Justice Antonin Scalia dismisses concept of religious neutrality in speech

[Frank Apisa]

Believing America is favored by god seems to be pretty common for the Scalaiphiles. Believing god has nothing to do with America being what it is, IMO, seems the more rational position.

IF there is a god...I think that would be the most rational guess!

 

[Frank Apisa]

Atheism is defined as not believing in and god or gods and that’s it. There is nothing fundamentally systematic about it in any way. Protestantism consists of a whole set of beliefs, doctrine and rules managed by a formal leadership. It is very much systematic (though even then arguably not one system given the extensive diversity world-wide). As I said, atheism is the opposite of theism, not specific religions. Atheism is no more a system than theism is.

The trouble is a) it’s factually wrong and b) it’s typically used as a tool for generalised attacks, which happen to include me.

No, it’s like saying a cocktail is almost always a bar. Cocktails can be part of what makes a bar and can even be a core element of a bar but the cocktail alone is not itself a bar.

A guess is conscious, a belief is sub-conscious.

That’s what you believe. If it is the case, you can demonstrate it by choosing to believe in God for a short period. Can you do that?

I disagree with almost everything you said here...but this is NOT the thread for it.l

If you want to discuss it...start a thread...and I will stick with that thread for as long as it takes to get you to understand how wrong you are.

But no more discussion of it here...other than a link to a new thread.

 

[calamity]

Atheism is defined as not believing in and god or gods and that’s it. There is nothing fundamentally systematic about it in any way. Protestantism consists of a whole set of beliefs, doctrine and rules managed by a formal leadership. It is very much systematic (though even then arguably not one system given the extensive diversity world-wide). As I said, atheism is the opposite of theism, not specific religions. Atheism is no more a system than theism is.

The trouble is a) it’s factually wrong and b) it’s typically used as a tool for generalised attacks, which happen to include me.

No, it’s like saying a cocktail is almost always a bar. Cocktails can be part of what makes a bar and can even be a core element of a bar but the cocktail alone is not itself a bar.

A guess is conscious, a belief is sub-conscious.

That’s what you believe. If it is the case, you can demonstrate it by choosing to believe in God for a short period. Can you do that?

I disagree with almost everything you said here...but this is NOT the thread for it.l

If you want to discuss it...start a thread...and I will stick with that thread for as long as it takes to get you to understand how wrong you are.

But no more discussion of it here...other than a link to a new thread.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...believing-gods-belief-not.html#post1065422043

 

[matchlight]

:doh splitting hair fallacy.
it says congress but that also applies to the states as well.

There is a serious academic question whether the Supreme Court should ever have incorporated the Establishment Clause and applied it to the states, as it did starting with Everson v. Board in 1947. I think the arguments made by Justice Thomas and others that it was a gross misreading of the clause to do that are correct, and that it has, bizarrely, brought about the very restraint on the states' right to make religious establishments that they intended the clause to prevent.