₦airaland Forum

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.

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

[/size]

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

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.

Daiquiri:
You heavy for my hand. Noted

thehomer:
And once again, he rapidly evacuates from the thread with his panties in a bunch.  
I really wonder how long you can keep trying to avoid defining the meaning of religion you keep referring to. Its taken you over 6 months to come this far with nothing to show for it. You've now decided to run along because for some reason, you also refuse to show how this first amendment tells you what a religion is.
Just keep running.

thehomer:
. . . .I really don't see anything of value that you've put up until you define the position you're arguing for. The curious thing about lots of the posts you've made here is the reference by the parties to atheism being a religion [size=14pt]"for the purposes of the first amendment"[/size]. It is supposed to be a special case. First present your definition of a religion.

jayriginal:
1) Im not surprised at this. The depths a christian jihadist will sink to.
2) Facts are in no way invalidated by opinion (especially when the holder of the opinion doesnt exist). As a tribute to your non existence, you couldnt read the judgement and couldnt understand when I kindly annotated it for you. You should say thank you (where are your manners?)
3) Most definitely. You are non existent (by your logic) yet you manage to come online and post intellectual garbage. How can you not be an enigma ? . . . . .

. . . neither a State nor the Federal Government . . . . .  can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

Among religions in this country {i.e. the USA} 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.

jayriginal:
. . . . .

Enigma, I still havent been able to disprove that you are not a Christian Jihadist, so you are still one. While I was at it, I also wasnt able to disprove that you are an atheist , so you must be one too. Infact I do not believe you hold the r.e.t.ar.d.e.d beliefs you profess (because I cannot disprove them as well). I think you just do it to sarcastically expose the christian position. If I'm wrong, you are a sorry poster-boy.
However, there is more.
I finally tried to disprove that you do not exist. Enigma I am sorry to say that I was unsuccessful in this as well. By virtue of the logic of certain christians (names withheld) who insist that since the existence of God cannot be disproved, he must exist, I must now conclude that you do not exist . Never fear though, I recognize you as a non existing Christian Jihadist, who will probably make some vile post in response to this. In advance, may you prove your non existence.
You are truly an Enigma. . . .

jayriginal:
. . . . In anycase, I get it now, as I addressed with my previous post. Toba is a Christian Jihadist, a polytheist, and Enigma until I can prove he is not, is also one as well.

jayriginal:
. . . . In anycase, I get it now, as I addressed with my previous post. Toba is a Christian Jihadist, a polytheist, and Enigma until I can prove he is not, is also one as well.

frosbel:
. . . . . I really doubt your ability to partake in proper and informed debates. Stick to your beer parlor arguments.

"Evangelical atheism": Sounds like an oxymoron, doesn't it? But "evangelism" literally means "bringing of good news." I believe that strong atheism, the belief that there is no god, is not only true but is also good news. I also believe that the world would be a better place if there were more atheists. Unless you already are one, I believe you would be happier and the world would be a better place if you were an atheist.

There are already a number of resources on atheism: books, web sites, movies, you name it. Most of them patiently deal with the rational. This is as it should be; atheism is the only rational response to the question of whether there is a god. What I want to focus on, though, is the emotional. I believe that emotion, not reason, is the moat between the fantasy of religion and the reality (Edit: really?) of atheism.

Life is hard, and religionists take comfort in "knowing" that it's all according to God's purpose. But, if true, would it really be comforting? That a benevolent, loving god could think of no better way to do what he needs to do by causing so much suffering along with joy?

Life ends in death, but wouldn't eternal life be worse?

Many people go to religious services to reinforce their love of God, but isn't that palpable feeling really the love of each other?

We all are lonely, but aren't six billion of us, most of whom are really fine people, enough?

Wisconsin inmate James Kaufman {i.e. the atheist} filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming as relevant here that prison officials violated his First Amendment rights. He raises three unrelated issues. Of the three, the one that has prompted the issuance of this opinion is his claim that the defendants infringed on his right to practice his religion when they refused to allow him to create an inmate group to study and discuss atheism.

While at Waupun, Kaufman {i.e. the atheist} submitted an official form titled “Request for New Religious Practice,” in which he asked to form an inmate group interested in humanism, atheism, and free speaking.

The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. . . . . A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths) . . . .

Without venturing too far into the realm of the  philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion.

We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion.

(“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”). Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs are deeply and sincerely held.

. . . . the {Supreme} Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes nontheistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones. Thus, in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, it said that a state cannot “pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can [it] aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”

It is also noteworthy that the administrative code governing Wisconsin prisons states that one factor the warden is prohibited from considering in deciding whether an inmate’s request to form a new religious group should be granted is “the absence from the beliefs of a concept
of a supreme being.”

Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics. As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman’s religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise.