Members banned from this thread: Jeremy


Page 125 of 144 FirstFirst ... 2575115123124125126127135 ... LastLast
Results 1,241 to 1,250 of 1439
Thanks Tree503Thanks

Thread: Case of gay couple’s wedding cake heads to Supreme Court

  1. #1241
    Senior Member Michael J's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    11,515
    Thanks
    4549

    From
    Washington
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    The Supreme court finds that atheism has the same rights as a religion from various court cases because its a firmly held belief.
    Just because it has the same rights under the 1st Amendment as religions do doesn't mean atheism factually is a religion. That's like saying the Robocop fan page on Facebook that I belong to is a religion because it's our 1st Amendment right to watch Robocop and have public discussion on the film's satire.

    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    When you say the government protects you from religion, you then are stating your beliefs need protection from another belief, making atheism a protected group. KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY | FindLaw
    Premise 1: Atheism is a protected group under the 1st Amendment.
    ----
    Conclusion: Atheism is therefore a religion.

    That is another one of your Non sequiturs. Just because something is protected under the 1st Amendment doesn't mean it is therefore a religion. The Robocop fan page on Facebook that I belong to clearly isn't a religion, and it exists because its founders and I have the 1st Amendment right to endorse the film and discuss its satire.
    Last edited by Michael J; 12th August 2017 at 10:14 PM.

  2. #1242
    Senior Member Michael J's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    11,515
    Thanks
    4549

    From
    Washington
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    Atheism many times has been designated a religion by federal courts. https://www.scribd.com/document/2452...Humansits-v-US
    Many times? Do you know what a quantifier is in English grammar? You posted one court case's records?

    In that case, an incarcerated prisoner wanted to start a study group for humanists. The prison administration wouldn't let him start the study group but it did let theist inmates start study groups because they had the 1st Amendment right to, so he sued in hopes that he could start one because he felt he had the 1st Amendment right to, as well. He won when the court ruled he had the same rights under the 1st Amendment as the religious study groups did.

    If you actually read the court records carefully, you'll see that the court never ruled atheism is factually a religion. The records never say anything like "Atheism is a religion because it has dogma, institutionalized beliefs and all the same things that bible-humping Christian religions have." The court said atheism is to be treated the same way as religions are under the 1st Amendment. Literally every community of interest is treated the same way under the 1st Amendment as religions are, and atheist/humanist study groups are one of many. Game of Thrones' fan clubs are communities of interest, and they exist because George R.R. Martin has the 1st Amendment right to write fantasy stories and his fans have those same rights to discuss his work. What do you think? Is Game of Thrones a religion?
    Last edited by Michael J; 12th August 2017 at 10:12 PM.

  3. #1243
    Senior Member Michael J's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    11,515
    Thanks
    4549

    From
    Washington
    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn View Post
    No, it hasn't. It was referenced as "being treated as a religion." That's not the same as "being designated a religion." Atheism isn't a religion any more than "off" is a television channel.
    He makes the same Availability Errors and has the same Confirmation Bias in practically all of his posts. He falsely connects what he reads to his preconceived prejudices, and immediately thinks whatever he reads means what he wants it to mean.
    Thanks from Djinn

  4. #1244
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    29,189
    Thanks
    3576

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael J View Post
    Atheists don't believe in the absence of God. Atheism is simply the default assumption if no one can prove God exists.

    Your logical fallacy is called a Chewbacca Defense.
    There are as many kinds of atheists as there are Christians. They range from quasi agnostics such as you describe to certain atheists who BELIEVE that God does not exist. They also range from angry atheists who are fierce anti-deists to enlightened atheists who study faith and appreciate what it does for the faithful. All generalizations fail. This is why I said "so many" rather than all. Allow me to quote my favorite enlightened atheist.


  5. #1245
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    29,189
    Thanks
    3576

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael J View Post
    Just because something is protected under the 1st Amendment doesn't mean it is therefore a religion.
    And yet, the government itself has treated religion very broadly, for example when speaking of protected rights in the workplace.

    https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html

    What is “religion” under Title VII?

    Title VII protects all aspects of religious observance and practice as well as belief and defines religion very broadly for purposes of determining what the law covers. For purposes of Title VII, religion includes not only traditional, organized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, but also religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, only subscribed to by a small number of people, or that seem illogical or unreasonable to others. An employee’s belief or practice can be “religious” under Title VII even if the employee is affiliated with a religious group that does not espouse or recognize that individual’s belief or practice, or if few – or no – other people adhere to it. Title VII’s protections also extend to those who are discriminated against or need accommodation because they profess no religious beliefs.

    Religious beliefs include theistic beliefs (i.e. those that include a belief in God) as well as non-theistic “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.” Although courts generally resolve doubts about particular beliefs in favor of finding that they are religious, beliefs are not protected merely because they are strongly held. Rather, religion typically concerns “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death.” Social, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not “religious” beliefs protected by Title VII.

    Religious observances or practices include, for example, attending worship services, praying, wearing religious garb or symbols, displaying religious objects, adhering to certain dietary rules, proselytizing or other forms of religious expression, or refraining from certain activities. Whether a practice is religious depends on the employee’s motivation. The same practice might be engaged in by one person for religious reasons and by another person for purely secular reasons (e.g., dietary restrictions, tattoos, etc.).

    Discrimination based on religion within the meaning of Title VII could include, for example: not hiring an otherwise qualified applicant because he is a self-described evangelical Christian; a Jewish supervisor denying a promotion to a qualified non-Jewish employee because the supervisor wishes to give a preference based on religion to a fellow Jewish employee; or, terminating an employee because he told the employer that he recently converted to the Baha’i Faith.

    Similarly, requests for accommodation of a “religious” belief or practice could include, for example: a Catholic employee requesting a schedule change so that he can attend church services on Good Friday; a Muslim employee requesting an exception to the company’s dress and grooming code allowing her to wear her headscarf, or a Hindu employee requesting an exception allowing her to wear her bindi (religious forehead marking); an atheist asking to be excused from the religious invocation offered at the beginning of staff meetings; an adherent to Native American spiritual beliefs seeking unpaid leave to attend a ritual ceremony; or an employee who identifies as Christian but is not affiliated with a particular sect or denomination requests accommodation of his religious belief that working on his Sabbath is prohibited.

  6. #1246
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    49,250
    Thanks
    2700

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn View Post
    No, it hasn't. It was referenced as "being treated as a religion." That's not the same as "being designated a religion." Atheism isn't a religion any more than "off" is a television channel.
    The courts don't agree with your take on that issue. They get the same protections a religion would because its a group of people that have a belief

  7. #1247
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    49,250
    Thanks
    2700

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael J View Post
    Just because it has the same rights under the 1st Amendment as religions do doesn't mean atheism factually is a religion. That's like saying the Robocop fan page on Facebook that I belong to is a religion because it's our 1st Amendment right to watch Robocop and have public discussion on the film's satire.



    Premise 1: Atheism is a protected group under the 1st Amendment.
    ----
    Conclusion: Atheism is therefore a religion.

    That is another one of your Non sequiturs. Just because something is protected under the 1st Amendment doesn't mean it is therefore a religion. The Robocop fan page on Facebook that I belong to clearly isn't a religion, and it exists because its founders and I have the 1st Amendment right to endorse the film and discuss its satire.
    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.
    Read more at Court rules atheism a religion

  8. #1248
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    49,250
    Thanks
    2700

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael J View Post
    Many times? Do you know what a quantifier is in English grammar? You posted one court case's records?

    In that case, an incarcerated prisoner wanted to start a study group for humanists. The prison administration wouldn't let him start the study group but it did let theist inmates start study groups because they had the 1st Amendment right to, so he sued in hopes that he could start one because he felt he had the 1st Amendment right to, as well. He won when the court ruled he had the same rights under the 1st Amendment as the religious study groups did.

    If you actually read the court records carefully, you'll see that the court never ruled atheism is factually a religion. The records never say anything like "Atheism is a religion because it has dogma, institutionalized beliefs and all the same things that bible-humping Christian religions have." The court said atheism is to be treated the same way as religions are under the 1st Amendment. Literally every community of interest is treated the same way under the 1st Amendment as religions are, and atheist/humanist study groups are one of many. Game of Thrones' fan clubs are communities of interest, and they exist because George R.R. Martin has the 1st Amendment right to write fantasy stories and his fans have those same rights to discuss his work. What do you think? Is Game of Thrones a religion?
    In 2005, the Supreme Court reiterated its view that religion should not be defined narrowly,7 and the Seventh Circuit likewise observed that “the Court has adopted a broad definition of ‘religion’ that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones.”8 The Seventh Circuit went on to note that “[t]he Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a ‘religion’ for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions[.] . . .”9 Earlier, the Seventh Circuit had observed that “[i]f we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”10 Thus, atheism can be a religion for the purpose of constitutional analyses.https://evolutionnews.org/2014/07/for_first_amend1/ For separation purposes the government cannot endorse secular humanism as its state religion, so this kind of stops people like you and Ian in your tracks from pushing Secularism as a state religion

  9. #1249
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    46,519
    Thanks
    21666

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    For separation purposes the government cannot endorse secular humanism as its state religion, so this kind of stops people like you and Ian in your tracks from pushing Secularism as a state religion
    No, it does not. Secular Humanism and secularism are not the same thing. As always, your statement is disingenuous at best, and generally outright dishonest. You have made this claim before, and it is no more true now than before. You are committing a Repetition Fallacy, otherwise known as an argumentum ad nauseum - the fallacy that repetition of an incorrect statement will make it true.

    As to your reference to Justice Black's footnote 11 in Torcaso v. Watkins, the Supreme Court neither "found" nor "ruled" anything. Aside from the fact that it was a mere statement, it was an offhand remark that was irrelevant to the outcome of the case, otherwise known as an obiter dictum, and thus is not law. Furthermore, Secular Humanism is not identical to atheism.

    In other words, you should stop commenting on things, like laws and rules, that you do not understand.

  10. #1250
    Veteran Member Isalexi's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    32,224
    Thanks
    20104

    From
    Maryland
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    The article is about how there is no difference between religion and any world view that provides the "means for realizing the highest values of life. "

    This is why so many atheists assert that their morality is founded in the Greek views on philosophy.

    Believing in the absence of God requires faith because you can't prove it. Whereas agnosticism can't be a religion because simple doubt does not require faith at all.
    Not believing in god requires faith? I don't believe in unicorns, am I a unicornist? I don't think there is a God who lives up in the sky who went poof and made us people. I don't have to prove that because it's ridiculous. If I told you that I went walking on water and that my husband turned into a pillar of salt would you believe me? It must be faith because you can't prove it .
    Thanks from Michael J

Similar Threads

  1. Gay Wedding Cake Case Heads To Supreme Court
    By aboutenough in forum Current Events
    Replies: 320
    Last Post: 6th August 2016, 07:14 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 25th May 2016, 05:26 PM
  3. Replies: 424
    Last Post: 16th May 2016, 01:44 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 16th May 2016, 11:00 AM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 7th March 2016, 01:40 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed