Religions > Atheism > 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
18 Nov 2006 09:42:10 PM |
| Object: |
7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
Court rules atheism a religion
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison
inmate's right to start study group
A federal court of appeals ruled 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 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.
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.
********************************************************************************
Pity the poor atheist...they like Pogo Possum must now admit:
"We has met the enemy and he is us"
.
|
|
| User: "Juanjo" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
19 Nov 2006 06:03:41 AM |
|
|
<bibon@râlant.org> wrote in message
news:kkkvl2husismlon3uqjgrfppp2pi8itnig@4ax.com...
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.
Having read that decision I can assure you it does not describe secular
humanism as a religion. Once again the baboon has outdone himself in a cut
and paste job.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ScottyFLL" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
19 Nov 2006 08:41:32 AM |
|
|
Juanjo wrote:
Having read that decision I can assure you it does not describe secular
humanism as a religion. Once again the baboon has outdone himself in a cut
and paste job.
His trainer is happy that he could be taught how to cut and paste. Not
easy for a baboon.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bobandcarole" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
19 Nov 2006 08:42:32 AM |
|
|
Juanjo wrote:
<bibon@r=E2lant.org> wrote in message
news:kkkvl2husismlon3uqjgrfppp2pi8itnig@4ax.com...
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.
Having read that decision I can assure you it does not describe secular
humanism as a religion. Once again the baboon has outdone himself in a c=
ut
and paste job.
He gets you to take the bait every time doesn't he? :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "ScottyFLL" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
19 Nov 2006 08:47:03 AM |
|
|
bobandcarole wrote:
Juanjo wrote:
<bibon@r=E2lant.org> wrote in message
news:kkkvl2husismlon3uqjgrfppp2pi8itnig@4ax.com...
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.
Having read that decision I can assure you it does not describe secular
humanism as a religion. Once again the baboon has outdone himself in a=
cut
and paste job.
He gets you to take the bait every time doesn't he? :-)
He wasn't baiting, blob (which is what you always say is happening when
you have no sane response). Baboon misunderstood the ruling. Not
shocking, to be sure, nor is your standard "he baited you" eighth-grade
trailer-park response.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
19 Nov 2006 03:27:17 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 12:03:41 +0000, Juanjo wrote:
<bibon@râlant.org> wrote in message
news:kkkvl2husismlon3uqjgrfppp2pi8itnig@4ax.com...
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.
Having read that decision I can assure you it does not describe secular
humanism as a religion. Once again the baboon has outdone himself in a cut
and paste job.
Stop insulting baboons!
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards,
witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling
from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical,
absurd and primitive stories, and you say that *we* are the
ones that need help?" -Jon Stoll
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
19 Nov 2006 11:14:59 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 03:42:10 GMT, bibon@râlant.org let
us all know that:
Court rules atheism a religion
So what, troll?
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
24 Nov 2006 08:25:46 PM |
|
|
In article <kkkvl2husismlon3uqjgrfppp2pi8itnig@4ax.com>,
said...
Court rules atheism a religion
Not really.
The decision was based on legal precedent, and precedent
directs the court to treat atheism as a religion *for legal
purposes*, i.e., for the application of First Amendment
religious protections. Certain right-wing demagogues
portray such legal considerations as state-sponsored
'rulings' that atheism is in fact another religion.
Examine the relevant court records, however, and you will
find that the court's wording does not support the
demagogue's interpretation. "The Supreme Court has
recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for
purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions..."
Notice the words "as equivalent to a religion." This court
merely reaffirmed that non-religion enjoys the same First
Amendment protections as religion.
Compare to this: In the federal tax law, there is something
termed "unmarried for purposes of classification," by which
a married person may be treated as unmarried in order to
qualify for certain tax credits. In applying the tax code,
a court does not rule that a married person is really
unmarried; it's just that the law, in a particular context,
grants to a married person the same privileges enjoyed by
an unmarried person. Likewise, the courts have ruled that
for particular purposes atheists should enjoy the same
protections as the religious.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
25 Nov 2006 10:23:31 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 21:25:46 -0500, Brian E. Clark
<reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <kkkvl2husismlon3uqjgrfppp2pi8itnig@4ax.com>,
said...
Court rules atheism a religion
Not really.
The decision was based on legal precedent, and precedent
directs the court to treat atheism as a religion *for legal
purposes*, i.e., for the application of First Amendment
religious protections. Certain right-wing demagogues
portray such legal considerations as state-sponsored
'rulings' that atheism is in fact another religion.
Examine the relevant court records, however, and you will
find that the court's wording does not support the
demagogue's interpretation. "The Supreme Court has
recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for
purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions..."
Notice the words "as equivalent to a religion." This court
merely reaffirmed that non-religion enjoys the same First
Amendment protections as religion.
Compare to this: In the federal tax law, there is something
termed "unmarried for purposes of classification," by which
a married person may be treated as unmarried in order to
qualify for certain tax credits. In applying the tax code,
a court does not rule that a married person is really
unmarried; it's just that the law, in a particular context,
grants to a married person the same privileges enjoyed by
an unmarried person. Likewise, the courts have ruled that
for particular purposes atheists should enjoy the same
protections as the religious.
You have a continuum of beliefs from which you form your opinion about
society and you are critical of all who do not subscribe to your
beliefs. ATHEISM IS A RELIGION and atheist are religious fanatic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
25 Nov 2006 11:15:44 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:23:31 GMT, in alt.atheism
bibon@râlant.org wrote in <jkrgm2pajnfkekod301lpsg386uq4e88tu@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 21:25:46 -0500, Brian E. Clark
<reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <kkkvl2husismlon3uqjgrfppp2pi8itnig@4ax.com>,
said...
Court rules atheism a religion
Not really.
The decision was based on legal precedent, and precedent
directs the court to treat atheism as a religion *for legal
purposes*, i.e., for the application of First Amendment
religious protections. Certain right-wing demagogues
portray such legal considerations as state-sponsored
'rulings' that atheism is in fact another religion.
Examine the relevant court records, however, and you will
find that the court's wording does not support the
demagogue's interpretation. "The Supreme Court has
recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for
purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions..."
Notice the words "as equivalent to a religion." This court
merely reaffirmed that non-religion enjoys the same First
Amendment protections as religion.
Compare to this: In the federal tax law, there is something
termed "unmarried for purposes of classification," by which
a married person may be treated as unmarried in order to
qualify for certain tax credits. In applying the tax code,
a court does not rule that a married person is really
unmarried; it's just that the law, in a particular context,
grants to a married person the same privileges enjoyed by
an unmarried person. Likewise, the courts have ruled that
for particular purposes atheists should enjoy the same
protections as the religious.
You have a continuum of beliefs from which you form your opinion about
society and you are critical of all who do not subscribe to your
beliefs. ATHEISM IS A RELIGION and atheist are religious fanatic.
You can make that assertion as often as you like and you can scream
until you are blue in the face, but it will still be false. Atheism is a
lack of belief in gods. It is not tied to any religion in any way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
25 Nov 2006 07:42:48 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 11:15:44 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:23:31 GMT, in alt.atheism
bibon@râlant.org wrote in <jkrgm2pajnfkekod301lpsg386uq4e88tu@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 21:25:46 -0500, Brian E. Clark
<reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <kkkvl2husismlon3uqjgrfppp2pi8itnig@4ax.com>,
said...
Court rules atheism a religion
Not really.
The decision was based on legal precedent, and precedent
directs the court to treat atheism as a religion *for legal
purposes*, i.e., for the application of First Amendment
religious protections. Certain right-wing demagogues
portray such legal considerations as state-sponsored
'rulings' that atheism is in fact another religion.
Examine the relevant court records, however, and you will
find that the court's wording does not support the
demagogue's interpretation. "The Supreme Court has
recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for
purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions..."
Notice the words "as equivalent to a religion." This court
merely reaffirmed that non-religion enjoys the same First
Amendment protections as religion.
Compare to this: In the federal tax law, there is something
termed "unmarried for purposes of classification," by which
a married person may be treated as unmarried in order to
qualify for certain tax credits. In applying the tax code,
a court does not rule that a married person is really
unmarried; it's just that the law, in a particular context,
grants to a married person the same privileges enjoyed by
an unmarried person. Likewise, the courts have ruled that
for particular purposes atheists should enjoy the same
protections as the religious.
You have a continuum of beliefs from which you form your opinion about
society and you are critical of all who do not subscribe to your
beliefs. ATHEISM IS A RELIGION and atheist are religious fanatic.
You can make that assertion as often as you like and you can scream
until you are blue in the face, but it will still be false. Atheism is a
lack of belief in gods. It is not tied to any religion in any way.
You profess to a specific belief about "god". That is a religion. You
can deny that as often as you like and you can scream until you are
blue in the face, but it will still be true. The "lack" of belief IS a
belief.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
25 Nov 2006 11:02:14 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:42:48 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:rgshm25gta6qocm1dbkeas7b08iho7966r@4ax.com...
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 11:15:44 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:23:31 GMT, in alt.atheism
bibon@râlant.org wrote in <jkrgm2pajnfkekod301lpsg386uq4e88tu@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 21:25:46 -0500, Brian E. Clark
<reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <kkkvl2husismlon3uqjgrfppp2pi8itnig@4ax.com>,
said...
Court rules atheism a religion
Not really.
The decision was based on legal precedent, and precedent
directs the court to treat atheism as a religion *for legal
purposes*, i.e., for the application of First Amendment
religious protections. Certain right-wing demagogues
portray such legal considerations as state-sponsored
'rulings' that atheism is in fact another religion.
Examine the relevant court records, however, and you will
find that the court's wording does not support the
demagogue's interpretation. "The Supreme Court has
recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for
purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions..."
Notice the words "as equivalent to a religion." This court
merely reaffirmed that non-religion enjoys the same First
Amendment protections as religion.
Compare to this: In the federal tax law, there is something
termed "unmarried for purposes of classification," by which
a married person may be treated as unmarried in order to
qualify for certain tax credits. In applying the tax code,
a court does not rule that a married person is really
unmarried; it's just that the law, in a particular context,
grants to a married person the same privileges enjoyed by
an unmarried person. Likewise, the courts have ruled that
for particular purposes atheists should enjoy the same
protections as the religious.
You have a continuum of beliefs from which you form your opinion about
society and you are critical of all who do not subscribe to your
beliefs. ATHEISM IS A RELIGION and atheist are religious fanatic.
You can make that assertion as often as you like and you can scream
until you are blue in the face, but it will still be false. Atheism is a
lack of belief in gods. It is not tied to any religion in any way.
You profess to a specific belief about "god". That is a religion. You
can deny that as often as you like and you can scream until you are
blue in the face, but it will still be true. The "lack" of belief IS a
belief.
But it's not a religion.
--
Peter: Let's not deny our heritages. You're Jewish, you're good with money.
I'm Irish, I drink and I ban homosexuals from marching in my parade.
--Family Guy, "When You Wish Upon A Weinstein"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
26 Nov 2006 05:52:38 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 05:02:14 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:42:48 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:rgshm25gta6qocm1dbkeas7b08iho7966r@4ax.com...
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 11:15:44 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:23:31 GMT, in alt.atheism
bibon@râlant.org wrote in <jkrgm2pajnfkekod301lpsg386uq4e88tu@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 21:25:46 -0500, Brian E. Clark
<reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <kkkvl2husismlon3uqjgrfppp2pi8itnig@4ax.com>,
said...
Court rules atheism a religion
Not really.
The decision was based on legal precedent, and precedent
directs the court to treat atheism as a religion *for legal
purposes*, i.e., for the application of First Amendment
religious protections. Certain right-wing demagogues
portray such legal considerations as state-sponsored
'rulings' that atheism is in fact another religion.
Examine the relevant court records, however, and you will
find that the court's wording does not support the
demagogue's interpretation. "The Supreme Court has
recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for
purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions..."
Notice the words "as equivalent to a religion." This court
merely reaffirmed that non-religion enjoys the same First
Amendment protections as religion.
Compare to this: In the federal tax law, there is something
termed "unmarried for purposes of classification," by which
a married person may be treated as unmarried in order to
qualify for certain tax credits. In applying the tax code,
a court does not rule that a married person is really
unmarried; it's just that the law, in a particular context,
grants to a married person the same privileges enjoyed by
an unmarried person. Likewise, the courts have ruled that
for particular purposes atheists should enjoy the same
protections as the religious.
You have a continuum of beliefs from which you form your opinion about
society and you are critical of all who do not subscribe to your
beliefs. ATHEISM IS A RELIGION and atheist are religious fanatic.
You can make that assertion as often as you like and you can scream
until you are blue in the face, but it will still be false. Atheism is a
lack of belief in gods. It is not tied to any religion in any way.
You profess to a specific belief about "god". That is a religion. You
can deny that as often as you like and you can scream until you are
blue in the face, but it will still be true. The "lack" of belief IS a
belief.
But it's not a religion.
Sure it is, you just haven't the balls to admit it, Baker Boy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
26 Nov 2006 09:29:47 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:52:38 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:5fakm2dj25g1r6239m86q9jqp99tqv498l@4ax.com...
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 05:02:14 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:42:48 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:rgshm25gta6qocm1dbkeas7b08iho7966r@4ax.com...
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 11:15:44 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:23:31 GMT, in alt.atheism
bibon@râlant.org wrote in <jkrgm2pajnfkekod301lpsg386uq4e88tu@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 21:25:46 -0500, Brian E. Clark
<reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <kkkvl2husismlon3uqjgrfppp2pi8itnig@4ax.com>,
said...
Court rules atheism a religion
Not really.
The decision was based on legal precedent, and precedent
directs the court to treat atheism as a religion *for legal
purposes*, i.e., for the application of First Amendment
religious protections. Certain right-wing demagogues
portray such legal considerations as state-sponsored
'rulings' that atheism is in fact another religion.
Examine the relevant court records, however, and you will
find that the court's wording does not support the
demagogue's interpretation. "The Supreme Court has
recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for
purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions..."
Notice the words "as equivalent to a religion." This court
merely reaffirmed that non-religion enjoys the same First
Amendment protections as religion.
Compare to this: In the federal tax law, there is something
termed "unmarried for purposes of classification," by which
a married person may be treated as unmarried in order to
qualify for certain tax credits. In applying the tax code,
a court does not rule that a married person is really
unmarried; it's just that the law, in a particular context,
grants to a married person the same privileges enjoyed by
an unmarried person. Likewise, the courts have ruled that
for particular purposes atheists should enjoy the same
protections as the religious.
You have a continuum of beliefs from which you form your opinion about
society and you are critical of all who do not subscribe to your
beliefs. ATHEISM IS A RELIGION and atheist are religious fanatic.
You can make that assertion as often as you like and you can scream
until you are blue in the face, but it will still be false. Atheism is a
lack of belief in gods. It is not tied to any religion in any way.
You profess to a specific belief about "god". That is a religion. You
can deny that as often as you like and you can scream until you are
blue in the face, but it will still be true. The "lack" of belief IS a
belief.
But it's not a religion.
Sure it is, you just haven't the balls to admit it, Baker Boy.
I only admit to truth and facts. That's why I won't admit that atheism is
a religion.
--
Bushism 2-1:
"A submarine could take this place out."
--Surveying the Arkansas River while visiting the Clinton Presidential Center;
as quoted in the Guardian (London); Little Rock, Arkansas; November 18, 2004
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
27 Nov 2006 11:37:30 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 03:29:47 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:52:38 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:5fakm2dj25g1r6239m86q9jqp99tqv498l@4ax.com...
(...)
You profess to a specific belief about "god". That is a religion. You
can deny that as often as you like and you can scream until you are
blue in the face, but it will still be true. The "lack" of belief IS a
belief.
But it's not a religion.
Sure it is, you just haven't the balls to admit it, Baker Boy.
I only admit to truth and facts. That's why I won't admit that atheism is
a religion.
You can't make an informed decision because YOU IGNORE THE TRUTH AND
FACTS OF THE MATTER. In your tiny little heart you know I'm correct in
my conclusion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
27 Nov 2006 05:21:12 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:37:30 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:6q8mm25jpso47vkiq7um0uoq1rv16uc4hs@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 03:29:47 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:52:38 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:5fakm2dj25g1r6239m86q9jqp99tqv498l@4ax.com...
(...)
You profess to a specific belief about "god". That is a religion. You
can deny that as often as you like and you can scream until you are
blue in the face, but it will still be true. The "lack" of belief IS a
belief.
But it's not a religion.
Sure it is, you just haven't the balls to admit it, Baker Boy.
I only admit to truth and facts. That's why I won't admit that atheism is
a religion.
You can't make an informed decision because YOU IGNORE THE TRUTH AND
FACTS OF THE MATTER.
No, I leave that part to you.
In your tiny little heart you know I'm correct in my conclusion.
Since you are the farthest away from truth and facts, I know no such thing.
--
....love and pity for hell's occupants will not enter our hearts. - J. I. Packer,
"Hell's Final Enigma," Christianity Today, April 22, 2002 (Mr. Packer is an
executive director of Christianity Today, and professor of theology at Regent
College in Vancouver.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
27 Nov 2006 10:09:21 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:21:12 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:37:30 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:6q8mm25jpso47vkiq7um0uoq1rv16uc4hs@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 03:29:47 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:52:38 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:5fakm2dj25g1r6239m86q9jqp99tqv498l@4ax.com...
(...)
You profess to a specific belief about "god". That is a religion. You
can deny that as often as you like and you can scream until you are
blue in the face, but it will still be true. The "lack" of belief IS a
belief.
But it's not a religion.
Sure it is, you just haven't the balls to admit it, Baker Boy.
I only admit to truth and facts. That's why I won't admit that atheism is
a religion.
You can't make an informed decision because YOU IGNORE THE TRUTH AND
FACTS OF THE MATTER.
No, I leave that part to you.
No you don't, Bill Taylor.
In your tiny little heart you know I'm correct in my conclusion.
Since you are the farthest away from truth and facts, I know no such thing.
You know so little about anything, Bill Taylor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
27 Nov 2006 11:28:05 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:09:21 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:btdnm2t3u7fvu6o4lnftvokf8ulnj88m19@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:21:12 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:37:30 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:6q8mm25jpso47vkiq7um0uoq1rv16uc4hs@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 03:29:47 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:52:38 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:5fakm2dj25g1r6239m86q9jqp99tqv498l@4ax.com...
(...)
You profess to a specific belief about "god". That is a religion. You
can deny that as often as you like and you can scream until you are
blue in the face, but it will still be true. The "lack" of belief IS a
belief.
But it's not a religion.
Sure it is, you just haven't the balls to admit it, Baker Boy.
I only admit to truth and facts. That's why I won't admit that atheism is
a religion.
You can't make an informed decision because YOU IGNORE THE TRUTH AND
FACTS OF THE MATTER.
No, I leave that part to you.
No you don't, Bill Taylor.
You're a terrible speller. You only got two letters in my last name right.
In your tiny little heart you know I'm correct in my conclusion.
Since you are the farthest away from truth and facts, I know no such thing.
You know so little about anything, Bill Taylor.
Talking to yourself again? Not that I'm surprised or anything.
--
Bushism 10-28/29:
"Drug therapies are replacing a lot of medicines as we used to know it."
--St. Louis, Missouri; October 18, 2000
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
28 Nov 2006 12:55:46 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:28:05 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:09:21 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:btdnm2t3u7fvu6o4lnftvokf8ulnj88m19@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:21:12 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:37:30 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:6q8mm25jpso47vkiq7um0uoq1rv16uc4hs@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 03:29:47 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:52:38 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:5fakm2dj25g1r6239m86q9jqp99tqv498l@4ax.com...
(...)
You profess to a specific belief about "god". That is a religion. You
can deny that as often as you like and you can scream until you are
blue in the face, but it will still be true. The "lack" of belief IS a
belief.
But it's not a religion.
Sure it is, you just haven't the balls to admit it, Baker Boy.
I only admit to truth and facts. That's why I won't admit that atheism is
a religion.
You can't make an informed decision because YOU IGNORE THE TRUTH AND
FACTS OF THE MATTER.
No, I leave that part to you.
No you don't, Bill Taylor.
You're a terrible speller. You only got two letters in my last name right.
In your tiny little heart you know I'm correct in my conclusion.
Since you are the farthest away from truth and facts, I know no such thing.
You know so little about anything, Bill Taylor.
Talking to yourself again? Not that I'm surprised or anything.
Of course you're not "...surprised OR ANYTHING." No, I do have to
admit that you are a homosexual apologist but beyond that just as you
said, you're not "anything."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
28 Nov 2006 08:29:12 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:55:46 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:cn1pm2lfbja0rn9p119mjfadpnbjtg4fbt@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:28:05 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:09:21 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:btdnm2t3u7fvu6o4lnftvokf8ulnj88m19@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:21:12 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:37:30 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:6q8mm25jpso47vkiq7um0uoq1rv16uc4hs@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 03:29:47 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:52:38 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:5fakm2dj25g1r6239m86q9jqp99tqv498l@4ax.com...
(...)
You profess to a specific belief about "god". That is a religion. You
can deny that as often as you like and you can scream until you are
blue in the face, but it will still be true. The "lack" of belief IS a
belief.
But it's not a religion.
Sure it is, you just haven't the balls to admit it, Baker Boy.
I only admit to truth and facts. That's why I won't admit that atheism is
a religion.
You can't make an informed decision because YOU IGNORE THE TRUTH AND
FACTS OF THE MATTER.
No, I leave that part to you.
No you don't, Bill Taylor.
You're a terrible speller. You only got two letters in my last name right.
In your tiny little heart you know I'm correct in my conclusion.
Since you are the farthest away from truth and facts, I know no such thing.
You know so little about anything, Bill Taylor.
Talking to yourself again? Not that I'm surprised or anything.
Of course you're not "...surprised OR ANYTHING." No, I do have to
admit that you are a homosexual apologist but beyond that just as you
said, you're not "anything."
So you're arguing with "not anything"? What does that say about you?
--
Bushism 5-18:
"It was just inebriating what Midland was all about then."
--From a 1994 interview, as quoted in First Son, by Bill Minutaglio
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
29 Nov 2006 12:49:13 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 02:29:12 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:55:46 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:cn1pm2lfbja0rn9p119mjfadpnbjtg4fbt@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:28:05 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:09:21 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:btdnm2t3u7fvu6o4lnftvokf8ulnj88m19@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:21:12 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:37:30 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:6q8mm25jpso47vkiq7um0uoq1rv16uc4hs@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 03:29:47 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:52:38 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:5fakm2dj25g1r6239m86q9jqp99tqv498l@4ax.com...
(...)
You profess to a specific belief about "god". That is a religion. You
can deny that as often as you like and you can scream until you are
blue in the face, but it will still be true. The "lack" of belief IS a
belief.
But it's not a religion.
Sure it is, you just haven't the balls to admit it, Baker Boy.
I only admit to truth and facts. That's why I won't admit that atheism is
a religion.
You can't make an informed decision because YOU IGNORE THE TRUTH AND
FACTS OF THE MATTER.
No, I leave that part to you.
No you don't, Bill Taylor.
You're a terrible speller. You only got two letters in my last name right.
In your tiny little heart you know I'm correct in my conclusion.
Since you are the farthest away from truth and facts, I know no such thing.
You know so little about anything, Bill Taylor.
Talking to yourself again? Not that I'm surprised or anything.
Of course you're not "...surprised OR ANYTHING." No, I do have to
admit that you are a homosexual apologist but beyond that just as you
said, you're not "anything."
So you're arguing with "not anything"? What does that say about you?
As a young child I enjoyed puppet shows -- now watching you dance
around when I pull the strings has a degree of nostalgia to it. Of
course it's getting to be old hat now so I'll be cutting you loose
soon, Bill Taylor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
29 Nov 2006 05:54:05 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 06:49:13 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:hfbqm2l5suto6tifb19p27usjeqo0qbefs@4ax.com...
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 02:29:12 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:55:46 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:cn1pm2lfbja0rn9p119mjfadpnbjtg4fbt@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:28:05 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:09:21 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:btdnm2t3u7fvu6o4lnftvokf8ulnj88m19@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:21:12 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:37:30 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in
message news:6q8mm25jpso47vkiq7um0uoq1rv16uc4hs@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 03:29:47 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:52:38 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in
message news:5fakm2dj25g1r6239m86q9jqp99tqv498l@4ax.com...
(...)
You profess to a specific belief about "god". That is a
religion. You can deny that as often as you like and you can
scream until you are blue in the face, but it will still be
true. The "lack" of belief IS a belief.
But it's not a religion.
Sure it is, you just haven't the balls to admit it, Baker Boy.
I only admit to truth and facts. That's why I won't admit that
atheism is a religion.
You can't make an informed decision because YOU IGNORE THE TRUTH
AND FACTS OF THE MATTER.
No, I leave that part to you.
No you don't, Bill Taylor.
You're a terrible speller. You only got two letters in my last name
right.
In your tiny little heart you know I'm correct in my conclusion.
Since you are the farthest away from truth and facts, I know no such
thing.
You know so little about anything, Bill Taylor.
Talking to yourself again? Not that I'm surprised or anything.
Of course you're not "...surprised OR ANYTHING." No, I do have to
admit that you are a homosexual apologist but beyond that just as you
said, you're not "anything."
So you're arguing with "not anything"? What does that say about you?
As a young child I enjoyed puppet shows -- now watching you dance around
when I pull the strings has a degree of nostalgia to it. Of course it's
getting to be old hat now so I'll be cutting you loose soon, Bill
Taylor.
So if replying to your posts counts as me "dancing," you must be trying to
deceive me in some way. Most likely in the fact that you actually are
Bill Taylor.
--
Bushism 6-17/18:
"I thought how proud I am to be standing up beside my dad. Never did it occur
to me that he would become the gist for cartoonists."
--Newsweek; February 28, 2000
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
29 Nov 2006 02:05:55 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:54:05 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 06:49:13 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:hfbqm2l5suto6tifb19p27usjeqo0qbefs@4ax.com...
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 02:29:12 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:55:46 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:cn1pm2lfbja0rn9p119mjfadpnbjtg4fbt@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:28:05 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:09:21 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:btdnm2t3u7fvu6o4lnftvokf8ulnj88m19@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:21:12 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:37:30 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in
message news:6q8mm25jpso47vkiq7um0uoq1rv16uc4hs@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 03:29:47 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:52:38 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in
message news:5fakm2dj25g1r6239m86q9jqp99tqv498l@4ax.com...
(...)
You profess to a specific belief about "god". That is a
religion. You can deny that as often as you like and you can
scream until you are blue in the face, but it will still be
true. The "lack" of belief IS a belief.
But it's not a religion.
Sure it is, you just haven't the balls to admit it, Baker Boy.
I only admit to truth and facts. That's why I won't admit that
atheism is a religion.
You can't make an informed decision because YOU IGNORE THE TRUTH
AND FACTS OF THE MATTER.
No, I leave that part to you.
No you don't, Bill Taylor.
You're a terrible speller. You only got two letters in my last name
right.
In your tiny little heart you know I'm correct in my conclusion.
Since you are the farthest away from truth and facts, I know no such
thing.
You know so little about anything, Bill Taylor.
Talking to yourself again? Not that I'm surprised or anything.
Of course you're not "...surprised OR ANYTHING." No, I do have to
admit that you are a homosexual apologist but beyond that just as you
said, you're not "anything."
So you're arguing with "not anything"? What does that say about you?
As a young child I enjoyed puppet shows -- now watching you dance around
when I pull the strings has a degree of nostalgia to it. Of course it's
getting to be old hat now so I'll be cutting you loose soon, Bill
Taylor.
So if replying to your posts counts as me "dancing," you must be trying to
deceive me in some way. Most likely in the fact that you actually are
Bill Taylor.
No fucking way, Bill. You built the reputation of BILL TAYLOR by word
and deed, you wear it. I have never been anyone other than who I am
right now. Note the "from:" line.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
29 Nov 2006 08:46:53 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 20:05:55 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:c7qrm2l0a1f33h2rpjepd5pvehlt712pjs@4ax.com...
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:54:05 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 06:49:13 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:hfbqm2l5suto6tifb19p27usjeqo0qbefs@4ax.com...
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 02:29:12 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:55:46 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:cn1pm2lfbja0rn9p119mjfadpnbjtg4fbt@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:28:05 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:09:21 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:btdnm2t3u7fvu6o4lnftvokf8ulnj88m19@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:21:12 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:37:30 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in
message news:6q8mm25jpso47vkiq7um0uoq1rv16uc4hs@4ax.com...
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 03:29:47 GMT, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:52:38 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in
message news:5fakm2dj25g1r6239m86q9jqp99tqv498l@4ax.com...
(...)
You profess to a specific belief about "god". That is a
religion. You can deny that as often as you like and you can
scream until you are blue in the face, but it will still be
true. The "lack" of belief IS a belief.
But it's not a religion.
Sure it is, you just haven't the balls to admit it, Baker Boy.
I only admit to truth and facts. That's why I won't admit that
atheism is a religion.
You can't make an informed decision because YOU IGNORE THE TRUTH
AND FACTS OF THE MATTER.
No, I leave that part to you.
No you don't, Bill Taylor.
You're a terrible speller. You only got two letters in my last name
right.
In your tiny little heart you know I'm correct in my conclusion.
Since you are the farthest away from truth and facts, I know no such
thing.
You know so little about anything, Bill Taylor.
Talking to yourself again? Not that I'm surprised or anything.
Of course you're not "...surprised OR ANYTHING." No, I do have to
admit that you are a homosexual apologist but beyond that just as you
said, you're not "anything."
So you're arguing with "not anything"? What does that say about you?
As a young child I enjoyed puppet shows -- now watching you dance around
when I pull the strings has a degree of nostalgia to it. Of course it's
getting to be old hat now so I'll be cutting you loose soon, Bill
Taylor.
So if replying to your posts counts as me "dancing," you must be trying to
deceive me in some way. Most likely in the fact that you actually are
Bill Taylor.
No fucking way, Bill.
"Whenever someone resorts to swearing in an argument, they are simply
angry because they've lost." -me
You built the reputation of BILL TAYLOR by word and deed, you wear it.
I did, huh? So you're saying that I posted all those "X-No-Archive: yes"
posts that do not show up on Google but you somehow researched?
I have never been anyone other than who I am right now. Note the "from:"
line.
Yeah, you just happen to post in the same style as Bill Taylor and have
the exact same e-mail address of a known Taylor sock.
--
Bushism 4-4:
"[A] free Iraq is essential to our respective securities."
--Washington, D.C.; June 1, 2004
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
26 Nov 2006 09:14:47 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 05:02:14 GMT, in alt.atheism
Bill Baker <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in
<qd9ah.3220$ql2.2859@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:42:48 +0000, bibon@râlant.org wrote in message
news:rgshm25gta6qocm1dbkeas7b08iho7966r@4ax.com...
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 11:15:44 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:23:31 GMT, in alt.atheism
bibon@râlant.org wrote in <jkrgm2pajnfkekod301lpsg386uq4e88tu@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 21:25:46 -0500, Brian E. Clark
<reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <kkkvl2husismlon3uqjgrfppp2pi8itnig@4ax.com>,
said...
Court rules atheism a religion
Not really.
The decision was based on legal precedent, and precedent
directs the court to treat atheism as a religion *for legal
purposes*, i.e., for the application of First Amendment
religious protections. Certain right-wing demagogues
portray such legal considerations as state-sponsored
'rulings' that atheism is in fact another religion.
Examine the relevant court records, however, and you will
find that the court's wording does not support the
demagogue's interpretation. "The Supreme Court has
recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for
purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions..."
Notice the words "as equivalent to a religion." This court
merely reaffirmed that non-religion enjoys the same First
Amendment protections as religion.
Compare to this: In the federal tax law, there is something
termed "unmarried for purposes of classification," by which
a married person may be treated as unmarried in order to
qualify for certain tax credits. In applying the tax code,
a court does not rule that a married person is really
unmarried; it's just that the law, in a particular context,
grants to a married person the same privileges enjoyed by
an unmarried person. Likewise, the courts have ruled that
for particular purposes atheists should enjoy the same
protections as the religious.
You have a continuum of beliefs from which you form your opinion about
society and you are critical of all who do not subscribe to your
beliefs. ATHEISM IS A RELIGION and atheist are religious fanatic.
You can make that assertion as often as you like and you can scream
until you are blue in the face, but it will still be false. Atheism is a
lack of belief in gods. It is not tied to any religion in any way.
You profess to a specific belief about "god". That is a religion. You
can deny that as often as you like and you can scream until you are
blue in the face, but it will still be true. The "lack" of belief IS a
belief.
But it's not a religion.
But he says it must be. Can I be a part of the "I don't believe in Loki"
religion? Are there meetings? Are there doctrines?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
25 Nov 2006 10:38:28 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:42:48 GMT, in alt.atheism
bibon@râlant.org wrote in <rgshm25gta6qocm1dbkeas7b08iho7966r@4ax.com>:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 11:15:44 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:23:31 GMT, in alt.atheism
bibon@râlant.org wrote in <jkrgm2pajnfkekod301lpsg386uq4e88tu@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 21:25:46 -0500, Brian E. Clark
<reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <kkkvl2husismlon3uqjgrfppp2pi8itnig@4ax.com>,
said...
Court rules atheism a religion
Not really.
The decision was based on legal precedent, and precedent
directs the court to treat atheism as a religion *for legal
purposes*, i.e., for the application of First Amendment
religious protections. Certain right-wing demagogues
portray such legal considerations as state-sponsored
'rulings' that atheism is in fact another religion.
Examine the relevant court records, however, and you will
find that the court's wording does not support the
demagogue's interpretation. "The Supreme Court has
recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for
purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions..."
Notice the words "as equivalent to a religion." This court
merely reaffirmed that non-religion enjoys the same First
Amendment protections as religion.
Compare to this: In the federal tax law, there is something
termed "unmarried for purposes of classification," by which
a married person may be treated as unmarried in order to
qualify for certain tax credits. In applying the tax code,
a court does not rule that a married person is really
unmarried; it's just that the law, in a particular context,
grants to a married person the same privileges enjoyed by
an unmarried person. Likewise, the courts have ruled that
for particular purposes atheists should enjoy the same
protections as the religious.
You have a continuum of beliefs from which you form your opinion about
society and you are critical of all who do not subscribe to your
beliefs. ATHEISM IS A RELIGION and atheist are religious fanatic.
You can make that assertion as often as you like and you can scream
until you are blue in the face, but it will still be false. Atheism is a
lack of belief in gods. It is not tied to any religion in any way.
You profess to a specific belief about "god". That is a religion. You
can deny that as often as you like and you can scream until you are
blue in the face, but it will still be true. The "lack" of belief IS a
belief.
Are you really telling me that you have a religious belief about every
single god that you don't accept?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
25 Nov 2006 10:41:15 PM |
|
|
In News cf6im29p9fj5qaea0oipca4jv760eigd7f@4ax.com,, Free Lunch at
lunch@nofreelunch.us, typed this:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:42:48 GMT, in alt.atheism
bibon@râlant.org wrote in
<rgshm25gta6qocm1dbkeas7b08iho7966r@4ax.com>:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 11:15:44 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:23:31 GMT, in alt.atheism
bibon@râlant.org wrote in
<jkrgm2pajnfkekod301lpsg386uq4e88tu@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 21:25:46 -0500, Brian E. Clark
<reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <kkkvl2husismlon3uqjgrfppp2pi8itnig@4ax.com>,
said...
Court rules atheism a religion
Not really.
The decision was based on legal precedent, and precedent
directs the court to treat atheism as a religion *for legal
purposes*, i.e., for the application of First Amendment
religious protections. Certain right-wing demagogues
portray such legal considerations as state-sponsored
'rulings' that atheism is in fact another religion.
Examine the relevant court records, however, and you will
find that the court's wording does not support the
demagogue's interpretation. "The Supreme Court has
recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for
purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions..."
Notice the words "as equivalent to a religion." This court
merely reaffirmed that non-religion enjoys the same First
Amendment protections as religion.
Compare to this: In the federal tax law, there is something
termed "unmarried for purposes of classification," by which
a married person may be treated as unmarried in order to
qualify for certain tax credits. In applying the tax code,
a court does not rule that a married person is really
unmarried; it's just that the law, in a particular context,
grants to a married person the same privileges enjoyed by
an unmarried person. Likewise, the courts have ruled that
for particular purposes atheists should enjoy the same
protections as the religious.
You have a continuum of beliefs from which you form your opinion
about society and you are critical of all who do not subscribe to
your beliefs. ATHEISM IS A RELIGION and atheist are religious
fanatic.
You can make that assertion as often as you like and you can scream
until you are blue in the face, but it will still be false. Atheism
is a lack of belief in gods. It is not tied to any religion in any
way.
You profess to a specific belief about "god". That is a religion. You
can deny that as often as you like and you can scream until you are
blue in the face, but it will still be true. The "lack" of belief IS
a belief.
Are you really telling me that you have a religious belief about every
single god that you don't accept?
LOL! The guy's an idiot. According to him, the lack of belief in Santa
Clause is a religion, the lack of belief in the Easter Bunny is a religion,
the belief that the sun will rise at its appropriate time in the morning is
a religion, according to this dunderhead, we are actually worshipping
everything, all the time! What a maroon!
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
26 Nov 2006 03:38:29 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 22:38:28 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:42:48 GMT, in alt.atheism
bibon@râlant.org wrote in <rgshm25gta6qocm1dbkeas7b08iho7966r@4ax.com>:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 11:15:44 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:23:31 GMT, in alt.atheism
bibon@râlant.org wrote in <jkrgm2pajnfkekod301lpsg386uq4e88tu@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 21:25:46 -0500, Brian E. Clark
<reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <kkkvl2husismlon3uqjgrfppp2pi8itnig@4ax.com>,
said...
Court rules atheism a religion
Not really.
The decision was based on legal precedent, and precedent
directs the court to treat atheism as a religion *for legal
purposes*, i.e., for the application of First Amendment
religious protections. Certain right-wing demagogues
portray such legal considerations as state-sponsored
'rulings' that atheism is in fact another religion.
Examine the relevant court records, however, and you will
find that the court's wording does not support the
demagogue's interpretation. "The Supreme Court has
recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for
purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions..."
Notice the words "as equivalent to a religion." This court
merely reaffirmed that non-religion enjoys the same First
Amendment protections as religion.
Compare to this: In the federal tax law, there is something
termed "unmarried for purposes of classification," by which
a married person may be treated as unmarried in order to
qualify for certain tax credits. In applying the tax code,
a court does not rule that a married person is really
unmarried; it's just that the law, in a particular context,
grants to a married person the same privileges enjoyed by
an unmarried person. Likewise, the courts have ruled that
for particular purposes atheists should enjoy the same
protections as the religious.
You have a continuum of beliefs from which you form your opinion about
society and you are critical of all who do not subscribe to your
beliefs. ATHEISM IS A RELIGION and atheist are religious fanatic.
You can make that assertion as often as you like and you can scream
until you are blue in the face, but it will still be false. Atheism is a
lack of belief in gods. It is not tied to any religion in any way.
You profess to a specific belief about "god". That is a religion. You
can deny that as often as you like and you can scream until you are
blue in the face, but it will still be true. The "lack" of belief IS a
belief.
Are you really telling me that you have a religious belief about every
single god that you don't accept?
I don't confirm or deny anyone's "god."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Masculist" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
28 Nov 2006 01:14:19 PM |
|
|
bibon@r=E2lant.org wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 11:15:44 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:23:31 GMT, in alt.atheism
bibon@r=E2lant.org wrote in <jkrgm2pajnfkekod301lpsg386uq4e88tu@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 21:25:46 -0500, Brian E. Clark
<reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <kkkvl2husismlon3uqjgrfppp2pi8itnig@4ax.com>,
said...
Court rules atheism a religion
Not really.
The decision was based on legal precedent, and precedent
directs the court to treat atheism as a religion *for legal
purposes*, i.e., for the application of First Amendment
religious protections. Certain right-wing demagogues
portray such legal considerations as state-sponsored
'rulings' that atheism is in fact another religion.
Examine the relevant court records, however, and you will
find that the court's wording does not support the
demagogue's interpretation. "The Supreme Court has
recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for
purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions..."
Notice the words "as equivalent to a religion." This court
merely reaffirmed that non-religion enjoys the same First
Amendment protections as religion.
Compare to this: In the federal tax law, there is something
termed "unmarried for purposes of classification," by which
a married person may be treated as unmarried in order to
qualify for certain tax credits. In applying the tax code,
a court does not rule that a married person is really
unmarried; it's just that the law, in a particular context,
grants to a married person the same privileges enjoyed by
an unmarried person. Likewise, the courts have ruled that
for particular purposes atheists should enjoy the same
protections as the religious.
You have a continuum of beliefs from which you form your opinion about
society and you are critical of all who do not subscribe to your
beliefs. ATHEISM IS A RELIGION and atheist are religious fanatic.
You can make that assertion as often as you like and you can scream
until you are blue in the face, but it will still be false. Atheism is a
lack of belief in gods. It is not tied to any religion in any way.
You profess to a specific belief about "god". That is a religion. You
can deny that as often as you like and you can scream until you are
blue in the face, but it will still be true. The "lack" of belief IS a
belief.
And Atheists often adopt every pagan ritual known to man while
supporting the Pagan Left in using the Goddess to supplant God...the
lieing and mealey mouthed mother fuckers.
Fight the Atheist Religion to it's death!
Smitty
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
28 Nov 2006 01:36:37 PM |
|
|
"Masculist" <MASCULIST@gmail.com> wrote in message
snip
And Atheists often adopt every pagan ritual known to man while
supporting the Pagan Left in using the Goddess to supplant God...the
lieing and mealey mouthed mother fuckers.
Fight the Atheist Religion to it's death!
Oh, you poor thing. Obviously, you're out of your fucking mind.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Atheism Is A Religion |
28 Nov 2006 07:27:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:36:37 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Masculist" <MASCULIST@gmail.com> wrote in message
snip
And Atheists often adopt every pagan ritual known to man while
supporting the Pagan Left in using the Goddess to supplant God...the
lieing and mealey mouthed mother fuckers.
Fight the Atheist Religion to it's death!
Oh, you poor thing. Obviously, you're out of your fucking mind.
But you atheist are the most distrusted freaks in The US. How about
them apples, sweetpea?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
