₦airaland Forum

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

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.

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.

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

Enigma: 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 . . ."

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

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

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.

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

Really?! Why?

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.

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

LOL! Sorry Jen, I was refering to Nyanmeke

""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?!

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

To be protected and acknowledged as special as traditional religions.

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

"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"

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

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.

Your own quotes:

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 occasion

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 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.

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

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

Your subsquent conclusions are therefore faulty.

^^ theories on the origin of life are separate from evolutionary theory. Theories on the Origin of Life don't demand a fossil record. Your argument against fossil record for origin of life is a straw argument.

Enigma: 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



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

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

Other States like Nigeria have such ideals, but place religion as we know it under thoughts and conscience.

I also noted certain attributes for religion listed like narratives and co. In the dictionary definition of atheism, WHERE does Darwinism inevitably fit itself??

Mixing religion with science will always cause confusion and disaster. Cos two entirely different system are thrown into the same pot.

A conflict is inevitably. Liberal theists have little problems with reconciling scientifc findings with their faith, unlike the creationists and IDers.

The theory of evolution does recognize the tree of life is incomplete but it patches up, every piece/fossil is instrumental in setting the right picture. Thus every fossil is transitional. Changes also take time, creationists who claim they don't see dogs transforming to donkeys are simply barking at the wrong tree.

As complexity in life, evolution owes that to the mechanism of natural selection and a gradual build-up.

Nobody is claiming evolution is an absolute truth, but its a goddamn good explanation.

Enigma: 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)?

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?!

What is unscientific about evolution??

Ppl's thought and conscience is protected.

Enigma: @Kay 17

Please answer the question that I am posing below.

First consider the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution which says:

You will be aware that many people treat that provision as amounting to "separation of Church and State"; in fact you may be aware of the following thread in which this very issue was addressed extensively: https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/11#10969297


My question is this: would you say that "atheism" is one of the "religions" that the American State is supposed to be separate from under that 1st Amendment provision (or if you like under the concept of "separation of Church and State" )?

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

Enigma: @Kay17

Consider the statement below made by an atheist from https://www.nairaland.com/948243/how-did-became-atheist#11151169



Now let us work on that quote together.

1. As you can see, the poster goes on to say that "atheism" is not a religion. I add that this is true if you are talking of a passive atheist or one who does not think or care about God's existence, is irreligious and is not bothered about other's religion and religious beliefs. It is of course also true of dogs, cows, monkeys etc who we are also told, at least logically, are also atheists.

2. Theism is not a religion --- however Christianity, a form of theism, is a religion. But then see what follows mutatis mutandis in 3 below.

3. Atheism is not a religion ---- however, evangelical atheism which is a form of atheism is indeed a religion.

4. Remember that the American Supreme Court has also ruled that atheism, really in the form of evangelical atheism, is indeed a religion.

5. You should think again ----- carefully; then you will see that it is entirely logical and it is indeed the reality that evangelical atheism is a religion.

6. Finally, 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

Religion is far more complex and comprehensive to be decided singularly on propagation. Many/Most religions don't propagate and they are still religions. They most centre on the worship of divine beings and divine orders. Religion basically is a subculture, individual/ethical rules that bind the adherents, includes constant performance of rituals.

Most atheists really hate religions, consequently don't say good things about them. Some go as far as campaigning against probably they believe its as harmful as opium and cigarettes.

"Evangelical" atheists are more or less the vocal opposition to Abrahamic religions.

Uyi Iredia: It's necessary he does that because atheists are equally guilty of herd mentality. It is simply naïve to attribute it to humans. Herd mentality & persecution complex on the basis of a common school of thought is rife amongst humans and can be seen along lines as atheits, Catholics, Buddhists, Hindus etc The pastor should have also noted that opponents of the Christian faith grossly overlook shortcomings of their stance.

I will give a counter-example to Deep-Sight using my experience on Rihard Dawkins site. An atheist brought up a piece which nicely showed the faults of Paley's watchmaker argument (along the lines that Paley never strictly attributed complexities to human capabilities whilst ignoring thise naturally generated). I agreed up to the point he said that Nature was a better designer as a 'blind watchmaker maker' pointing out a simple FACT: Nature has never been seen to build a hut. The herd struck and I was quite surprised to find myself attempting to convinve very learned people that saying Nature builds is a fallacy of reification. To cut the long story short I was banned from discussion and my points were bastardized. This is not the first time I've witnessed atheists unjustly banning a person (ususally a Christian) proffering an opposing viewpoint.

The lesson to be learned is this. Brainwashing goes on both sides. That being said I recall Deep Sight' s frustrations in explicating his position to atheists and Christians. There have been criticisms &
Wilful ignorance. Now he mentions a service of Christians and mocks the insistence on focusing on one's beleifs. I can' help but imagine that if it was a meeting of Deists Deep Sight would have been nodding along, maybe we wouldn't have seen this thread.

On a final note, I must say that I can also quite clearly see that Deep Sight (keeping in with the tradition of eminent deists such as Thomas Pain) is a nitpicker. Why ? Because you (in thi thread) pick on a pastor who was preaching a message to ensure the integrity of his belief (Christianity). One can rightly infer he was concerned about the way in which Christianity and/or its tenets are eroding due to the activities of your likes. What else did you expect ?

Bye.

Given that Religion presently has a horrible name and reputation, peeps like Uyi try morning, afternoon and night; even with expenses of placing logic on its head: to include atheists and skeptics in the wagon of religion!

Within the package Faith, lies the absurd assumption of an unquestionable divine authority and what consequently follows with that in mind is faulty.

Natural processes such as the water cycle, snowflakes, will obviously be deemed natural! If you claim ID, then impliedly there is no Nature.

ayobase: So Im confused cos I believe in something, and u r not cos u believe in nothing!
Laughing u in Swahili!

God is something??

ayobase: My reply to u and he/she that likes ur post.
The earlier u believe in lake of fire and heaven, the better.
Living people are aware of it cos of d warning in the Bible, revelations, testimonies....though pple wont still believe!
Dont dice with this!

As far as Reason is concerned, its still a proposition which you haven't yet justified. It would be crazy to run about over the mind/imagination spills out.

Also what is the authority that the Bible is the Word of God?

fellis: @kay
What I wrote:


What I meant:
The verse is an instruction that was given to the Muslims during the war they were engaged in, as at the time of its revelation. That instruction is not a rule or commandment for every single Muslim to follow. That verse serves to enlighten Muslims today of the things that happened to the early Muslims. It's not a command for all Muslims.
Hmmmmm. . . . .

Meaning its not relevant for present day muslims, as they didn't partake in the first jihad right?

fellis: No

i don't understand your quote:

it is not an instruction for all Muslims to keep following till today

shymmex: This purist guy and his gay buddy sauer are full of shyte...

Atheism will always be a religion in denial - shove your stupid opinions in your arses, your opinions don't count..

Pseudo-European mofos trying to explain knowledge to the black man with an African mind GTFOH!!

That doesn't come out right. If atheism is a religion, then its opposite will inevitably be: theism. If theism is a religion, then what will Islam and Christianity be??

ayobase: And what about if that ''imaginary'' lake of fire is real....whats gonna be ur excuse!

The truth of the matter is that I have 2 options, but you have only 1 option!
No insurance?

If the lake of fire is an afterlife experience, how come living people are aware of it?

fellis: Mr. ghostofsparta, why are you taking Qur'anic verses out of context to prove your point?
That verse, 'Fight the unbelievers . . . . ' in your second picture was directed to Muslims that were going to engage in a war back then, it is not an instruction for all Muslims to keep following till today. You craftily cherry-picked the verse and didn't bother adding surrounding verses that explain it better.
Take another verse of the Qur'an out of context again and I'll bring a barrage of violent verses from your bible for you, you deceitful crook.

Are you saying, some Quranic verses lose relevance in time and sometimes location? What's the authority for the Quran and what are the rules of interpretation?

What is it?

tgirl1986: The atheist wants to SEE God to believe He exists, which is impossible. So why try to prove anything? I personally believe in a CREATOR cause of the wonders of nature. For my first degree, i designed a reactor to carry out a reversible chemical process to produce just one substance. I know what i went through calculating heaven and earth to get it right and not design something that will blow up everyone's face. At the same time i was thinking...the earth is the biggest reactor, so many reactions taking place simultenously and yet it has not exploded us to extinction. How possible is it that it was not designed?? The reactor i designed does not know i did it, doesn't change the fact that i did. I am convinced there is a creator, if u believe there's not, that's up to you!

If so, it then implies that there is a prevalent overarching structure of laws which entities within it must abide by to function. For example cars follow the principles of motion, gravity etc in order to achieve what the designer seeks.

One can call such structure the Universe or self existent Being (any fancy name).

This is where Faith comes in. An alternate path to discern reality, just that God, bible, pastor, Jesus, angels etc are absolute and unquestionable.

Uyi Iredia: Those were legitimate laws meant to bring order & structure to a budding community. The law has played its role and has subsequently evolved as the relationship between humans and their collective understanding of God evolved. Your rant doesn't at all harm the integrity of those laws. Funny thing is, if you read the Bible closely_I'm rest assured you don't_you'll find out that most of the timed these laws were subverted through bribery or plain slack.

Good point, however for someone who believes God is unherently good and moral contents are universal is fatal.

Religion is ppl's perception of reality and upon the lack of a universal perception, conflicts will arise. So religion has to go.

Uyi Iredia: It's the garden of Eden all over again my brother. God presents the better option of a rich immortality (aka eternal life) and some people think knowledge of good & evil will win the day.

Are you suggesting immortality without knowledge?? If so, its more like eternal torture.

Christians have to ask themselves the basis of their religion, as whether in their faith or others.

ghostofsparta: How so?

You believe in an absolutist's reality.

ghostofsparta: Ifa to start with isn't a religion nor isn't an organised faith tethered to a revealed book or what have you. Ifa decipher the binary readings of your psychic essence to obtain which particular orisha/irunmole your were 'horoscopically' born with and the exact 'odu' your temperament, nature, emotions, character is asynchronous with. For instance my Aunty's 'odu' is a type that includes she mustn't owe people anything and must avoid people owing her. And so she's been successful because she heeds her Odu warnings. No book is needed for a guide interpreted by a Pastor. The basis of Ifa is binary which is the computer basic language.

is life's goal another material end? Comfortable living?

Uyi Iredia: There is certainly a God. BTW, the Bible is not contradictory but complementary (like the interesting mini-stories of Taoist scripture). People sucha s yourself tend to overlook the simple fact that the Bible is an anthology of qorks that span many epochs, thousand of years. It is always wise to ponder upon the historical context of whatever part of the Bible you are reading. I have undertaken to study most casws of confliction in the Biblr and upon scrutiny I find that they don't hold up. God's existence is simple and equally espoused by other religions eg Zoroastrainism, Hinduism & Islam which also evolved from paganistic schools. All these religions from the wonders of Nature and the obviously unique place man occupies in it. I remain supremely confident that God is considering two things in humanity. One: )our acknowledgement of Him as the Creator of Nature which you are priviliged to partake of as a living person. Two: Your character towards your fellow man and yourself (IOW your morality). Realize that atheists stubbornly refuse to see these simple facts simply because of the presence of evil. But the fact remains
That evil arises feom man's inhumanity to man: A thing everyone is guilty of to a greater or lesser extent.

Unfortunately no Universal God.

Uyi Iredia: I will never marry an atheist. There are lots of beautiful, virtuous Christian ladies in these parts.

If a spouse breaks away from the religion, does that mean the marriage is broken? Can't diversity reign in marriages? If not, marriages will go extinct as every person has a set of unique beliefs as his fingerprints.

ghostofsparta: Belive in what is evidential/provable. There is only one true God, not Yaweh, not Allah, those are for the semites whom millions have died on. Believe in OLODUMARE aka AWAMARIDI. It gave us the knowledge of ewe and egbo, it gave us various deities to address each department of life and specific ori. I assume you are Yoruba so do more research about Ifa.

Painting a pagan god with the Abrahamic brush.

. . . .

Both science and Christianity are caught up in the same field: metaphyics. Both have competing say on the question of reality. Science looks up to Nature as all there is, Christianity finds a transcendent truth which is the most competent explanation for everything.

There is a conflict between both. Though some Christians have found a way of integration scientific results to their faith, however Creationism is a fundamentalist response to Science.