept that definition then it would mean that Buddhists are atheists.
If we accept that a subset is the same as the whole then all Christians would be cultists based on the followers of Jim Jones.
Alter2Ego
Verified User
Poor Richard Saunders:
You don't know what you're talking about. Secular Humanists are atheists by their own admission.
"Humanism: A Brief Overview
Our definition. Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity."
Humanist Common Ground: Atheism - American Humanist Association
Download this information as a PDF or view our brochure. A lot of people think that atheism is a recent idea. But religious disbelief actually has a long and fascinating history. Just as a student of Christianity would want to know about a few rather significant things that happened 2,000 years...
americanhumanist.org
The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed it at Footnote 11 in the Torcaso v. Watkins case when they included Secular Humanism among various atheist religions such as Buddhism.
[ Footnote 11 ] Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.[/COLOR]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=367&invol=488
You are full of hatred.Poor Richard Saunders:
You don't know what you're talking about. Secular Humanists are atheists by their own admission.
"Humanism: A Brief Overview
Our definition. Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity."
Humanist Common Ground: Atheism - American Humanist Association
Download this information as a PDF or view our brochure. A lot of people think that atheism is a recent idea. But religious disbelief actually has a long and fascinating history. Just as a student of Christianity would want to know about a few rather significant things that happened 2,000 years...
The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed it at Footnote 11 in the Torcaso v. Watkins case when they included Secular Humanism among various atheist religions such as Buddhism.
[ Footnote 11 ] Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.[/COLOR]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=367&invol=488