₦airaland Forum

^^ Oh please don't do this to yourself!

I just said above that the freedom of expression/speech provisions are also in the 1st Amendment!

The only thing is that they are independent of the freedom of religion provision.

^^^ Kay17

I really quite like you and you might have noticed that my tone has been largely friendly but your last post betrays some amount of ignorance and misunderstanding.

Yes, the 1st Amendment contains provisions on freedom of speech and freedom of expression; however, the point is that these are free standing provisions separate from the same 1st Amendment's provisions protecting religion.

The point I've been making is that atheism can be adquately protected under the 1st Amendment without first or at all having itself legally and constitutionally declared to be a religion. Simples.

buzugee: Time to go learn some taekwando seeing as my brethren Ijawkid is planning to put me to sleep with choke hold

- Jurigi 'chumbi'!!!

- Ha !!!

^^^ More cognitive dissonance.

Look, if your evangelical atheism is not a religion you will be seeking the protections you desire under freedom of speech and freedom of expression provisions which give adequate protection to such "conscientious" things that fall short of being a religion.

Look this is your ridiculous position and the source of your cognitive dissonance: "evangelical atheism is a religion but is not a religion".

^^^ Cognitive dissonance!

Look, the one intellectually sound and honest position for you is to say that the courts were wrong to agree that atheism is a religion.

But I know why you don't want to do that. You don't want to do that because you will have to admit that the atheist in question and his supporters were being duplicitous.

Even more than that, it would mean you will have to accept that atheism should not enjoy the same benefits and protections as "traditionally-recognised" religions. But of course the combination of duplicitous self-interest, herd mentality (or is it "hive psychology" that someone was referring to the other day) and shame stands in the way.

Look in one of the older debates, Jesoul said something that I agree with: ordinarily we would not dignify atheism or even evangelical atheism with the status of religion. For me, however, the present intellectual, political and legal realities as well as the statements, actions and activities of evangelical atheists themselves (including the fundamentalists among them) mean I must accept the situation that evangelical atheism is indeed a religion --- no matter how unpalatable I and others may find that.

Kay 17: OH!! I'm tagged as an evangelical atheist! Thanks bro!

I don't mind repeating myself over and over and over again. Religion defined by the SC for the purposes of 1st Amendment and in the ideal of human rights is different and separate from the general meaning and dictionary meaning of Religion.

And I will not tire of telling you to stop the deceiving.

Actually this gives me an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone as I had wanted to post the following to provide further assistance for the benefit of anyone who might be interested to show that communism or murder is a religion in the same way that evangelical atheism has been shown to be a religion.

Starting with the legal perspective, here is the kernel of the reasons underlying the court's conclusion that evangelical atheism is a religion.

. . . 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.”).

So compare that with your self-serving statement.

Second thing I wanted to post is in relation to that which I called the general intellectual perspective earlier and is in the form of this link again making the case for evangelical atheism as a religion on not simply legal considerations. https://www.nairaland.com/546562/atheism-religion/11#9256430

Kay 17: BUT you were unable to assert convincingly that atheism is actually a religion in the first place, so you building castles in the air

If it pleases you to deceive yourself (actually, a standard evangelical atheist practice*), then keep saying the above --- but of course the arguments were sufficient to convince the American Supreme Court, at the behest of an atheist. So even if some find it unpalatable, there must be something convincing about it.


*One example on this very pages is the chap who, in typical evangelical atheist obtuseness and duplicity, says he is entitled to quote "whoever" he wants, even if they are American (including an American id[i]i[/i]ot), while in the same breath complaining about my use of the US court judgment.

I think it may be possible to assist anyone who wishes to argue that either Communism or murder is a religion --- in the same way that it has been claimed and established that evangelical atheism is a religion.

The italicised words are to emphasise that the same criteria for judging evangelical atheism to be a religion would have to be used to conclude that either Communism or murder is similarly a religion.

On this thread (and elsewhere before) I have given two sets of criteria for establishing that evangelical atheism is a religion.

1. From a general intellectual perspective

Enigma: . . . . you can also consider the article previously posted at link below to see a reasonable outline of the defining elements for ascertaining a religion and how/why evangelical atheism fits in.

https://www.nairaland.com/546562/atheism-religion/11#9255256

2. From a legal perspective the cases under discussion especially Kaufman v McCaughtry which Kay17 says he was able to find by following the links I recommended. To make life even easier, I give here the link to the text of the judgment. http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/J51FFBOI.pdf


The task now is: using those two sets of criteria, show how Communism or murder is a religion.

The case with murder, which I think is especially poor, will be interesting ----- it will be interesting for murderers to go to the American Court of Appeal and Supreme Court to argue that murder is a religion which must be protected under the 1st Amendment.

Communism is slightly more understandable because of course in the past there have been actually atheistic regimes which had essentially treated Communism as "state religion". Nevertheless, the task on this thread would be to fit Communism into the two sets of criteria pointed out above.

Pastor AIO: Does this make Communism a religion? And does belonging with a religion make something necessarily a religion.

Murderers belong with violent 'jihadists'. Does this make murder a religion?

If anyone wants to show Communism, murder etc to be a religion, I will read quite happily.

Something for the road --- just before I change my 'signature'.

"In seeking universal conversion, evangelical atheism belongs with Christianity and Islam." - John Gray

^^^ The same thing as I've been saying, my dear friend.

Purist: This is the part I really don't get from the guy's argument. So because some Supreme Court in some foreign land defines atheism as a religion[/b[ [b]under certain circumstances, that definition automatically becomes effective in all realms universally.

Wetin person nor go see for dis Nairaland sef.

But you are ready to quote Bill Maher , and you and your mates are happy to quote Harris, Dawkins etc when it suits you lot --- vey eminent Nigerians they are all too.

Oh and about the company, tell that to the birds: under the same provision, religion whether it is Scientology, Kabbalah or atheism are all treated in the same way.

^^ "Legal arbitrariness" indeed" lol

This chicanery does not work, at least not with me; you have yet to realise this?

Using excerpts from material I have posted elsewhere --- from the court judgment itself:

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.

And court said further:

The Establishment Clause also prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another without a legitimate secular reason. . . .

The district court went astray when it evaluated Kaufman’s claim on the assumption that he wanted to form a nonreligious group. . . .

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. . . .



But the defendants have not answered Kaufman’s argument that by accommodating some religious views, but not his, they are promoting the favored ones. Because the defendants failed even to articulate—much less support with evidence—a secular reason why a meeting of atheist inmates would pose a greater security risk than meetings of inmates of other faiths, their rejection of Kaufman’s request cannot survive . . . .

Kay 17: 1. Atheism is a religion under the special definition given to it by SC in context of 1st amendment. Atheism is not religion still.

Whatever! I have explained well enough the decisions of the courts and the consequent implications.

Kay 17: 2. As I have been repeating myself, the Court qualified it under 1st amendment, thus its exclusive to it. I don't need to provide other examples.

Of course you will say you do not need to provide other examples ----- because you cannot.

Kay 17: 3. Which do you contend to be the religion?? Atheism or evangelical atheism??

I prefer to be specific to evangelical atheism. The reason is simple: to distinguish the kind of atheism of passive atheists, dogs, cows, monkeys etc from the active evangelising and miltant atheism that is evangelical atheism. Afterall, atheists sometimes proffer the duplicitous argument that atheism is simply a lack of belief in God; well that is true of dogs, cows, monkeys, passive atheists etc but you don't see them going to court to declare their form of atheism to be a religion.

Kay 17: 4. Of course all judgements have jurisprudential value, but I meant was that their powers didn't go beyond interpreting laws and other judicial duties.

And their conclusion that atheism is a religion has practical effect in very real and concrete terms in several spheres of American jurisprudence, law, policy and even general life.

Kay 17: @enigma

You bringing the case as an authority to provide that atheism is rationally qualified to be a religion is out of place.

Nah, not all; not when atheists themselves went to court to claim and argue that atheism is a religion.

Exactamundo, Uyi.

Kay 17: 1. That is settled.

In other words it is settled that under the 1st Amendment atheism is a religion ---- as much a religion as any other religion.

Kay 17: 2. Supreme Court judgments and Superior courts' judgment are binding on all other courts; yes. However in this case, the definition given to "Religion" in the wordings of the 1st amendment is binding on all courts, but outside the 1st amendment and in other parts of the constitution and other laws, the word religion will take its general meaning. All other courts will follow the decision.

Do you want to point out which other parts of the Constitution and which other laws? Let us see you put up on this one.

Kay 17: 3. It would be against free thought to persecute atheists and freethinkers. That's against the ideal of human rights.

The point you are missing is that you evangelical atheists could seek this protection under freedom of speech and freedom of expression provisions; instead evangelical atheists themselves CLAIMED AND ARGUED that atheism is a religion.

{{By the way, "freethinker" is another term that has been duplicitously appropriated of course - but a matter for another occasion}}

Kay 17: 4. No, I didn't. I have been saying the same over and over again. The Court just interprets laws. Simple.

Nope, claiming the courts said the judgments had no philosohical value is different from saying the court should not engage in philosophical exercises. In any event, it is inevitable that the courts will occasionally (even often) have to engage in "philosophical exercises".

Anyway, I won't bother stressing you on it as it is peripheral; I only addressed the point because you raised it and used it in a false and quite misleading manner.

Kay 17: 1. The Court has the exclusive power to interpret laws, as a result, they only can define "religion" in the first amendment.

And the court has ruled (ok under the 1st Amendment) that atheism is a religion ---- as much a religion as any other religion.

Kay 17: 2. The Court did mention that within the context of the 1st amendment, Religion is defined as . . . Such a definition is exclusive to the 1st amendment. And yes, the Constitution is supreme.

No, the definition is not "exclusive" to the 1st Amendment in the way you are suggesting. Even if we say that the definition is "for First Amendment purposes only", I have already told you that this affects the entire legal system and I see you tacitly accepting this by saying "the Constitution is Supreme". Of course what that means is that any other law that does not recognise atheism as a religion consistently with the 1st Amendment (as interpreted by the courts) is invalid and will be struck down

Kay 17: 3. Note that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights was the first if not, one of the first secular constitutions. Experience on what and extent of human rights was not detailed.

I was going to say this is irrelevant but it is even more misleading than it is irrelevant. The Bill of Rights aka 1st Amendment is the same document that protects freedom of speech, freedom of expression etc.

What is more, I could play your game and argue that the 1st Amendment did not originally contemplate that "atheism" would be classified as a religion under its provision because atheism was largely irrelevant in that period. Therefore the atheists squeezing atheism into "religion" under its provisions are duplictous and the courts are misguided in aiding and abetting them.

So if the atheists could successfully stretch "religion" to encompass atheism, they could easily have stretched freedom of expression/speech for the adequate protection of atheism; the real point is they could have also done so without arguing that atheism is a religion as they have done duplicitously under the 1st Amendment.

Kay 17: 4. If the Court involves itself in philosophical exercises, its acting on its own frolic. That is outside its powers.

Now you are changing tune with style style! What you claimed falsely previously was that the courts said that their judgments had no philosophical value. That is quite different from your new song.

Kay 17: The defintion of religion is not to be sought from a dictionary or encyclopedia, the preserve of the Court.

So are you saying it is only (or it is not) for the court to define religion? You seem to be contradicting yourself because you said earlier that the Supreme Court had a duty to interprete the 1st Amendment which of course includes the word "religion".

In any event, to be clear, please tell us where and how we should derive the meaning of the word "religion".

Kay 17: The SC did define religion as regards only the first amendment, applying such a definition in other areas of law will be counterproductive not to speak of an academic discourse.

Oh you say this because you do not understand. Any other law in the United States that contradicts the 1st Amendment, as interpreted, that atheism is a religion, is invalid. So the provision and the courts' decisions that atheism is a religion affect the entire legal system.

Kay 17: Coupled with the ideals of a democratic and free society, it is generally considered a human rights beliefs grounded in conscience and conviction. Universal declarations of Human Rights buttress and are continuation of such ideals. Given that, Religion is broaden to give effect to the aforementioned ideals.

This is obfuscation! We are dealing with something specific; a specific constitutional provision concerning religion! If atheism wants to be protected as an expression of human rights but not a religion, this could have been done. It could have presented its case under e.g. freedom of speech and freedom of expression provisions for example among others.

Rather we have atheists arguing that atheism is a religion! So let's stop the deceiving.

Kay 17: Really?! Why?

Where did what you quoted say or even suggest that the judgments had no philosophical value?

Kay 17: Religion with an entirely different meaning. What does has the SC denied under 1st Amendment??

I think you need to rephrase this; can't make sense of it!

Kay 17: ""What your "for first amendment purposes" argument means when expressed properly and truthfully is that: atheism is as much a religion as any other religion under the American Constitution and in particular the First Amendment and this has been confirmed by both the American Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.""

What is the use of saying religion = religion?! With no clarification?!

Why do you people say these things?

OK here goes:

--- Atheism is a religion
--- Scientology is a religion
--- Kabbalah is a religion

So which of those is saying "religion = religion"?

Kay 17: To be protected and acknowledged as special as traditional religions.

Nope, try again! Again, what the Constitution says is that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

Atheism can only be protected etc under that provision if it is recognised as a religion. Simples.

Kay 17: "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"

You see now that you shot yourself in the foot. That is so not saying that the judgment(s) "had no philosophical value"!

Kay 17: You are failing to take into consideration, that the SC has earlier defined Religion but qualified to the Ist Amendment. In accordance with such definition which broadly embraces all thoughts. Saying a belief without a mention of God is preposterous, but understanding the Court's rationale, its valid.

Wrong!!!

1. I have clearly set out what both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal said. I can even go beyond what is on this thread if you like --- as I did previously on the other two threads I linked.

2. The Supreme Court definition of "religion" does not "embrace all thoughts"!

3. The 1st Amendment says religion is to be protected; you can only bring atheism under that protection if you agree that atheism is a religion. Kaufman (the atheist NOTE) argued that atheism is a religion; evangelical atheist groups argued that atheism is a religion; the Court of Appeal agreed that atheism is a religion; the Supreme Court agreed that atheism is a religion.

Of course in view of such consensus, it is no surprise they say atheism is protected under the 1st Amendment ---- since atheism is a religion as with every other religion which are also protected under the 1st Amendment.

Kay 17: Your own quotes: . . . . .

And another of my quotes:

What your "for first amendment purposes" argument means when expressed properly and truthfully is that: atheism is as much a religion as any other religion under the American Constitution and in particular the First Amendment and this has been confirmed by both the American Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.

Kay 17: The powers and concern of the courts does not extend pass what the Law and the makers intend. The courts simply interpret not add volumes to academic exercises or philosophical discourses.

You are therefore saying that the lawmakers intended atheism to be a religion.

Kay 17: The Court clearly said their judgment has no philosophical value, but to put effect to what the draftsman intended to protect.

Please point us to where in the judgment(s) the court said the judgment(s) had no philosophical value.

Kay 17: Therefore acknowledging thought/conscience is equally as preciously guarded as traditional religions.

The distinction that the courts have been drawing is between religions; between religions involving a belief in God on one hand and religions (including atheism) not involving a belief in God.

Kay 17: Your subsquent conclusions are therefore faulty.

You are talking nonsense here of course; or in technical parlance, utter bollocks! I need say no more.

Kay 17: I went through your link and LMAO! I went through the case report and its not a Supreme Court case . .

Kaufman v McCaughtry itself is a decision of the US Court of Appeal (7th Circuit) as noted on the other thread and in the link; however, as I said and as noted in the case, the Supreme Court has also stated that atheism is a religion. In fact even you acknowledged this (maybe without realising it ) by saying Kaufman v McCaughtry was following "judicial precedent". In Kaufman v McCaughtry, the Court of Appeal said: "The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions . . . "

One example is Torcaso v Wilson where the Supreme Court said that there are "religions based on a belief in the existence of God [and] religions founded on different beliefs”; the court then said further that religions which do not teach a belief in the existence of God include Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." "Secular Humanism and others" includes atheism under the eiusdem generis rule and in any event "secular humanism" is basically atheism anyway.

Kay 17: . . . however the Court submitted:

"We address his claim under the Free Exercise Clause first. An inmate retains the right to exercise his religious beliefs in prison. Tarpley v. Allen County, 312 F.3d 895, 898 (7th Cir.2002). The problem here was that the prison officials did not treat atheism as a "religion," perhaps in keeping with Kaufman's own insistence that it is the antithesis of religion. But whether atheism is a "religion" for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. 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. See Wisconsin v. Yoder"

The Court by following a judicial precedent, are not submitting a philosophical view/opinion on whether or atheism is actually a religion with the incidents, but rather expresses and awards atheism as a religion for purpose of the First Amendment. Therefore atheism is that system of thoughts that equally deserves protection. McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky.

Firstly, this makes me laugh because I know it is following the line suggested by evangelical atheists' thought formers and clergy like Dillahunty etc.

It is wrong to say that the courts are not "submitting a philosophical view/opinion on whether or (sic) atheism is actually a religion . . ." because the courts were doing that and so acknowledged even in the Kaufman case saying only that they were "not venturing too far" into the philosophical; for example the court said:

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) . . . .

Now, as expected, you too harp about "for First Amendment purposes" (as recommended by evangelical atheists' clergy like Dillahunty ) but of course the argument is a fraudulent argument or at least bereft of merit and truth. This again is what the First Amendment says (as relevant): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

What your "for first amendment purposes" argument means when expressed properly and truthfully is that: atheism is as much a religion as any other religion under the American Constitution and in particular the First Amendment and this has been confirmed by both the American Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.

So you see,those recommending the "for First Amendment purposes" line are simply trying to hoodwink the uninformed or misinformed.

What is more, you see that it is not just people like Uyi (or Enigma) "turning logic on its head".

As I keep saying evangelical atheists are simply too ashamed to acknowledge that what they are doing is now basically practising a religion i.e. that they too are "religionists" and in fact some of them are fundamentalist religionists.

Of course there are the more duplicitous ones, in America especially but also elsewhere, who want to eat their cake and have it; when it suits them they argue that atheism is not a religion so that atheism can be taught and practised where other religions are prohibited; on the other hand when it suits them the other way, the duplicitous atheists argue that atheism is a religion so that they can enjoy benefits and protections given to other religions.

Kay 17: Thoughts groups?! Why not! Atheists shouldn't be discouraged from congregating. If ppl feel they have a common interest or belief, why deprive them of free association?!

Interesting! Except of course that atheists and atheist organisations have not seen the formation of groups in these scenarios as "thought groups"; rather, atheists and atheist groups have argued that what they wish to set up is a religious group!

In reverse: there has been a campaign (still ongoing) to have atheist chaplains for atheists and "secular humanists" in the US military.

The prison scenario is even more clear cut. An atheist supported by atheist groups argued that atheism is a religion and in the prison setting should be accorded the same rights accorded to other religions. See? So it wasn't people like Enigma claiming that (evangelical) atheism is a religion; rather it was evangelical atheists themselves arguing that atheism should be recognised as a religion under the American Constitution and specifically the 1st Amendment provision that I set out for you above. Guess what? The American Supreme Court agreed with the atheists that atheism is indeed a religion and is covered by the provisions of the 1st Amendment as with any other religion.

I have previously summarised the American Supreme Court decision https://www.nairaland.com/546562/atheism-religion/11#9248666 and https://www.nairaland.com/765094/heard-there-different-kinds-atheism/3#9249236

1. Kaufman the atheist claims that atheism is a religion
Court's decision: YES, we agree that atheism IS a religion even though it does not involve belief in a Supreme Being . . .

2. I Kaufman (the atheist) am being prevented from practising my religion of atheism because I am not allowed to form a group for atheists
Court's decision: NO, you are NOT being prevented from practising your religion of atheism since you can practise your religion alone and without forming a group. . . .

3. All religions are supposed to be treated equally but other religions whose followers are allowed to form groups are being treated better than my religion of atheism because there is no greater danger than in their case if I too am allowed to form a group.
Court's Decision: YES, Kaufman's religion of atheism is being discriminated against because if others are allowed to form groups and his own group will not pose any greater risk or danger then he should be given the same right. . . .

EDIT: Important Note: if Kaufman had not won the major claim 1 i.e. that atheism is a religion, then none of his other claims especially claim 3 had any hope. This is why this case is known for deciding that atheism is a religion.

So the decision says: (a) atheism IS a religion and (b) atheism should not be treated worse than any other religion. However, it is possible to practise the atheism religion on your own without forming a group.

So you see, it is chicanery to claim that evangelical atheism is not a religion.

dekung: . . . Atheists believe there is no God in the context of the features ascribed to it by religion and most especially the monotheistic religion. . . .

Hence, especially in the form of evangelical atheism, it is a belief system, based on faith and, taking into account other things, a religion.

OK here is a scenario:

In an American prison, Christian prisoners, Moslem prisoners, Rastafarian prisoners, Kabbalah prisoners are all allowed to form groups based on their respective faiths/religions; however, atheist prisoners are not allowed to form groups based on atheism.

Would you call this discrimination and why (or why not)?

Another scenario: in the American military, Christian soldiers can have Christian chaplains, Moslem soldiers can have Moslem chaplains; but atheist soldiers are not allowed to have atheist chaplains.


Would you call this discrimination and why (or why not)?

Kay 17: I don't think atheism is a religion in the first place.

OK, would you then say that the American government is entitled to discriminate against "atheism"?

^^^ What about constant self-avowal, self description and self definition as an atheist?

^^^ Wait and follow what happens after the response of the person to whom I directed my post (or of any intellectually honest person) and you might learn something.

Purist: ^^^ I wouldn't exactly say that anything was "thrashed out". It's not like a consensus was ever reached.

^^^ But you at least know of the debates well enough than to misrepresent me as you did.

Dambudzo: Then they aren't really atheists. The very definition of atheist means we reject all claims about the supernatural. Last time l checked juju is supernatural.

Oh yes, they are atheists alright; self-avowed atheists who constantly define themselves as such and constantly rail against religion and its "illogic".