U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: ATHEISM IS RELIGION

Cypress said:
All the debates I've seen on YouTube between religionists and the New Atheists basically just come down to the atheists saying religion is wrong and science is right.

There is doesn't seem to be any cohesive, universal system of beliefs and values underneath that.

So that's why it doesn't seem to me like simply calling oneself atheist is anything equivalent to the developed philosophical or intellectual traditions of, say humanism or existentialism.
I agree with you about Atheism being a type of belief.

I'm convinced none of the YouTube atheists have actually systematically read the primary sacred literature of the the world's major religions, because they seem to think religions are really just mainly about ritual and superstition.
Click to expand...
Isn't youtube for kids on summer vacation?
 
Ross Dolan said:
Lots of atheists are more committed than you are assuming, Cypress. Many absolutely deny that any gods exist.
Click to expand...
Thank you for confirming that they are not atheists via their theistic professions.

Ross Dolan said:
Many absolutely suppose that it is MUCH, MUCH more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.
Click to expand...
Thank you for confirming your misconception that an analysis of probabilitites equates to theism. I'll assume that you believe that black jack is the religion of all black jack players.

You are as sharp as a cue ball.
 
Flash said:
Any religion whose educational practices do not result in harm to society (unemployment, welfare benefits, etc.) have that same right.
Click to expand...
Nope. You specified a legal requirement/obligation imposed on members of society, for the good of society ... except that the Amish get a pass and don't have to meet that same requirement/obligation imposed on everyone else. You explained how the Amish are not equal under the law, specifically under a law that has nothing to do with religion but of compulsory education.

Flash said:
This is the Supreme Court decision, not my opinion.
Click to expand...
Not until you post the Supreme Court decision.
 
Flash said:
The Supreme Court imposed this delimiting test for their interpretation of the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...
False. No court has the power to interpret anything. All courts try cases by applying existing law.

Flash said:
Many powers and limits are not specifically written in the Constutution but come through custom, practice, and court interpretation.
Click to expand...
False.

All powers not specifically granted to the government by the Constitution remain reserved to the States or to the People. The word "interpret" does not appear in the Constitution. The idea that courts somehow interpret the law is a misconception ... a common misconception, but a misconception nonetheless.
 
Flash said:
Give me an example in which Congress used its legislative power to define a religion.
Click to expand...
Give me an example in which Congress declared an official language for the United States.

Flash said:
Such a law violates the first test for freedom of religion: a) it must have a secular legislative purpose. There is nothing secular about a law defining religion.
Click to expand...
Where does this test appear in the Constitution?
 
Hume said:
Isn't youtube for kids on summer vacation?
Click to expand...
Whatever algorithm YouTube uses to recommend videos to a particular viewer based on their viewing history, I get a lot of video recommendations for theoretical physicist Sean Carrol, biologist Richard Dawkins, mathematician John Lennox, as well as videos for basketball and music.

What has the YouTube algorithm recommended for you? Cat videos and Howard Stern reruns?
 
Cypress said:
Whatever algorithm YouTube uses to recommend videos to a particular viewer based on their viewing history, I get a lot of video recommendations for theoretical physicist Sean Carrol, biologist Richard Dawkins, mathematician John Lennox, as well as videos for basketball and music.

What has the YouTube algorithm recommended for you? Cat videos and Howard Stern reruns?
Click to expand...
I never watch youtube.
 
IBDaMann said:
[Marxists] would have practically zero competition if they could rid the world of Christianity.
Click to expand...
..... and if the Christians who believe in an imminently-approaching "pre-tribulation rapture" turn out to be correct, then the Marxists will end up getting their wish (for a short while, anyway).
 
IBDaMann said:
So here you aren't describing religious freedom as much as a lack of equality under the law. You are saying that the Amish and non-Amish are not equal under the law.
Click to expand...
Flash said:
We agree, but only as it applies to tax law. Legislation cannot appy to religion exclusively, but only charities and other organizations receive tax breaks.

There is no provision reserving legislation determining what constitues religion becauase the 1st amendment prohibites Congress from passing any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Any legislation defining a religion is limiting the practice of that religion.

What law could define religion other than tax legislation (which must also apply to any other charitable organization and not just religion)?
Click to expand...

IBDaMann said:
Nope. Congress' power are delimited by the entirety of Article I. Section 8 is just one of the sections that grants powers to Congress. Section 3 grants each Senator one vote, for example. Section 1 grants Congress the power to define religion.


Let's see about this.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see the word "define" in there anywhere to indicate that Congress shall never "define" what it means. Obviously Amendment I recognizes the concept of religion, as indicated by the presence of the word "religion". You still need to show that defining "religion" somehow establishes a religion, or prohibits the free exercise thereof, or abridges the freedom of speech, or the right of the people to peacably assemble or to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
Nowhere does Artice I, Section 8 give Congress the power to define, regulate, or pass any other legislation regarding religion. Give us an example of a law defining religion.
 
IBDaMann said:
Give me an example in which Congress declared an official language for the United States.


Where does this test appear in the Constitution?
Click to expand...
Congress never declared an official language for the U. S. We have no official language.
Flash said:
Nowhere does Artice I, Section 8 give Congress the power to define, regulate, or pass any other legislation regarding religion. Give us an example of a law defining religion.
Click to expand...
 
IBDaMann said:
False. No court has the power to interpret anything. All courts try cases by applying existing law.


False.

All powers not specifically granted to the government by the Constitution remain reserved to the States or to the People. The word "interpret" does not appear in the Constitution. The idea that courts somehow interpret the law is a misconception ... a common misconception, but a misconception nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Now you are reversing your previous statements in which the courts interpret the Constitution. It is not a misconception since Marbury v. Madison established the power of judicial review many years ago and the courts have been interpreting it ever since. The recent decision about presidential immunity is a court interpretation since nothing about immunity is mentioned in the Constitution.

Earlier you supported the court decision which struck down the mandate of placing the 10 commandments in the classroom. That was court interpretation of the 1st amendment.
 
IBDaMann said:
Give me an example in which Congress declared an official language for the United States.


Where does this test appear in the Constitution?
Click to expand...
It is the court decision establishing the tests for cases involving freedom and establishment of religion.

Lemon v. Kurtzman:

"The Court held that a statute must pass a three-pronged test in order to avoid violating the Establishment Clause. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither promotes nor inhibits religion, and it must not foster “excessive government entanglement with religion.”
 
IBDaMann said:
Nope. You specified a legal requirement/obligation imposed on members of society, for the good of society ... except that the Amish get a pass and don't have to meet that same requirement/obligation imposed on everyone else. You explained how the Amish are not equal under the law, specifically under a law that has nothing to do with religion but of compulsory education.


Not until you post the Supreme Court decision.
Click to expand...
Nope. The Amish don't get a pass because they already meet that obligation without receiving an education beyond the 8th grade. A compulsory education (like speed limits) are secular laws which must be obeyed unless they can convince the court that no harm will result if they are exempted from following the law because of their religious beliefs.

See Wisconsin v. Yoder.
 
Flash said:
Lemon v. Kurtzman: "The Court held that a statute must pass a three-pronged test
Click to expand...
This is not correct. This decision considered three specific tests; it did not establish any single three-pronged test. Future cases might consider different tests and/or eliminate one or more of the tests used in this case from consideration.

I just wanted to point this out. Wording matters.

LEMON v. KURTZMAN
Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236, 243 (1968); finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." Walz, supra, at 674.

Otherwise, I fully acknowledge that these considerations form a vital and necessary threshhold for religious freedom and we should take them very seriously. Having said that, you need to show that the mere act of defining religion fails any of these considerations. On its face, the defining of religion is entirely secular in purpose, neither advances nor inhibits any religion, and does not foster any sort of government entanglement. It's just a definition.
 
IBDaMann said:
This is not correct. This decision considered three specific tests; it did not establish any single three-pronged test. Future cases might consider different tests and/or eliminate one or more of the tests used in this case from consideration.

I just wanted to point this out. Wording matters.

LEMON v. KURTZMAN
Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236, 243 (1968); finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." Walz, supra, at 674.

Otherwise, I fully acknowledge that these considerations form a vital and necessary threshhold for religious freedom and we should take them very seriously. Having said that, you need to show that the mere act of defining religion fails any of these considerations. On its face, the defining of religion is entirely secular in purpose, neither advances nor inhibits any religion, and does not foster any sort of government entanglement. It's just a definition.
Click to expand...
What is the secular purpose of a law defining religion? That purpose must be specified.

What is an example of a law defining religion? Do any exist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top