^^ Ha Ha Ha, look at the dunce latching on!

OK tell your "lawyer" friend to table his First Amendment understanding here.

Let us lance the boil -- if you both dare.

Enigma:

Like you ran away on this other thread with the assistance and encouragement of your fellow evangelical atheists to flee ?   https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-715030.64.html#msg8809127

Really is this the sort of game you play? I'll advice anyone following this link to simply follow the conversation on that thread and see what sort of character this Enigma fellow displays. You as usual bored me on that thread by not backing up your assertions. That is exactly what you're doing here as you fail to define what you mean by religion.

Enigma:

You show yourself each time to be a mere shallow pretender ---- easily exposed for what you really are.

By the way see also posts 169 and especially 193 on this very thread.  

And did you read my responses to those posts? Or have you forgotten that I responded to them? And this whiner calls others shallow pretenders. You really need to learn to back up your assertions and learn to hold up your own arguments rather than expecting others to do that for you.

Enigma:

^^ Ha Ha Ha, look at the dunce latching on!

OK tell your "lawyer" friend to table his First Amendment understanding here.

Let us lance the boil -- if you both dare.

Still whining I see. Simply take correction and post it yourself rather than whining.

Ha ha ha 

You do not realise that your style style running away is obvious --- you are even that daft that you do not realise that! 

Do you realise that it is about the third or fourth time that you have chickened out eventually in more or less the same manner? 

Pathetic.

Enigma:

Ha ha ha 

You do not realise that your style style running away is obvious --- you are even that daft that you do not realise that! 

Do you realise that it is about the third or fourth time that you have chickened out eventually in more or less the same manner? 

Pathetic.

And he proceeds with the ad hominem fallacy. You would be a satisfactory teaching aid on how not to conduct an argument or how to reason if you actually accepted corrections. Instead, you choose to double down on your poor performance.
I haven't chickened out, I'm simply waiting for you to support your arguments by presenting the following (some of which have been done for you already):
[list]
[li]Your definition of religion[/li]
[li]The first amendment[/li]
[/list]

Please learn to do your work rather than whining all over the place.

PS: I hope you read through the thread for which you provided a link. It shows you really haven't learned much.

OK, let's even call the dunce's bluff 


1, Definition of religion: well, let us adopt and stick to that already provided for us by "the man" himself, thus: 

A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred.

2. The First Amendment

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.

Let us now see if the evangelical atheists are up to the challenge. I will only ask them one question.

[size=14pt]What do you understand by the word religion under the First Amendment?[/size]

thehomer:

1)Who knows maybe he isn't. Its taken him over 6 months to try to understand what he needs to do to get his points across yet he fails at it.

2) Oh so you had educated him on the first amendment and were generous enough to include a link. Yet he comes here whining.

1) Ironically, he is quick to throw words like "dunce" and "idiotic" around.
2) Yes I did. I annotated the judgement for him, then I posted the opinion of a layman who read the judgement for himself (to show him how easy it was to understand). Inspite of all this, he still doesnt understand.
Now he is asking for a definition of first ammendment. The minute you define it, he will find something ignorant to say.
He is neither interested in learning, nor is he interested in a debate.

^^^ OK, if you are this much the "expert", now that I have outlined what the First Amendment says, pray tell us:

[size=14pt]What do you understand by the word religion under the First Amendment?[/size]

Oh look, he bites.
Enigma, let me point out to you that the first ammendment and the whole of American law applies only in America and nowhere else. By virtue of that, no American court can define the universal position of atheists.

Ignoring that though, let us apply your definition of religion and see what happens.

A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred.

Atheism has no collection of practices based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred, so atheism by this definition is not a religion. Full stop.

However, I wash my hands often (a practice), I also have my bath often (a practice), brush my teeth often (a practice), wash my clothes often (a practice) etc. I believe these are a collection of practices. They are based on the belief that good hygiene promotes health. This belief is borne out of teachings I received from home economics, biology classes and my elders. These teachings are highly valued (or sacred implies either one, so Im well within your definition here).
By your definition, good hygiene is my religion. Im sure its your religion too.

^^^^ OK re that definition of "religion", see further my posts numbers 169, 193 and 273 on this very thread. 

Now to the real issue at hand (especially as you are a "lawyer"!):

[size=14pt]What do you understand by the word religion under the First Amendment?[/size] 

Enigma:

^^^^ OK re that definition of "religion", see further my posts numbers 169, 193 and 273 on this very thread. 

Now to the real issue at hand (especially as you are a "lawyer"!):

[size=14pt]What do you understand by the word religion under the First Amendment?[/size] 

You are jumping the gun here. The first amendment does not define religion. It is clear from the Kaufman case that the court "broadened" the scope of religion to include anything that takes a position on divinity. For, against and neutral, and it did so for the purposes of the first amendment. There is no point running to the judgement because it does not support your case.

You havent told me yet if you consider good hygiene a religion since it falls within your definition.

^^^ I always knew you could not or would not answer the question.

Perhaps advise your fellow evangelical atheists to find a proper lawyer to come and help them out as any trained lawyer should be able to explain what they understand by religion under the First Amendment.

So the question again not only to you but to anyone who dares or simply cares (in the case of intellectually honest people):

[size=14pt]What do you understand by the word religion under the First Amendment?[/size] 

Enigma:

OK, let's even call the dunce's bluff 


1, Definition of religion: well, let us adopt and stick to that already provided for us by "the man" himself, thus: 
2. The First Amendment

Let us now see if the evangelical atheists are up to the challenge. I will only ask them one question.

[size=14pt]What do you understand by the word religion under the First Amendment?[/size]

Is reading difficult for you to comprehend? jayriginal has pretty much said it all yet you persist in such idiocy.

jayriginal:

1) Ironically, he is quick to throw words like "dunce" and "idiotic" around.

That is to be expected from people like him. One of the main reasons why I sometimes engage people like him is that they're a nice practical demonstrations of fallacious reasoning.

jayriginal:

2) Yes I did. I annotated the judgement for him, then I posted the opinion of a layman who read the judgement for himself (to show him how easy it was to understand). Inspite of all this, he still doesnt understand.
Now he is asking for a definition of first ammendment. The minute you define it, he will find something ignorant to say.
He is neither interested in learning, nor is he interested in a debate.

Yeah I figured out that learning was difficult for him. So difficult that he is as yet unable to define religion for himself. He is free to accept the one I presented from Wiktionary but he keeps trying to run from it while using it.

@ Enigma

Other national constitutions like ours, use  'Religion' to cover all personal philosophies and thoughts. That an individual's ideas are protected, that will

include religion, though peculiar by its supernatural approach is still under a philosophical thought.

The American constitution expresses the same sentiment by the use of religion, and their courts follow that line.

Enigma:

^^^^ OK re that definition of "religion", see further my posts numbers 169, 193 and 273 on this very thread. 

Now to the real issue at hand (especially as you are a "lawyer"!):

[size=14pt]What do you understand by the word religion under the First Amendment?[/size] 

As jayriginal and I have pointed out, religion isn't defined in the first amendment.
He has also pointed out to you that for the special purpose of the first amendment which applies only in the U.S, atheism may be considered as such.

He already pointed out to you that the meaning of religion was broadened for this special purpose yet you keep harping on and on. Why don't you present your definition of religion or adopt the one I've given even if only for this discussion as meeting the requirement?
Also, have you considered why the clause "for the purpose of the first amendment" was included?

Enigma:

^^^ I always knew you could not or would not answer the question. 

Perhaps advise your fellow evangelical atheists to find a proper lawyer to come and help them out as any trained lawyer should be able to explain what they understand by religion under the First Amendment.

So the question again not only to you but to anyone who dares or simply cares (in the case of intellectually honest people):

[size=14pt]What do you understand by the word religion under the First Amendment?[/size] 

jayriginal:

You are jumping the gun here. The first amendment does not define religion. [size=14pt]It is clear from the Kaufman case that the court "broadened" the scope of religion to include anything that takes a position on divinity.[/size] For, against and neutral, and it did so for the purposes of the first amendment. There is no point running to the judgement because it does not support your case.

You havent told me yet if you consider good hygiene a religion since it falls within your definition.

The emphasized part of the post answers your question. So I hope you'll finally stop whining.

Ah, now let's see how we can help our evangelical atheist religionist friends with this problem of comprehension that they have and simply can't shake off! 

Here is the concerned provision again:

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.

And the question (in simpler form taking account of our friends' comprehension difficulties):

[size=14pt]What do YOU, YOU, even YOU understand by the word religion in that provision?[/size]

To provide even further simplification, in other words:

[size=14pt]How would YOU, YOU, even YOU interprete the word religion in that provision?

[/size]

Enigma:

Ah, now let's see how we can help our evangelical atheist religionist friends with this problem of comprehension that they have and simply can't shake off! 

Here is the concerned provision again:
And the question (in simpler form taking account of our friends' comprehension difficulties):

[size=14pt]What do YOU, YOU, even YOU understand by the word religion in that provision?[/size]

To provide even further simplification, in other words:

[size=14pt]How would YOU, YOU, even YOU interprete the word religion in that provision?

[/size]

Wow how difficult is it to comprehend statements that have been presented to you in bold and larger font? I guess I'll just have to repeat what has been said.
Simply read it.

jayriginal:

You are jumping the gun here. The first amendment does not define religion. It is clear from the Kaufman case that the court "broadened" the scope of [size=16pt]religion to include anything that takes a position on divinity. For, against and neutral[/size], and it did so for the purposes of the first amendment. There is no point running to the judgement because it does not support your case.

You havent told me yet if you consider good hygiene a religion since it falls within your definition.

Read what the large font says. That is what the court decided to use in the context of the first amendment.
As you can see, it differs from what I presented from Wiktionary. And as usual, you're still unable to present your own definition of religion. What a sorry case. English shouldn't be that difficult for you to comprehend.
Simply present your working definition of a religion for progress to be made.

^^^^ You see how poor your comprehension is now?

I am not currently asking you what the Court said! I am asking YOU, YOU, even YOU to state your understanding of the word religion in the quote I set out.

Or in simpler form again how would YOU, YOU, even YOU interprete the word religion in that quote.

Is even that too difficult for you to understand?

Enigma:

^^^^ You see how poor your comprehension is now?

I am not currently asking you what the Court said! I am asking YOU, YOU, even YOU to state your understanding of the word religion in the quote I set out.

Or in simpler form again how would YOU, YOU, even YOU interprete the word religion in that quote.

Is even that too difficult for you to understand?

You shouldn't be this dull. What matters most here is the court's interpretation of the word religion which I agree is what is meant in this context and is what they're talking about in this particular context.
Somehow, you're still unable to comprehend that for you to even make your argument reasonable, you would need to present your definition of religion. Such a shame.

OK, so you want to chicken out of the question ----- as usual! 

Let me start with your request that I provide you with a definition of religion. Well, I have long long long ago agreed to go along with your preferred definition of religion and I am still happy to keep to it. Your problem though is that I have demonstrated conclusively concludedly conclusively  that evangelical atheism IS a  religion under that definition. Enjoy again, and do please try very very very hard to understand my posts numbers 165, 167, 169, 183, 188, 193, 273 etc. 

EDIT: Now scurry off to trawl the Internet for another definition of religion and I will be happy to school you once again with analysis of it to determine whether or not evangelical atheism is within it. 

Now to your chicken-hearted response to the First Amendment provision: well, you have just proven what I said earlier that you do not even understand what you were saying when you kept shouting "for the first amendment purposes only".

Today under American law, atheism is a religion in the contexts that really matter but I guess you will not even understand that statement.

Finally, even if the ruling is that atheism is a religion "for the First Amendment purposes" only ---- you atheists should be ashamed of yourselves for not rising up in arms to protest the decision. Instead, you have an atheist triggering the decision by asking for atheism to be recognised as a religion.

Duplicitous mumus!

Enigma:


1) EDIT: Now scurry off to trawl the Internet for another definition of religion and I will be happy to school you once again with analysis of it to determine whether or not evangelical atheism is within it. 

2) Now to your chicken-hearted response to the First Amendment provision: well, you have just proven what I said earlier that you do not even understand what you were saying when you kept shouting "for the first amendment purposes only".

3) Today under American law[/b][/color], atheism is a religion in the contexts that really matter but I guess you will not even understand that statement.

4) Finally, even if the ruling is that atheism is a religion "for the First Amendment purposes" only ---- you atheists should be ashamed of yourselves for not rising up in arms to protest the decision. Instead, you have an atheist triggering the decision by asking for atheism to be recognised as a religion.

5) Duplicitous mumus!

1) It shows your readiness to argue without comprehension. Nobody needs the internet to prove anything. You are the master of posting links you do not read or lack comprehension of.
2) The point is clear enough. Whether you accept it or not has no bearing on facts.
3) Only to fit it within the purview of the first amendment (even if you are correct {and you arent} that is America only)
4) If you half read the judgement, you would see that Kaufman insisted that atheism was the antithesis of religion. The court even opined that, that was the reason his request was turned down. Very importantly, he could not show a central belief and he failed to prove his claim under the first amendment. [/b]From the judgement

Kaufman argues that the defendants’ refusal to permit him to meet with other atheist inmates to study and discuss their beliefs violates the Free Exercise Clause. “ ‘[W]hen a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.’ In the context of the Free Exercise Clause, Kaufman must first establish that his right to practice
atheism was burdened in a significant way. [b]plaintiff must show a “substantial burden” on a “central religious belief or practice” to prevail under the Free Exercise Clause); Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City
of Chicago, 342 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir. 2003) (collecting cases). He failed utterly to do so. Kaufman introduced no evidence showing that he would be unable to practice atheism effectively without the benefit of a weekly study group. The defendants apparently allow him to study atheist literature on his own, consult informally with other atheist inmates, and correspond with members of the atheist groups he identified, and Kaufman offered nothing to suggest that these alternatives are inadequate.

The bolded parts refer. Of course he failed to do so. What central religious belief or practice is there to show for atheism ? None!

The defendants submitted an affidavit stating that allowing any group of inmates to congregate for a meeting raises security concerns and requires staff members to supervise the group. Prison officials unquestionably have a legitimate interest in maintaining institutional security. We cannot say that their denial of Kaufman’s request for a study group was not rationally related to that interest. Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment on Kaufman’s claim insofar as it arises under the Free Exercise Clause.

Kaufman failed under the first ammendment/free exercise clause. He could not prove a central religious belief to qualify under the clause, even though the court was willing to describe atheism "as a religion" for the purpose of the first ammendment.

Kaufman only won his suit under the establishment clause, not the first amendment.

Lets review this.
Kaufman claimed under the first amendment/free exercise clause and the establishment clause.
The court engaged itself in "judicial contortions" and managed to bring atheism under the purview of the first amendment by including anything that takes a position on divinity as a religion. It said it did this in a specialized sense, broadening the scope for the purpose of the first amendment only. It even put religion in quotes ("religion").

You keep shouting "what do you understand by religion under the first amendment", when a simple glance at the judgement shows that Kaufman didnt win his claim under the first amendment. He won it under the establishment clause. The court only defined atheism as a religion for the purposes of the first amendment and his claim thereof failed.

My annotations to the judgement are here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-765094.32.html for anyone willing to see for themselves. Thereafter, I put an analysis from a layman to show how easy it is to understand the judgement.

5) I hope that makes you feel smart.

^^^ You should go and demand your money back from whoever trained you as a lawyer. Even lay people will get a much better understanding of the case from the material I have provided than the nonsense you put up there!

^^ Whatever helps you feel like an intellectual or an Enigma.

^^^ Let me help you a bit,

jayriginal:
. . .

Kaufman only won his suit under the establishment clause, not the first amendment.

Lets review this.
Kaufman claimed under the first amendment/free exercise clause and the establishment clause.
The court engaged itself in "judicial contortions" and managed to bring atheism under the purview of the first amendment by including anything that takes a position on divinity as a religion. It said it did this in a specialized sense, broadening the scope for the purpose of the first amendment only. It even put religion in quotes ("religion").

You keep shouting "what do you understand by religion under the first amendment", when a simple glance at the judgement shows that Kaufman didnt win his claim under the first amendment. He won it under the establishment clause. The court only defined atheism as a religion for the purposes of the first amendment and his claim thereof failed.

My annotations to the judgement are here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-765094.32.html for anyone willing to see for themselves. Thereafter, I put an analysis from a layman to show how easy it is to understand the judgement.

5) I hope that makes you feel smart.

Your own type of "lawyer" does not know that the Establishment Clause is part of the First Amendment? Wunderbar! 

Enigma:

OK, so you want to chicken out of the question ----- as usual! 

Nah I've responded to your poor questions but for some reason, you seem to be unable to understand it.

Enigma:

Let me start with your request that I provide you with a definition of religion. Well, I have long long long ago agreed to go along with your preferred definition of religion and I am still happy to keep to it. Your problem though is that I have demonstrated conclusively concludedly conclusively  that evangelical atheism IS a  religion under that definition. Enjoy again, and do please try very very very hard to understand my posts numbers 165, 167, 169, 183, 188, 193, 273 etc. 

It is a shame to see one with potential be so dense. Did you read my response to your poor posts? What is your conclusion? Is the civil rights movement a religion? Please at the very least, put in some effort to read my responses. They're still there for you to take along with you and read till you're able to understand. I give you permission to print them and hand them out to your educators to help you interpret them in ways you can understand.

Enigma:

EDIT: Now scurry off to trawl the Internet for another definition of religion and I will be happy to school you once again with analysis of it to determine whether or not evangelical atheism is within it. 

Nope for my purposes here, the definition is adequate. As usual, you're still unable to present your own working definition of religion. I wonder if its because you're too dull or lazy to find one.

Enigma:

Now to your chicken-hearted response to the First Amendment provision: well, you have just proven what I said earlier that you do not even understand what you were saying when you kept shouting "for the first amendment purposes only".

I understood it. The question is did you?

Enigma:

Today under American law, atheism is a religion in the contexts that really matter but I guess you will not even understand that statement.

How do you decide the contexts that matter? Remember, they are contexts. The meaning of words can vary depending on their contexts.

Enigma:

Finally, even if the ruling is that atheism is a religion "for the First Amendment purposes" only ---- you atheists should be ashamed of yourselves for not rising up in arms to protest the decision. Instead, you have an atheist triggering the decision by asking for atheism to be recognised as a religion.

Duplicitous mumus!

For the purposes of the first amendment, it is perfectly fine to do that otherwise, religious zealots like you and your ilk would try to use that to prevent citizens from having their own point of view e.g prisoners and soldiers. Please try and read the posts on this thread and the other thread that made you resurrect this thread and vomit your usual faeculent material.

Enigma:

^^^ Let me help you a bit,

Your own type of "lawyer" does not know that the Establishment Clause is part of the First Amendment? Wunderbar! 

Im not surprised you cannot appreciate the First Amendment and its separate components.
You are apparently immune to reason. You cannot see that I have been emphasizing for "First Amendment purposes only". To you there is no difference between the free exercise clause and the establishment clause (both under the first amendment).
Again, no surprises there. Someone breaks it down for you, you spit on it. Someone leaves you to figure it out on your own, you cant.
Truly an enigma. No wonder the judgement eludes you till now.

thehomer:

Nah I've responded to your poor questions but for some reason, you seem to be unable to understand it.

It is a shame to see one with potential be so dense. Did you read my response to your poor posts? What is your conclusion? Is the civil rights movement a religion? Please at the very least, put in some effort to read my responses. They're still there for you to take along with you and read till you're able to understand. I give you permission to print them and hand them out to your educators to help you interpret them in ways you can understand.

Nope for my purposes here, the definition is adequate. As usual, you're still unable to present your own working definition of religion. I wonder if its because you're too dull or lazy to find one.

I understood it. The question is did you?

How do you decide the contexts that matter? Remember, they are contexts. The meaning of words can vary depending on their contexts.

For the purposes of the first amendment, it is perfectly fine to do that otherwise, religious zealots like you and your ilk would try to use that to prevent citizens from having their own point of view e.g prisoners and soldiers. Please try and read the posts on this thread and the other thread that made you resurrect this thread and vomit your usual faeculent material.

Ah, the dunce accepts at last that evangelical atheism IS indeed a religion ---- albeit he wants to restict that acceptance to some "contexts".

jayriginal:

Im not surprised you cannot appreciate the First Amendment and its separate components.
You are apparently immune to reason. You cannot see that I have been emphasizing for "First Amendment purposes only". To you there is no difference between the free exercise clause and the establishment clause (both under the first amendment).
Again, no surprises there. Someone breaks it down for you, you spit on it. Someone leaves you to figure it out on your own, you cant.
Truly an enigma. No wonder the judgement eludes you till now.

Mr "lawyer" you are now trying to wriggle and weasel your way out of astounding ignorance of very basic law (EDIT after consulting Wikipedia again?)! Your words again ----- to haunt you for as long as you live! 

jayriginal:
. . .

[size=14pt]Kaufman only won his suit under the establishment clause, not the first amendment.[/size]

Lets review this.
Kaufman claimed under the first amendment/free exercise clause and the establishment clause.
The court engaged itself in "judicial contortions" and managed to bring atheism under the purview of the first amendment by including anything that takes a position on divinity as a religion. It said it did this in a specialized sense, broadening the scope for the purpose of the first amendment only. It even put religion in quotes ("religion").

You keep shouting "what do you understand by religion under the first amendment", when a simple glance at the judgement shows that [size=14pt]Kaufman didnt win his claim under the first amendment. He won it under the establishment clause[/size]. The court only defined atheism as a religion for the purposes of the first amendment and his claim thereof failed.

My annotations to the judgement are here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-765094.32.html for anyone willing to see for themselves. Thereafter, I put an analysis from a layman to show how easy it is to understand the judgement.

5) I hope that makes you feel smart.

@Enigma, the intellectual cheapo. You can refer to the other thread where I was willing to excuse your mentor (and fellow christian jihadist) Toba when he made seemingly contradictory statements (even when he made bogus claims), I gave him a chance to clear the air. I gave him a chance to explain himself. That allows for the human factor. As is usual with you, you ignore the obvious and jump to what you will.

For the records, nothing has changed. The position according to the court, is that for the purpose of the first amendment, the court broadened the definition of religion to include atheism. Is this any different from what I have been saying ?

Secondly, Kaufman claimed under two clauses:
The free exercise clause and
The establishment clause.
He won under the establishment clause.
Its that simple. Cant expect any semblance of honesty from one like you.

Enigma:

Mr "lawyer" you are now trying to wriggle and weasel your way out of astounding ignorance of very basic law (EDIT after consulting Wikipedia again?)! Your words again ----- to haunt you for as long as you live! 

Wiki this, wiki that. I wonder who is obsessed with it. Very basic law indeed. Why cant you understand it then ?
You are now an icon of American law or so you will have us believe, yet you cannot comprehend simple issues after I have kindly annotated them for you.

I dont need to wriggle out of anything. My arguments still stand. If you wish to believe otherwise, be my guest.

Enigma:

Ah, the dunce accepts at last that evangelical atheism IS indeed a religion ---- albeit he wants to restict that acceptance to some "contexts".

This is all you are good for. Throwing insults that best apply to you. Let me ask you, is there a mirror in front of your computer?

Now let me even show you how much of a bad "lawyer" you are (leaving aside your shameful ignorance of the status of the Establishment Clause):

Here now you are claiming Kaufman won under the Establishment Clause and not the Free Establishment Exercise Clause.

Ha, but when you first started on the other thread by running to Wikipedia for assistance, your case was that Kaufman won under the Free Exercise Clause --- yep, the very one that you now say he didn't win under. So which is it now Mr confused  "lawyer" or is it puff puff "lawyer"?

Remember this? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-765094.32.html#msg9226232

A lawyer going to Wikipedia for assistance in reading a 13 page judgment! SMDH as my friend toba would say!