₦airaland Forum

The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions . . . .

jayriginal:
Enigma, once, and once only will I answer you. Then its silence from here on.

jayriginal:
I guess you will rather have them silenced.

jayriginal:
Now its convenient for you to call Fahling "another individual commentator". When you thought he supported you, you didnt say he was "just another individual commentator".

jayriginal:
Its clear that you are looking but cannot see. I had to put the judgement out, and now you want to copy out parts that seemingly support your case.

jayriginal:
Lets look at some of your quotes from the judgement.
What part of this is difficult for you to accept ? In this specialized sense. That is, for the purposes of the first ammendment, not for all or general purposes.
Broad because atheism is not a religion and does not fit. I guess you missed this1) is true only to the extent that religion deals with gods and atheists do not recognise them. To qualify this as a religion is absurd as stated severally. For the purpose of the first ammendment, it is a different matter.
2) The atheist position on this is that we dont believe in them.
3) There are no code of ethics.

jayriginal:
Here is the clincher
Following this line of thinking, when you reject the Invisible Pink Unicorn as your creator, that is your religion (ie non belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn). Ditto the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ogun, Sango, Zeus, Allah, Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny,  etc. The list is endless.

It is unfortunate that you want to continue this line of reasoning, but in a way, it is not surprising.

Question :
Do you believe in God or Gods
Possible answers
1) Yes
2) No.
If you say yes, you are a theist.
If you say no, you are an atheist.
Theism is not a religion neither is atheism. They are just positions on divinity. One admits of a belief, the other does not. How else do you want this explained to you ?

jayriginal:
In anycase, it was late when I posted yesterday, I wanted to do a final edit this moring and leave this thread but seeing as you have responded, I thought it would be better to incorporate the edit in a new post and respond to you.

Its a free world, you may interpret the judgment as you see fit, ignoring the obvious. That is the way you read your bible anyway, so no surprises there.
If you want to keep walking into a wall, dont let me stop you.
Be my guest.
Cheers !

jayriginal:
PS
as I was about to submit the post, I noticed you posted again. It's good you have been reading . Study some more.
You seek to show that the non-religion point was dismissed.Surely you didnt fail to see the quotation marks around religion. The court is declaring atheism a religion, for the purposes of the first ammendment only. The court does not ordinarily consider atheism a religion. They had to do a lot of "panel-beating" to get it to fit for this specialized purpose.
Please read my posts again. The judgment itself is clear as day for anybody to understand.

The district court went astray when it evaluated Kaufman’s claim on the assumption that he wanted to form a nonreligious group. Based on that premise, it held that the defendants were entitled to assess Kaufman’s proposal under the more restrictive set of regulations that applies to
normal social groups. Had the premise been correct, the conclusion would have followed: no one says that a person who wants to form a chess club at the prison is entitled under the Establishment Clause to have the application evaluated as if chess were a religion, no matter how devoted he is to the game. In addition, the district court correctly noted that in certain circumstances the government may make special accommodations for religious practices that are not extended to nonreligious practices without violating the Establishment Clause.

The problem with the district court’s analysis is that the court failed to recognize that Kaufman was trying to start a “religious” group, in the sense we discussed earlier. Atheism is Kaufman’s religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being. As he explained in his application, the group wanted to study freedom of thought, religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices, all presumably from an atheistic perspective. It is undisputed that other religious groups are permitted to meet at Kaufman’s prison, and the defendants have advanced no secular reason why the security concerns they cited as a reason to deny his request for an atheist group do not apply equally to gatherings of Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or Wiccan inmates.

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.

Court rules atheism a religion: Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.

The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court's ruling "a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence."

"Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said Fahling.

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.

Fahling said today's ruling was "further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence."

"It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts' is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited," Fahling said.

The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent
to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on
numerous occasions . . . .

wetu:
Joagbaje, you must refrain from teaching false doctrine . . . .

toba:
nice one.

BRB back after service to throw some questions to the op about atheism and atheist

A dyslexic insomniac agnostic lies awake at night wondering if there is a Dog!

Pastor AIO:
"pastor,my dog is dead.could dere be a service for the poor creature?"pastor replied,"No,we cannot ve service for an animal in d church.But there is a new church down d road.maybe, dey will do sumting for d animal, the man answered"pastor,but do u tink they will accept a donation of us $25o,ooo in return for d burial service? Pastor exclaimed"sweet jesus!WHY didn't u tel me the dog was a Christain?"

A man finally goes with his wife to church, after promising her for weeks that he'd go. Surprisingly, the man was so impressed with the preacher's sermon he stopped on the way out to shake his hand.

"Preacher, I'll tell you, that was a DAMN fine sermon."

The preacher says, "Why thank you sir, but we don't used profanity in the house of the Lord."

The man says, "But preacher, seriously, I'm not a religious man, but that was the best DAMNED sermon I ever heard."

The preacher says again, "Sir, while I appreciate what you're trying to say, I must be blunt: DO NOT use curse words in the Lord's house again."

The man says, "Well, anyway, I was so impressed with your sermon that I placed $5000 dollars in the collection plate".

"No excreta* shiiit?" says the Preacher.

jayriginal:
. . . . Everything I said to Toba applies to your post. . . .

jayriginal:
. . . .
At this point, Id like to say something before I leave. I have heard that some people just pick flaws in peoples arguments without adding anything constructive. I have been accused of that personally . . . .

"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?

deols:
I wont be surprised if many of those pastors are atheists in real life. They see a business venture and go into it. No fear of God at all. All they need is to try look good, speak a little good english (wv some ajasa), learn a little psychology , get some marriage counselling lessons(or get their wives to do that) and practice on speaking in some terms no one might understand as scam and they'r in money

22 “And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there. 23 I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me. 24 However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me—the task of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace.

25 “Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again.

1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. 4 For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them.

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

5 For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many.

1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

4 For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. 29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30[b] Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them[/b]. 31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.

1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

JeSoul:
You're right brotha.  I guess its Bosom for tat, eye for eye and the entire place is going blind.