₦airaland Forum

I said the freedom of speech and expression are in the 1st Amendment!!

olasesi: the royal "we" has no meaning in number but in majesty, power and sovereignty........so it is exclusive for those that posses these.......not me or u....
so i guess God used it because it's a style of language that is exclusive to the royals.......it's an option though...he could as well use "I"
.....why do the kings use it?.....that's because it's an option they are allowed to take...and i guess they wouldn't change their language if it wasn't part of it.......
.....why do the Yorubas use plural person for the elderly?......i guess that because it's Yoruba.....

That's if God is constrained to use human languages and its nuances. Also, its not a reoccuring language use. I AM that I AM

alexleo: If it doesnt make sense to you there are a lot of people it makes sense to. Cheers.




And what if its real at the end of the day?

What if the story is false??

The Ghanaian constitution, the Nigerian constitution, the European Charter and many other countries all separate the right to free thought and conscience from freedom of speech and expression.

Freedom of speech covers outward expression, articles of communication, sharing of information. It involves a second party, a transfer of information.

Whereas conscientious beliefs are innate, thinking, sometimes communal union, even status to which one is associated to. A man who believes life in any form is sacred and in accordance practices that, he inevitably stands out from others, and unfortunately freedom of speech can't adequately cover it.

A law can prohibit Christians from holding public offices, or enjoying marriage privileges and that would inhibit free speech.

Deep Sight: No, the guy is not an authourity: and I will go so far as to say that neither is the Supreme Court - save of course, to the extent that it defines it for legal purposes to protect legal freedoms of everyone.

That's what man has been trying to drum into enigma's head.

^^^

Good, God is good to you.

Ok.

At one time it was thought that this right [referring to the right to choose one's own creed] merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism.   But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.

This should conclude it.

You seem to believe the provisions for freedom of speech and expression is outside the 1st Amendment. If you do think so, then try to provide for the constitutional provisions for those rights.

Enigma: ^^^ 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".

BUT the first Amendment is the instrument that protects freedom of speech and expression!! The Court's definition of religion covers it. That's my point.

You are not delivering good compelling argument. Of course in your eyes, the intellectually thing to do is agree with you. That's not a good point either.

You FAIL to understand human rights, the court process and powers. The Court is not just concerned with ppl's religion but free thought, even if its a herd activity. The underlying rationale is centred on the sovereignty of one's mind/conscience. One is to follow his own morality.

Pls read on human rights and its history, Europe had always being plagued by religious conflicts and persecutions prior to the 18 and 19 centuries, before the founding of the US. Official religions were State sanctioned and backed up with its power forcing a common faith. However ppl always had their own view on divinity, the authority of the bible and other doctrines and where carving out their denominations out of mainstream faith, consequently punished by the State.

And there was the sense of injustice about State religions, caging and dictating faiths and disbeliefs. The first pilgrims were victims of such persecutions. With that in mind, the American and French revolutionaries sought to protect that individual conscience.

So now, ppl can share the images of what God is like: transcendental, physical, spiritual, Natural, spaghetti like, etc. NOT everyone now waits on the Catholic church to approve and stamp acceptable doctrines.

The above quote still qualifies as conscientious beliefs. The court finds it as a fundamental human right, its not only the Supreme Court of the US that upholds and protects that right, even Nigeria does.

It is still a continuation of their broad unique and distinct definition of religion

As deep sight mentioned, if the irreligious is opposite to, a reverse of, antithetical of religion, how on earth can it be religion?! In a faith world, contradictions are not fatal, BUT in the real world, such a contradiction can not subsist.

A negative is not positive.

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.

Yes, because your religion relies so much on personal experience/feelings and faith. So don't propagate it to us wrapped with reason.

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

You can't make a compelling argument but plea??

My own question is why is a physical phenomenon like gravity found in heaven and hell. Thank you.

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

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

No, propagation is not the defining factor or test for religion. Marketing products or services would easily qualify as religious.

The only flaw in religion is the sheep-like obedience and unquestioning nature of the followers. It could be helpful, but dangerous.

Fellis is absolutely right, some peeps are held back by religion from going on a wild rampage. Freethinking is more helpful to less bestial ppl

DeepSight wrapped it all up.

Enigma: 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.

What are you saying again??

Deep Sight: Even if it is granted that the US Supreme Court deployed such an interpretation in that regard.

I really wonder whether the fact that atheism is considered, in the realm of law, a religion - thereby makes it in fact a religion.

In the same way as I wonder if the fact that a company is considered a legal person in the realm of law, - thereby makes it in fact a person.

Legal arbitrariness.

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

Because the language of the Court was very clear. .

"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"

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

Which do you think the SC is talking about??

With Love comes respect, tolerance and empathy. Without these, there would be no society and no goal of perfection.

So Jesus is right.

All I'm asking is: why the presumption of an empty world??

@enigma

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

Uyi Iredia: @ Enigma It's necessary it be a religion. In order to score a political point (raise more awareness, get the same legal advantages given to religions and their sects, coherency in codifying their thoughts etc). I can understand atheists denying that theirs is becoming a religion being that it was opposed to religions but the fact remains that a few are beginning to grudgingly accept that it takes a religion to beat a religion, that's why there are parody religions eg Flying Spaghetti Monster Movement founded by an atheist Bobby Henderson etc. The accusation of religion is legitimate given the activities of atheists in recent times of which I regularly point out codification of their thoughts and active 'evangelism' of their beliefs.

There isn't a drop of sense in what you just said. At the end of day, you would be insisting a monstrous absurdity that the irreligious are religious.

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

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.

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

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.

^^^ ppl like you tend to presume a void world/arena beforeits being filled up.

I will pose the question: why is there something rather than nothing.

In my answer, I dismiss nothing as being unproductive, therefore with the presence of something/things now, there was always something and things. The laws present today are not created or caused. The universe is not created either. Everything present now had always existed either in potential or actuality.

1. That is settled.

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.

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

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

Adele is a demon from Hell.

Its not a retaliation, rather a genocide.