Mason 22
Verified User
Christianity is a personal relationship with YHWH through the Holy Spirit!
Don't get confused by organized religion!
U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: ATHEISM IS RELIGION
- Thread starter Alter2Ego
- Start date
Don't get confused by organized religion!
You are profoundly confused.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
The Amish do get a pass. Now we get into personal political philosophies.
I totally agree with the decision to allow the Amish to raise their children as they see fit. However, instead of creating inequality under the law as they did, the Supreme Court should have outlawed compulsory education for the tyranny that it is. What if I don't want to send my children to school after they graduate from the eighth grade because I want to provide continuing informal atheistic education to my children designed to prepare them for life in the metropolitan atheist community, believing that highschool attendance and forced Global Warming, Climate Change, Marxism and Critical Race Theory indoctrination is contrary to an atheist's way of life and that I would greatly endanger my success in life and that of my children by complying with the law?
The Amish get to opt out of compulsory education because they have Amish religious privilege, whereas I do not.
Inequality under the law.
OK, that was funny.
Where does the Supreme Court get the authority to outlaw public education? That is a power reserved to the states.
You can choose to home school your kids allowed by most (all?) states.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I have not reversed any statement.
No court has any authority to interpret anything. You are operating under the common misconception that I mentioned.
The Constitution grants no power of interpretation to the government; it is therefore reserved to the States.
Your only avenue to rebut the above is to find somewhere in the Constitution whereby the power to interpret something is granted to the government, and the word "interpret" deliberately does not appear anywhere in the Constitution because it is specifically reserved to the States.
According to the Constitution, courts try cases by applying existing law (which includes "precedent" and common law) to provide rule of law as opposed to rule by fiat or rule by tyrant.
Thank you. Judicial review of a law is not the interpretation of that law, but of application of existing law (which includes "precedent" and common law) to deconflict when/where necessary.
Marbury v. Madison makes it very clear that the only interpretation to be performed by the court is of the decisions of previous cases, not of the conflicting laws themselves, i.e. the courts do not get to legislate away conflicts from the bench.
No court has ever interpreted any law. Courts have tried cases in which existing law (which includes "precedent" and common law) have decided the case, under the concept of "rule of law."
I'll throw this back at you. Post a case in which interpretation of a law was performed and not overturned.
Was the case decided exclusively on the basis of existing law (which includes "precedent" and common law) that was presented by both sides?
Nope. It was an example of a court case that was decided by existing law, specifically the 1st Amendment.
Last edited:
IBDaMann
Well-known member
The Supreme Court does not get to legislate. The Supreme Court has an obligation to uphold the Constitution and to declare all unconstitutional things to be "unconstitutional" ... which could result in their prohibition.
The power to "outlaw" is granted to Congress in Article I.
Choices borne from inequality under the law are a travesty. The root problem remains.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Thank you. That was my point. We have never defined religion either. There are many things we haven't done yet, and that fact is immaterial.
Right. Congress has no authority or need to define religionl or a national language.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
That purpose would be the basis for the definition. As you have noted, the US hasn't ever gotten there yet.
One possibility could be to create a statute referencing religion, e.g. in the event that someone is to be excused from compulsory education for reasons of religion, as an example.
None, as of yet, of which I am aware.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Nope. You leapt to an invalid conclusion there. Both could be determined tomorrow.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Wrong.
The IRS does.
True, but the tax exemptions for charities are largly the same. Congress cannot exempt religious groups from paying taxes because that would have no secular purpose. But, religion qualifies under the category for charities.
IRS has challenged fake religions.
They never have been. The founders discussed a national language at the constitutional convention and rejected it. They have no authoirty to define religion and it would violate the 1st amendment because by definition it would have no secular purpose.
Did you think of that example of a law defining religion?
Because they did not qualify as charities eligible for tax exemptions.
The IRS doesn't even bother to go after churches that make partisan endorsements even though these churches have tried to challenge the law.
Religion. I did not say charity.
Which Article I provision gives Congress the power to outlaw? Congress cannot outlaw a power reserved to the states like education.
Who decides whether unconstitutional things are unconstitutional? You said the Supreme Court does not get to interpret.
Religion only gets tax exemptions because it qualifies as a charity. If Congress said religions do not have to pay taxes that would be unconstitutional be cause it has no secular purpose and the law deal specifically with religion.