U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: ATHEISM IS RELIGION

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. As recently as 2005, the Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of Kaufman v. McCaughtry again ruled that Atheism is Religion. In spite of the many court rulings along that line, members of the Religion of Atheism insist they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by insisting that Christians are mental midgets for being religious and for believing in a "non-existent sky gawd."


Atheist religionists often refer to the Judeo-Christian Bible as a book of fairytales. At one website where I have debated, the Bible was referred to by atheists as the "BuyBull." Not only that, in most of my conversations with atheists at various websites, their usual accusation is that because of the belief in God, theists have committed all sorts of human rights violations in the name of "cultish religions." According to the many atheists I have debated at other websites, it is the belief in God that has caused people to commit the various atrocities common to sinful mankind. Remove religion, belief in God, and belief in the Bible--the atheists frequently argue--and the world will be a better place. This latter conclusion is mortally flawed for the following reasons:


1. Atheism is itself a religion.

2. Atheists have committed human rights violations en masse throughout history. For instance, Joseph Stalin--the atheist--ordered the deaths of between 40 million to 62 million people (20 million of whom were everyday Soviet civilians). Compare that to the 9 million or so killed by Adolph Hitler, the Roman Catholic who merely claimed he was a Christian.


In reality, the problem is not the Bible or God. The problem is false religions that have failed to teach the masses Biblical truths. Blaming God for the crimes of people whose behaviors he himself reject is an attempt at passing the buck.

"See! This only I have found, that the true God made mankind upright, but THEY THEMSELVES have sought out many plans." (Ecclesiastes 7:29)



DISCUSSION POINTS:
1. Considering that atheists have themselves committed human rights violations under the banner of non-bellief in a supernatural God or gods, why can one argue that "belief in god" is not the actual reason behind crimes against humanity?


2. Atheists routinely argue they do not belong to a religion. According to them, non-belief in God is proof positive that they are not religious. Do you agree with the atheists' position? Why so or why not?


3. Based upon numerous court rulings that Atheism is Religion, it is obvious that belief in a supernatural God or gods is not a requirement for being considered part of a religion. What arguments can you present along this line?

 

[X Factor]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. As recently as 2005, the Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of Kaufman v. McCaughtry again ruled that Atheism is Religion. In spite of the many court rulings along that line, members of the Religion of Atheism insist they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by insisting that Christians are mental midgets for being religious and for believing in a "non-existent sky gawd."


Atheist religionists often refer to the Judeo-Christian Bible as a book of fairytales. At one website where I have debated, the Bible was referred to by atheists as the "BuyBull." Not only that, in most of my conversations with atheists at various websites, their usual accusation is that because of the belief in God, theists have committed all sorts of human rights violations in the name of "cultish religions." According to the many atheists I have debated at other websites, it is the belief in God that has caused people to commit the various atrocities common to sinful mankind. Remove religion, belief in God, and belief in the Bible--the atheists frequently argue--and the world will be a better place. This latter conclusion is mortally flawed for the following reasons:


1. Atheism is itself a religion.

2. Atheists have committed human rights violations en masse throughout history. For instance, Joseph Stalin--the atheist--ordered the deaths of between 40 million to 62 million people (20 million of whom were everyday Soviet civilians). Compare that to the 9 million or so killed by Adolph Hitler, the Roman Catholic who merely claimed he was a Christian.


In reality, the problem is not the Bible or God. The problem is false religions that have failed to teach the masses Biblical truths. Blaming God for the crimes of people whose behaviors he himself reject is an attempt at passing the buck.

"See! This only I have found, that the true God made mankind upright, but THEY THEMSELVES have sought out many plans." (Ecclesiastes 7:29)



DISCUSSION POINTS:
1. Considering that atheists have themselves committed human rights violations under the banner of non-bellief in a supernatural God or gods, why can one argue that "belief in god" is not the actual reason behind crimes against humanity?


2. Atheists routinely argue they do not belong to a religion. According to them, non-belief in God is proof positive that they are not religious. Do you agree with the atheists' position? Why so or why not?


3. Based upon numerous court rulings that Atheism is Religion, it is obvious that belief in a supernatural God or gods is not a requirement for being considered part of a religion. What arguments can you present along this line?

Not going to take on all of this but, with regard to your second question, those who express a simple non belief do tend, to me, to be non religious. Those who are non relgious tend to be respectful, or at least, content to let people believe or not believe as they will. Those who say that "there is no God" are expressing an affirmative statement of belief and many of those argue their belief in just the same way as the extremely religious. I think when someone just doesn't believe, they don't see a conflict with those who do, unlike those who believe that there is no God. For those people, their beliefs conflict with those who hold other beliefs so they're more contentious.

 

[Paschendale]

Legally, any stance on religious types of questions is protected by the first amendment. "None" is a stance. But lack of religion is not a religion. It is an answer to religious questions, but it is no more a religion than "I don't follow baseball" is an expression of one's favorite team.

The nonsense about Stalin has been discussed ad nauseam and gets very boring. All I'll say is that it's very telling that he is often the sole example of an evil atheist presented, though sometimes Mao and Pol Pot are offered. I wouldn't call them good examples, as eastern view of what religion fundamentally is is different than the western view. Of course, none of them cited their lack of religion as any kind of motivation for their evil deeds, but rather simply saw religious groups as a threat to their power. Either way, a handful of villains in one century compared with thousands of years of religiously motivated tyrants, wars, and massacres, continuing today, doesn't exactly tip the scales towards religion.

Not going to take on all of this but, with regard to your second question, those who express a simple non belief do tend, to me, to be non religious. Those who are non relgious tend to be respectful, or at least, content to let people believe or not believe as they will. Those who say that "there is no God" are expressing an affirmative statement of belief and many of those argue their belief in just the same way as the extremely religious. I think when someone just doesn't believe, they don't see a conflict with those who do, unlike those who believe that there is no God. For those people, their beliefs conflict with those who hold other beliefs so they're more contentious.

So it's merely your belief that Elvis is dead, right? And if you don't want your religious beliefs challenged, don't bring them to a debate forum, and don't try to get them enshrined by society. You'd get that respect you want a lot more if you kept your religion to yourself. Everyone would be quite content to live and let live with you, regardless of any personal spiritual beliefs. It's when someone tries to make theirs public beliefs that we find ourselves needing to push back.

 

[X Factor]

Legally, any stance on religious types of questions is protected by the first amendment. "None" is a stance. But lack of religion is not a religion. It is an answer to religious questions, but it is no more a religion than "I don't follow baseball" is an expression of one's favorite team.

The nonsense about Stalin has been discussed ad nauseam and gets very boring. All I'll say is that it's very telling that he is often the sole example of an evil atheist presented, though sometimes Mao and Pol Pot are offered. I wouldn't call them good examples, as eastern view of what religion fundamentally is is different than the western view. Of course, none of them cited their lack of religion as any kind of motivation for their evil deeds, but rather simply saw religious groups as a threat to their power. Either way, a handful of villains in one century compared with thousands of years of religiously motivated tyrants, wars, and massacres, continuing today, doesn't exactly tip the scales towards religion.



So it's merely your belief that Elvis is dead, right? And if you don't want your religious beliefs challenged, don't bring them to a debate forum, and don't try to get them enshrined by society. You'd get that respect you want a lot more if you kept your religion to yourself. Everyone would be quite content to live and let live with you, regardless of any personal spiritual beliefs. It's when someone tries to make theirs public beliefs that we find ourselves needing to push back.

Right, I hear that a lot. Just make sure your religion has zero impact on anything you do, and we'll be all good. Well, you first, don't act on your beliefs and we'll get along great. You are definitely the type atheist I would consider religious. You're intolerant and judgmental and you show it every time you post about those who do have religious beliefs and it's because our deeply held beliefs conflict. So, as someone religious, welcome to the club.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. As recently as 2005, the Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of Kaufman v. McCaughtry again ruled that Atheism is Religion. In spite of the many court rulings along that line, members of the Religion of Atheism insist they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by insisting that Christians are mental midgets for being religious and for believing in a "non-existent sky gawd."


Atheist religionists often refer to the Judeo-Christian Bible as a book of fairytales. At one website where I have debated, the Bible was referred to by atheists as the "BuyBull." Not only that, in most of my conversations with atheists at various websites, their usual accusation is that because of the belief in God, theists have committed all sorts of human rights violations in the name of "cultish religions." According to the many atheists I have debated at other websites, it is the belief in God that has caused people to commit the various atrocities common to sinful mankind. Remove religion, belief in God, and belief in the Bible--the atheists frequently argue--and the world will be a better place. This latter conclusion is mortally flawed for the following reasons:


1. Atheism is itself a religion.

2. Atheists have committed human rights violations en masse throughout history. For instance, Joseph Stalin--the atheist--ordered the deaths of between 40 million to 62 million people (20 million of whom were everyday Soviet civilians). Compare that to the 9 million or so killed by Adolph Hitler, the Roman Catholic who merely claimed he was a Christian.


In reality, the problem is not the Bible or God. The problem is false religions that have failed to teach the masses Biblical truths. Blaming God for the crimes of people whose behaviors he himself reject is an attempt at passing the buck.

"See! This only I have found, that the true God made mankind upright, but THEY THEMSELVES have sought out many plans." (Ecclesiastes 7:29)



DISCUSSION POINTS:
1. Considering that atheists have themselves committed human rights violations under the banner of non-bellief in a supernatural God or gods, why can one argue that "belief in god" is not the actual reason behind crimes against humanity?


2. Atheists routinely argue they do not belong to a religion. According to them, non-belief in God is proof positive that they are not religious. Do you agree with the atheists' position? Why so or why not?


3. Based upon numerous court rulings that Atheism is Religion, it is obvious that belief in a supernatural God or gods is not a requirement for being considered part of a religion. What arguments can you present along this line?

What you posted is incorrect. Neither of those cases affirmed that atheism is a religion. What they affirmed is that for the purposes of rulings in First Amendment cases, atheism is considered to be EQUIVALENT to religion. That is NOT the same thing as saying it is a religion, something the Court has never done.

 

[mbig]

[color=#0044]ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. As recently as 2005, the Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of Kaufman v. McCaughtry again ruled that Atheism is Religion. In spite of the many court rulings along that line, members of the Religion of Atheism insist they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by insisting that Christians are mental midgets for being religious and for believing in a "non-existent sky gawd."

As always, ALTEREGO is Lying.
In Tocraso v Watkins, a footnote in the ruling has been Abused by Creationists.
Torcaso v. Watkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But it was Wrong/an exception.

Almost All the the other Rulings, Including Kaufman v McCaughtry correctly acknowledge Atheism is NOT a religion but recognize it as "equivalent to religion for the purposes of the First Amendment"

419 F.3d 678: James J. Kaufman, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Gary R. Mccaughtry, et al., Defendants-appellees :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia

The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2722, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2005).
The Establishment Clause itself says only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it OFTEN calls "nonreligion."
In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as
"the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and Nonreligion." Id. at *10 (internal quotations omitted). As the Court put it in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985):

So it has Many times recognized Atheism as "equivalent to Religion of First Amendment Purposes", but has Many Times Specifically acknowledged it as a "NONRELIGION".
All your posts are Misrepresentation and Lies.

Atheist religionists often refer to the Judeo-Christian Bible as a book of fairytales. At one website where I have debated, the Bible was referred to by atheists as the "BuyBull." Not only that, in most of my conversations with atheists at various websites, their usual accusation is that because of the belief in God, theists have committed all sorts of human rights violations in the name of "cultish religions." According to the many atheists I have debated at other websites, it is the belief in God that has caused people to commit the various atrocities common to sinful mankind. Remove religion, belief in God, and belief in the Bible--the atheists frequently argue--and the world will be a better place. This latter conclusion is mortally flawed for the following reasons:

1. Atheism is itself a religion.

Like everything You post, this is Ridiculous/Wacked.
Atheism is no more a religion than "Non-Believers-in-Astrology/Alchemy" is a Religion.

 

[Paschendale]

Right, I hear that a lot. Just make sure your religion has zero impact on anything you do, and we'll be all good. Well, you first, don't act on your beliefs and we'll get along great. You are definitely the type atheist I would consider religious. You're intolerant and judgmental and you show it every time you post about those who do have religious beliefs and it's because our deeply held beliefs conflict. So, as someone religious, welcome to the club.

No, make sure your religion has zero impact on anything I do. You can do whatever you want according to your beliefs. Just keep it out of my life.

 

[X Factor]

No, make sure your religion has zero impact on anything I do. You can do whatever you want according to your beliefs. Just keep it out of my life.

You do the same with your socialist beliefs, ok? You can live in a commune or whatever, just keep it out of my life.

 

[Paschendale]

You do the same with your socialist beliefs, ok? You can live in a commune or whatever, just keep it out of my life.

We're not talking about political principles, which can be quantified, qualified, and debated with facts. We're talking about religious ideas. Try to stay on topic.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

What you posted is incorrect. Neither of those cases affirmed that atheism is a religion. What they affirmed is that for the purposes of rulings in First Amendment cases, atheism is considered to be EQUIVALENT to religion. That is NOT the same thing as saying it is a religion, something the Court has never done.

As always, ALTEREGO is Lying.
In Tocraso v Watkins, a footnote in the ruling has been Abused by Creationists.
Like everything You post, this is Ridiculous/Wacked.
Atheism is no more a religion than "Non-Believers-in-Astrology/Alchemy" is a Religion.

As usual, Alter2ego isn't interested in facts. This is the stereotypical bi-weekly bickering session started by christians trying to classify atheism as a religion so they can bring it down to their level of witchcraft and wizardry.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

As usual, Alter2ego isn't interested in facts. This is the stereotypical bi-weekly bickering session started by christians trying to classify atheism as a religion so they can bring it down to their level of witchcraft and wizardry.

Now, now... let's not start insulting religion. I myself am very religious... but I also recognize the differentiation between facts and faith and how government should have nothing to do with the latter. Save your attacks for the evangelical... and I'll be happy to help.

 

[mbig]

As usual, Alter2ego isn't interested in facts. This is the stereotypical bi-weekly bickering session started by christians trying to classify atheism as a religion so they can bring it down to their level of witchcraft and wizardry.

Well, she's obviously not doing original research.
Her posts are characterizations/talking points from Creationist websites like, but not limited to, AIG/AnswersinGeneisis etc.
So anything pursuant to that becomes problematic.

I see these Identical talking points and Mined quotes (Gould et al) tried on other boards.
Many of these posters are no different than [acknowledged] crazy homeless we see shouting in the street.
They oft have Eccentric posting styles to be more emphatic/get more attention.
ie
Darwin's Apparatchiks - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
On The Disparity of Species - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The Cambrian Explosion, and Religion - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Evolution or Darwin? - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
How To Define "Evolution"? - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[chromium]

Not going to take on all of this but, with regard to your second question, those who express a simple non belief do tend, to me, to be non religious. Those who are non relgious tend to be respectful, or at least, content to let people believe or not believe as they will. Those who say that "there is no God" are expressing an affirmative statement of belief and many of those argue their belief in just the same way as the extremely religious. I think when someone just doesn't believe, they don't see a conflict with those who do, unlike those who believe that there is no God. For those people, their beliefs conflict with those who hold other beliefs so they're more contentious.

This is an important distinction and very often the case, although it also hinges on actual attempts by the religious to force their beliefs on others or enshrine them in law. Some atheists will remain bitter no matter what, like "how can these morons believe -----" but i really think that most would embrace live and let live, so long as they don't feel oppressed and hated for their non belief.

Even on this forum, i tend to give some a hard time only after they open their stupid mouths repeatedly blabbing "yeah a trillion years with the devil, that's so intelligent a decision!" or voicing support for extremist laws or admitting they personally voted against marriage rights and so on. Otherwise i couldn't care less.

 

[chromium]

Right, I hear that a lot. Just make sure your religion has zero impact on anything you do, and we'll be all good. Well, you first, don't act on your beliefs and we'll get along great. You are definitely the type atheist I would consider religious. You're intolerant and judgmental and you show it every time you post about those who do have religious beliefs and it's because our deeply held beliefs conflict. So, as someone religious, welcome to the club.

Act on my beliefs in what way? As if you'll ever have to worry of religion being made illegal or banned from marrying or being told by family you're going to burn in hell...you get the idea. Atheist tend to be treated poorly first, and their "religious" atheism is a response to that. Not that i'm blaming you, but it's not exactly equivalent.

Anyway, i definitely disagree with him that you shouldn't ever speak of your beliefs in public. Free expression is critical. Just hopefully it's done respectfully. In the same way, atheists should be able to without fear of violence. It's stupid to quarrel over these things as if any humans have all the answers.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Could you cite exactly what the court said about atheism being a religion was?

Did they say that the constitution allows the freedom to have atheist beliefs treated with the same respect as theist ones?

Did they say that atheism was a belief system?

Has the court ever got anything wrong?

 

[Slartibartfast]

The supreme court is an authority on many things, but certainly not what or what is not a religion. Even if they were to make the ruling the OP misunderstood the ruling to be, their declaration basically means squat outside legal cases.

 

[johndylan1]

No, make sure your religion has zero impact on anything I do. You can do whatever you want according to your beliefs. Just keep it out of my life.

So what you are asking is that any religious individual be compelled to practice atheism in public, lest you by chance be present and have a religious practice offend you. While you are hypocritically expecting to impact the religious individual with your preference that they act as if they have no religion in your presenec. SO... "for the purpose of the first amendment; Atheism being equivalent to religion, you are promoting discriminating.

 

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

DISCUSSION POINTS:
1. Considering that atheists have themselves committed human rights violations under the banner of non-bellief in a supernatural God or gods, why can one argue that "belief in god" is not the actual reason behind crimes against humanity?


2. Atheists routinely argue they do not belong to a religion. According to them, non-belief in God is proof positive that they are not religious. Do you agree with the atheists' position? Why so or why not?


3. Based upon numerous court rulings that Atheism is Religion, it is obvious that belief in a supernatural God or gods is not a requirement for being considered part of a religion. What arguments can you present along this line?

Not going to take on all of this but, with regard to your second question, those who express a simple non belief do tend, to me, to be non religious. Those who are non relgious tend to be respectful, or at least, content to let people believe or not believe as they will. Those who say that "there is no God" are expressing an affirmative statement of belief and many of those argue their belief in just the same way as the extremely religious. I think when someone just doesn't believe, they don't see a conflict with those who do, unlike those who believe that there is no God. For those people, their beliefs conflict with those who hold other beliefs so they're more contentious.

ALTER2EGO -to- X FACTOR:

Regarding the portion of your above comment that I bolded in purple, there is no such thing as a "simple non belief" in God. Non-belief in God is a religious position, whether it is said in a pleasant manner, as you asserted in the portion that I bolded in purple, or whether it is fervently debated.


Non-belief in God is of overwhelming importance to the atheist. Atheists are so consumed by the belief that there is no Jehovah that they show up in just about every Religion forum that I have ever been at--and I have been to dozens. They show up arguing atheist theology aka evolution myth, while insisting that our fine-tuned universe happened by accident. That, along with their preoccupation with trying to prove the Judeo-Christian Bible is fallible.


Any belief that is of overwhelming importance to a person is, in and of itself, defined as "religion." Notice definition #5 below.

DEFINITION OF "RELIGION":

Collins
World English Dictionary
religion (rɪˈlɪdʒən)

— n
1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny
2. any formal or institutionalized expression of such belief: the Christian religion
3. the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers
4. chiefly RC Church the way of life determined by the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience entered upon by monks, friars, and nuns: to enter religion
5. something of overwhelming importance to a person: football is his religion
6. archaic
a. the practice of sacred ritual observances
b. sacred rites and ceremonies​

 

[Alter2Ego]

Legally, any stance on religious types of questions is protected by the first amendment. "None" is a stance. But lack of religion is not a religion. It is an answer to religious questions, but it is no more a religion than "I don't follow baseball" is an expression of one's favorite team.

ALTER2EGO -to- PASCHENDALE:

There is no such thing as "lack of religion." Everybody on this planet has a religion--whether they are willing to admit it or not. Why? Because humans were created with the desire to worship. The U.S. Supreme Court finally saw the light when Torcaso the atheist took his appeal there in 1961. The Court stated that Torcaso's religious rights had to be protected. Now, explain to this forum how someone's religious rights can be protected if the person is not religious from the get-go.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Yeah? And bald is a hair color.

 

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. As recently as 2005, the Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of Kaufman v. McCaughtry again ruled that Atheism is Religion. In spite of the many court rulings along that line, members of the Religion of Atheism insist they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by insisting that Christians are mental midgets for being religious and for believing in a "non-existent sky gawd."

What you posted is incorrect. Neither of those cases affirmed that atheism is a religion. What they affirmed is that for the purposes of rulings in First Amendment cases, atheism is considered to be EQUIVALENT to religion. That is NOT the same thing as saying it is a religion, something the Court has never done.

ALTER2EGO -to- CAPTAIN COURTESY:

Both cases affirmed that Atheism is Religion. In fact, even the newspapers picked up on the story in 2005, when the Wisconsin Federal Appeals Court granted the imprisoned atheist, James Kaufman, his Atheist Religious rights. Notice the quotation below. Focus on the portions that are bolded in red and in blue.

"Court Rules Atheism A Religion

Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group

Published: 08/20/2005 at 1:00 AM

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate’s rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he [Kaufman] wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court Of Appeals said.

The court decided the inmate’s First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court’s ruling "a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence."

"Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said Fahling.

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."
Court rules atheism a religion
​

Everything that I bolded in red is a direct quotation from the Wisconsin Court.

 

[mbig]

[SIZE3]ALTER2EGO -to- CAPTAIN COURTESY:
Both cases affirmed that Atheism is Religion. In fact, even the newspapers picked up on the story in 2005, when the Wisconsin Federal Appeals Court granted the imprisoned atheist, James Kaufman, his Atheist Religious rights. Notice the quotation below. Focus on the portions that are bolded in red and in blue.[/SIZE]

[COLO="#000000"]"Court Rules Atheism A Religion
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group
Published: 08/20/2005 at 1:00 AM
A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate’s rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he [Kaufman] wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court Of Appeals said.
The court decided the inmate’s First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court’s ruling "a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence."
"Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said Fahling.

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."[/COLOR]

http://www.wnd.com /2005/08/31895/]Court rules atheism a religion[/url]
​

Everything that I bolded in red is a direct quotation from the Wisconsin Court.

No response for my blockbuster #6?
and Alter2Ego IS Lying AGAIN.

I Cited the Appeals court DIRECTLY/With Link on page 1, AltergEgo Links UNreliable Christian Right website WND/World NUT Daily, NOT the Appeals court.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/08/23/wisconsin-equal-rights-for-atheists-in-prison.htm

"...The Court did Not rule that atheism is a religion. Instead, the court ruled that, for First Amendment purposes, atheism is a religion for Kaufman. Those are two very significant qualifiers. It means that atheism isn’t inherently a religion. It means that atheism isn’t inherently a religion for Kaufman — it’s only a religion for Kaufman in this narrow context. It means that atheism isn’t a religion for First Amendment purposes for everyone — just for Kaufman (and presumably some other inmates) in the context of this case.

Why did the judges reach this decision? Although it seems strange, it’s the best option given what they had to work with. If you accept that religion shouldn’t be favored over Non-religion, then in situations like this there are only two choices: remove the privileges being given to religion or ensure that the same privileges are available to non-religion."..."

The Christian Right, though, acts like the court said that atheism is a religion, full stop. Much of the confusion stems from a World Nut Daily article which radically Distorts the facts and very pointedly doesn’t link to the original decision were people can read it for themselves. What’s interesting is that even WND quotes a Christian Right lawyer who thinks it wrong to declare atheism a religion:

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court’s ruling “a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.”
“Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion,” said Fahling.

It’s unfortunate that even Fahling, a lawyer, either Can’t understand or can’t be fair about what the ruling actually says. It’s instructive, though, that he thinks it bad for atheism to be considered a religion. Many on the Christian Right seem to consider a good thing, tactically speaking, to act like atheism is a religion.."​

Your posts are DISHONEST and are LYING for JESUS. They do Disastrous damage to others who believe soberly.

 

[Paschendale]

So what you are asking is that any religious individual be compelled to practice atheism in public, lest you by chance be present and have a religious practice offend you. While you are hypocritically expecting to impact the religious individual with your preference that they act as if they have no religion in your presenec. SO... "for the purpose of the first amendment; Atheism being equivalent to religion, you are promoting discriminating.

There is no such thing as practicing atheism. It's not a thing. It's just keeping your religion out of other people's lives. Have it in your own life all you like. It has nothing to do with offending. It has to do with rights. I have the right to order my life free from your religious ideas the same way you have the right to order your life based on them. So, I'm not really sure what you're describing as "discrimination." All you don't get to do is control other people's lives. Go to your church. Pray all you like. Conduct whatever rituals you want in your home. Rent a private establishment for a religious gathering. Wear religious garb wherever you go. Hold whatever discrimination you like in your heart, though you'll do your children a grave disservice if you pass it on to them.

So, what exactly are you not getting to do?

ALTER2EGO -to- PASCHENDALE:

There is no such thing as "lack of religion." Everybody on this planet has a religion--whether they are willing to admit it or not. Why? Because humans were created with the desire to worship. The U.S. Supreme Court finally saw the light when Torcaso the atheist took his appeal there in 1961. The Court stated that Torcaso's religious rights had to be protected. Now, explain to this forum how someone's religious rights can be protected if the person is not religious from the get-go.

You can assert nonsense like the bolded all you like, but that doesn't make it even a little bit true. It's not "religious rights" that are protected. It's the right to religious liberty. No one can force any religious perspective on you. You can have any such perspective you want, including the perspective of "none". Why is this so hard for religious people to understand? I have no desire whatsoever to worship anything. I think I would be betraying any integrity I had as a person and as an American if I did. I do not wish to submit to an all-powerful king. I find that idea completely abhorrent.

 

[X Factor]

We're not talking about political principles, which can be quantified, qualified, and debated with facts. We're talking about religious ideas. Try to stay on topic.

You want to coerce, through laws, others to adhere to your brand of morals/ethics. It's no big deal, everyone wants that to an extent. Your morals inform your politics too, yet, for some reason, you don't think others who do the same thing as you should have the right to do it.

 

[ludin]

There is no such thing as practicing atheism. It's not a thing. It's just keeping your religion out of other people's lives. Have it in your own life all you like. It has nothing to do with offending. It has to do with rights. I have the right to order my life free from your religious ideas the same way you have the right to order your life based on them. So, I'm not really sure what you're describing as "discrimination." All you don't get to do is control other people's lives. Go to your church. Pray all you like. Conduct whatever rituals you want in your home. Rent a private establishment for a religious gathering. Wear religious garb wherever you go. Hold whatever discrimination you like in your heart, though you'll do your children a grave disservice if you pass it on to them.

Sorry we live in a free society where people are allowed to speak their own opinion. If you dont' want to hear what people say then go somewhere else they have a right to speak whatever they want as long as it doesn't cause physical damage to someone or someone's property.

Religious discrimination and bigotry is against the law did you know that?

If i choose to pray in public who are you to say otherwise? you are no one.

Religious bigotry a live and well.

You can assert nonsense like the bolded all you like, but that doesn't make it even a little bit true. It's not "religious rights" that are protected. It's the right to religious liberty. No one can force any religious perspective on you. You can have any such perspective you want, including the perspective of "none". Why is this so hard for religious people to understand? I have no desire whatsoever to worship anything. I think I would be betraying any integrity I had as a person and as an American if I did. I do not wish to submit to an all-powerful king. I find that idea completely abhorrent.

You are allowed to believe what you want. what you don't get to do is restrict other people that believe differently just because you don't like it.
i think you have bigger personal issues if you find that someone praying to something you don't believe in offends you that much.

for someone who claims God doesn't exist you sure are offended by it a great deal. pretty much logical insanity.

i don't believe in a mythical non-existant God but at the same time i am offended by that same mythical non-existant God.
so how can you be offended by something you claim doesn't exist? logically this makes 0 sense.

i find it abhorrent that people like you claim to be tolerant and open minded but are the exact opposite of what you claim to be.