CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
The 1st amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." . it does not explicitly mention the right to practice no religion. Is such a right implictly included in the free exercise of religion ?
in your answer, please indicate whether you are answering as the founders intended, or as you believe the Constitution should be interpreted today .
Atheism is still not a religion you have been corrected on this more than once ; you constantly bleating it does not make it so :)
You really need to take a case against every dictionary maker throughtout the world and get them to change the definition of religion just to suit your confused thinking on this tricky term :)
Why did you ask this question of me every question asked reveals the questioners true motivations ... Or maybe you disagree :)
Seeing as you ask me a question let me ask you one ..... Once in a while when you get thinking about people and past times who is that person you need to forgive ... that person that you cannot seem to forgive ....
To forgive means that you make a conscious effort to let it go. I just naturally forget so forgiveness doesn't make sense. Either that or it happened so long ago that it no longer bothers me. To me, to not forgive is to still be holding a grudge. Holding a grudge is like taking poison in the hopes it will kill the other person. I can't think of a grudge I'm still hanging onto. ;)
If you find your loved one having conversations with an invisible mythical creature such as a leprechaun. Your loved one is convinced there are endless riches at the end of the rainbow and begins a journey to find the treasure would you allow this person to follow their intuition? Or, would you raise objectionable concerns? Despite your stance to reason, your loved one replies, "Why are you trying to oppress me? You should not go around persecuting people for their beliefs. You are cavaphobic!" The same could be said about you. What gives you the authority to question someone else's beliefs in Leprechauns?
The truth is, all beliefs and claims (especially yours) is not above suspicion and inquiry. Therefore, for the sake of evidence and human progress all extraordinary claims and god faiths without corroborated evidence must be ridiculed from existence.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens
By basic principle all religion in the world is publicly shared belief. All definitions that are placed inside any Dictionary that is in print can be proven as bias.
The elaborate scheme of any object is not what makes it substance.
You say ....By basic principle all religion in the world is publicly shared belief. All definitions that are placed inside any Dictionary that is in print can be proven as bias.
The elaborate scheme of any object is not what makes it substance.
The block of any law respecting an establishment of religion means yes atheism is protected, because the only way you could legislate against atheism is to legislate for some version of religion. Nor do I believe the founders as a group were anti atheist. They were quite clear about most of what they believed and if they had been anti atheist it would have been written in explicitly that way.
Finally, there have been enough religious types on here who equated with science as religion you pretty much already granted anyone who believes in modern science believes in a version of religion.
On April 23, 2015, at the Women’s World Summit, Hillary Clinton said “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will and deep-seated religious beliefs have to be changed.” Using the force of law Mrs. Clinton says religious beliefs have to be changed.
Freedom of religion is the first right enumerated in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution.
Why would a Progressive like Hillary say deep seated religious beliefs have to be changed if Americans have the Freedom of Religion ?
She meant that the "deep seated" hatred BETWEEN religions needed to be changed! I totally agree with her! The force of the "laws" of the Constitution SHOULD change that, but until "Christians" accept other religions we don't ACTUALLY have religious freedom in America!
"Such are the heights of wickedness to which men are driven by religion." Titus Lucretius Carus
Whether "atheism" should be regarded a "religion" depends not only on how one defines "atheism" and "religion," but also the context and purpose of labeling it one way or the other. Religion can be defined various ways, some broad, e.g., a world view providing a systematic approach to living, and some more specific, e.g., such a world view associated with faith and belief in a deity or higher power. For purposes of discussing philosophy, whether one treats atheism as a religion likely depends on how one defines "atheism." To the extent atheism is defined as the lack of any belief in god(s), it doesn't seem to qualify as a religion in the sense of a philosophical world view any more than the absence of any belief in all sorts of other things, e.g., unicorns. That said, those lacking a belief in god(s) generally have other beliefs, e.g., materialism (the philosophical sort, not the consumer sort) or paganism, that together may be regarded a religion. Fair enough--though I'm not sure "atheism" is the right label for such a religion.
In any event, for purposes of determining whether all persons, "believers" and "nonbelievers" alike, enjoy the First Amendment's protection of free exercise of religion, courts have decided to treat atheism as the equivalent of a religion so that the Amendment equally affords atheists and theists the freedom to exercise their "religion." The courts got this right. As the aim of the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause is to assure each individual the freedom to come to his or her own beliefs about the world, god(s), and such and to exercise those beliefs, and the Constitution’s equal protection clause assures individuals equal treatment under the law, it would make no sense for courts to define religion to exclude the world view of some (indeed many) and thus deny them both the freedom to exercise their world view and equal protection of the laws.
It should hardly be supposed, though, that the courts' interpretation of the scope of the First Amendment free exercise clause to cover atheists as much as theists means that they (or anyone else) should or must consider "atheism" a "religion" in any and all contexts and for any and all purposes.
Saying that the Constitution will not prohibit the free excercise of religion cannot be interpreted to mean that some religion must be excercised. Just as the freedom of speech does not compel speech, freedom of religion does not compel religion. Furthermore, the freedom of speech protects non-religious and even anti-religious speech, which is what atheism is.
We atheists most certainly do not make-up our own morals. Rather, the vast majority of us are good and decent law-abiding citizens who follow the accepted morals and codes of society. Many of us volunteer for charities, as I do with Habitat For Humanity. Many of us work in fields to help others, such as in law enforcement and medicine and Social Services. Perhaps you are unaware that there are far more secular charity and philanthropic organizations than there are of non-secular ones?
We simply do not need to engage in superstition and Bronze Age Hebrew Mythology to be good people. Nor do we need to believe in false imaginary friend sky gods or long-dead Jewish carpenters. And we certainly do not need to ascribe to the teachings of a blood-soaked holy book that has dozens of passages in it that call for murdering entire ethnic peoples, or children, or innocents. As does your bible.
Nor do we feel compelled to partake in holy wars, which have killed millions. If you need your silly religion to try and be decent people, then fine. Use your crutch if you must.
We don't need it.
Thanks but no thanks.
When was the last time you helped the homeless? Or did something kind for somebody with no thought of a reward?
So, speak for yourself. We do fine without your silly shite.
1st Amendment continued : abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
What else in the 1st Amendment would you like to seen blown up !
As an Atheist, the MAJORITY of MY laws and morals (maybe a little less on the strict morals side, (chuckle)), coincide with those of the Bible, simply because those of the Bible coincide with common sense. Atheists are very fond of common sense, not so of indoctrination!
Yes. I am personally opposed to atheism, but I support the rights of an atheist. The right to freedom of religion inludes the right to not be religious.
If you knew it then your response was cowardly. I made it clear to you that you didn't fucking clarify a thing. And you decided not to defend yourself.
It doesn't matter what reasoning you give for being cowardly, especially your bullshit reasoning. You are on a debate website and you don't defend your arguments.
You ran from the argument. Either way you panicked about my "bleak" argument. You can be lying about it being bleak or lying about how you knew it was an attack. Choice is yours.
It is you who does not understand even the most little of things.
I don't want a fucking reply. I want the answer to the fucking questions I ask.
I can edit that 'reply' to 'answer' if you have problems understanding?
You cowardly run from every argument on this website.
Rather than cowardice, that'd be annoyance at you not understanding what is written already. (Not like you nicely ask, even.)
What's your fucking point?
My point is that I don't defend against mindless universals. They aren't worth me even trying. You'd better not expect me to panic like you might against such attacks.
I'm not panicking. In fact, it amuses me that you can go great lengths to justify asking a question not worth defending (in case you didn't notice, I merely played along). You'd be as much a coward as you accuse me of being; your position isn't any better.
Come on, peasant, ask nicely if you want me to answer before I'm too bored to do otherwise.
I will assume the first answer was the guy who keeps all the little information to himself.
I'm not panicking.
That's sad then. You are running like a coward and you aren't even panicking.
In fact, it amuses me that you can go great lengths to justify asking a question not worth defending
It amuses me that you go to great lengths to justify not debating on a debate site. On a debate site it makes sense for people to go to great lengths to defend topics not worth defending in a normal arena since it is a chance to argue anything. Not debating on a debate website however makes no sense.
(in case you didn't notice, I merely played along)
That's your idea of playing along? Wow.
You'd be as much a coward as you accuse me of being; your position isn't any better.
What is my position?
Come on, peasant, ask nicely if you want me to answer before I'm too bored to do otherwise.
Pretty please with a cherry on top, how is the word dislike clarifying what someone else means by opposing? Does that mean not liking what atheism stands for? Does that mean disliking atheists? Does that mean not believing in atheism? Does that mean disliking the idea that atheism could be right?
Your initial move wasn't any better than my reply, if not worse.
Pretty please with a cherry on top,
That'll suffice.
how is the word dislike clarifying what someone else means by opposing? Does that mean not liking what atheism stands for? Does that mean disliking atheists? Does that mean not believing in atheism? Does that mean disliking the idea that atheism could be right?
It'd mean disliking atheism by its very nature, but being rather secular towards others. Well, I could explain it by analogy; what is the nature of your dislike of religion?
Your initial move wasn't any better than my reply, if not worse
That's news to me. Why the fuck would my position be that I am not better than you? That's fucking stupid.
That'll suffice.
It didn't work though. You still didn't answer how you clarified anything.
It'd mean disliking atheism by its very nature, but being rather secular towards others.
How does not being spiritual toward others make any sense?
Well, I could explain it by analogy
Why didn't you? That would have been great. Give me the analogy.
what is the nature of your dislike of religion?
Are you saying that changing the word oppose to dislike was supposed to mean the same dislike as mine for religion? How is that clarifying anything? My thoughts on religion don't translate to atheism. The word oppose properly conveys that she had similar views. Changing to dislike does not clarify how similar. It leaves all of those unanswered questions.
Why didn't you? That would have been great. Give me the analogy.
Earlier? Because you didn't ask clearly enough.
I hope you understand, I'm not putting random strings of words together. To illustrate the point, I need your opinions to draw the analogy from. (That is, if they are how I expect them to be, then I can use them.)
how you clarified anything
By changing the variable to one that is more easily understandable.
Yes, it doesn't have to be from exact opinions of audience, unless the audience is something that probably won't understand things other way.
But, as you are using a website on your own (that'd be a leap of assumptions, but quite likely), and thus also a computer and other little things, there is sufficient reason to believe that you will understand things better if I know your own motivations.
I am afraid of the world ending. I am afraid if losing body parts. I am aware that you don't answer questions and I don't have any reason to humor you.
False. Everyone has a reason for everything they do.
Your question is, why would anyone dislike atheism, sometimes even enough to want to deny atheists their rights. Is that indisputably correct?
No. My question is in what way does the person who personally opposes atheism oppose atheism. I don't need any help figuring out that it is possible to dislike atheism.
Anything means absolutely anything (in other words, a universal quantifier). I considered this point redundant as you already said that you have no reason to do something.
can't fucking explain it any easier.
Don't worry, I probably won't be having you do philosophy. But, you are still unclear. What do you mean by 'opposing something in a particular way'? If it means what it seems to mean, then the answer is a passive opposition.
Anything means absolutely anything (in other words, a universal quantifier). I considered this point redundant as you already said that you have no reason to do something.
You can consider it whatever the fuck you want. When people do something they have a reason for doing. I am not doing something because I don't have a reason to do it.
Don't worry, I probably won't be having you do philosophy
Thanks. Seeing as you can't understand English it would be great to not have to explain philosophy to you.
But, you are still unclear.
Well, guess what. I don't give a fuck. You don't give a fuck about being unclear and now I don't give a fuck.
What do you mean by 'opposing something in a particular way'?
Are you fucking stupid? How the fuck is that a problem for you?
If it means what it seems to mean, then the answer is a passive opposition.
Nope. That wouldn't be a fucking answer. Congratulations.
So, you want revenge of my being a bit unclear around parts? Though I'd been pretty clear with the overall purpose and don't hesitate to explain any individual part that might be especially unclear, but if you really want revenge...
So, you want revenge of my being a bit unclear around parts?
Wow. You think your shitty behavior is so bad it constitutes revenge. Dang. I am not getting revenge against you. I am reading you the way you treat me.
Though I'd been pretty clear
False. You have taken great pride in not being clear.
and don't hesitate to explain any individual part that might be especially unclear
You have gone out of your way to avoid explaining anything.
My behaviour? Really? Do you have any idea what we're even talking about? Or are you just substantiating my claim that you are naturally too idiotic to make sense?
I didn't make the claim that your behavior constitutes revenge, that was you.
My behaviour? Really? Do you have any idea what we're even talking about?
I know what I am talking about. I know what the conversation is about. But, I rarely know what you are talking about. Does that help? I know what you say, but frequently what you say goes against what you are talking about.
Or are you just substantiating my claim that you are naturally too idiotic to make sense?
You not understanding me is not my problem. You think I am an idiot for not being able to understand you, and you think I am an idiot for you not being able to understand me. Very interesting.
didn't make the claim that your behavior constitutes revenge, that was you.
I didn't say that. If I would have, then my last message would obviously be inconsistent, even though you might not notice it at first. Try to find where I said that my behaviour contains revenge. It was just one of your absurd claims.
You think I am an idiot for not being able to understand you, and you think I am an idiot for you not being able to understand me.
As strange as it might be from your brain, that's somewhat correct. But in any form, they are consistent with each other, and even complementary.
Very interesting.
Oh, another of your cowardly tactics to have me answer something you didn't have the nerve to ask (or imply asking) directly. I don't defend against mindless universals.
I acted like you. You said my behavior was a form of revenge. Therefore, you think your behavior is a form of revenge.
then my last message would obviously be inconsistent
I don't believe you are consistent.
Try to find where I said that my behaviour contains revenge.
Now that I have explained it again, I hope it sticks.
It was just one of your absurd claims.
You are the only one bringing up revenge. It can't be my claim.
As strange as it might be from your brain, that's somewhat correct.
Yep, I am still the only one giving correct statements.
But in any form, they are consistent with each other, and even complementary.
It wasn't too point out a contradiction, it was to point out that you are just an asshole.
Oh, another of your cowardly tactics to have me answer something you didn't have the nerve to ask
I have no idea what you are talking about. There was nothing cowardly about that. If you want me to ask you a direct question I can though. Why are you such a fucking asshole?
I don't defend against mindless universals.
You don't defend anything. You can repeat this stupid sentence until your blue in the face, it still means nothing.
Just answer the clarification of your question I asked for, and I'll answer it.
I will as soon as you admit you take revenge on people you don't even know.
Oh, you can remember I said it earlier? Surprising.
That's actually not surprising at all. I am the only one showing any kind of awareness.
Because the level of your idiocy bores me.
I haven't shown any idiocy and you haven't shown anything other than asshole behavior. You are lying here.
Read your own ignorant claims again
Are you fucking stupid too. Why the fuck would I change my opinion by reading my own stuff. This is why you are a shitty debater. You can't convince anyone if your point by having them read what THEY wrote. Fucking idiot.
perhaps they might resonate with you better than the nonsense they were to me where you called me a coward.
Instead of making your own fucking arguments you ask me to reread my awesome stuff. It doesn't get more cowardly than that. Go wash out your vagina and get back to me.
Are you fucking stupid too. Why the fuck would I change my opinion by reading my own stuff. This is why you are a shitty debater. You can't convince anyone if your point by having them read what THEY wrote. Fucking idiot.
That'd be because I can't produce nonsense of that level, while you already have. I'd repeat it, but it is too idiotic for me to do so.
will as soon as you admit you take revenge on people you don't even know.
So much for your idiotic claim that you never even implied it.
I haven't shown any idiocy and you haven't shown anything other than asshole behavior. You are lying here.
If mine qualifies as asshole behaviour, then that'd be due to your idiocy. But I seem to be rather unfamiliar with the term to understand its widest implications - what do you mean by 'asshole behaviour'? I don't think I could find anyone more familiar with swear terms than you.
That'd be because I can't produce nonsense of that level, while you already have.
What kind of fucking retard thinks the best way to combat nonsense is with more nonsense? You battle nonsense with reasoning. If I am spouting nonsense you would defeat that with a reasoned argument. You don't fight nonsense with nonsense.
I'd repeat it, but it is too idiotic for me to do so.
Is that because you are a retard and idiotic is too difficult for you to achieve?
So much for your idiotic claim that you never even implied it.
My claim is that anyone who claims their behavior is revenge is committing revenge on someone. That doesn't mean that I have implied that your behavior constitutes revenge. Me asking you to admit that you commit acts of revenge on people is to show that you don't actually believe I was getting revenge. My statement was actually a counter argument to your claim, but you couldn't figure that out.
If mine qualifies as asshole behaviour, then that'd be due to your idiocy.
Treating idiots as if they know everything about your argument before you say it is fucking stupid. If you actually thought I was an idiot you are really fucking dumb.
But I seem to be rather unfamiliar with the term to understand its widest implications - what do you mean by 'asshole behaviour'?
Wouldn't be the only term you are unfamiliar with. Saying incomplete thoughts then berating people for not understanding your thoughts is asshole behavior. Going off topic then berating someone for trying to get you back on topic is asshole behavior. Claiming you have a great argument, but you won't give it is major asshole behavior on a debate website. Determining what you think the other person thinks based on something they didn't say, then not telling them what it is you think they are saying is asshole behavior. Not making a claim, but using the same wording everyone else does for making a claim, then berating someone for thinking you made a claim instead of correcting the person is asshole behavior. Oh, and, pretending like there is some kind of subtle language you use that people should pick up on, then not picking up on that subtle language when other people use, but claiming you did after the fact, is huge asshole behavior. I am sure there is more, but that should do for now.
That doesn't mean that I have implied that your behavior constitutes revenge. My statement was actually a counter argument to your claim, but you couldn't figure that out.
If you mean what you say, then I can easily figure things out. Else you are a spineless coward not worth much consideration.
What kind of fucking retard thinks the best way to combat nonsense is with more nonsense? You battle nonsense with reasoning. If I am spouting nonsense you would defeat that with a reasoned argument. You don't fight nonsense with nonsense.
But you are too much of an idiot to guess that you've been annoying me with the same nonsense. Say, how would I be a coward to not panic against your terrible attempt of an 'attack'? Even here, of course, where you attempted the same thing again, and would have annoyed me the same way had I gone with your terrible attempts again.
Treating idiots as if they know everything about your argument before you say it is fucking stupid. If you actually thought I was an idiot you are really fucking dumb.
Saying incomplete thoughts then berating people for not understanding your thoughts is asshole behavior. Going off topic then berating someone for trying to get you back on topic is asshole behavior. Claiming you have a great argument, but you won't give it is major asshole behavior on a debate website. Determining what you think the other person thinks based on something they didn't say, then not telling them what it is you think they are saying is asshole behavior. Not making a claim, but using the same wording everyone else does for making a claim, then berating someone for thinking you made a claim instead of correcting the person is asshole behavior. Oh, and, pretending like there is some kind of subtle language you use that people should pick up on, then not picking up on that subtle language when other people use, but claiming you did after the fact, is huge asshole behavior. I am sure there is more, but that should do for now.
The only case where I would 'berate' someone is when what they are asking is already answered by me. If anything has been unclear, or missing, then I explain that. You, on the other hand, ask only the things I've already said, except for some mistaken alignment of heavens.
If you mean what you say, then I can easily figure things out
No, if I mean what I say you would know it is a counter argument. You admitted you didn't know it was a counter argument, so you can't figure things out.
Else you are a spineless coward not worth much consideration.
Either you can figure things out, or I am spineless? Where did you learn logic?
you are too much of an idiot to guess that you've been annoying me with the same nonsense
Why the fuck should I care if you are annoyed? If you couldn't answer my statement the first time, why wouldn't I keep repeating it?
Say, how would I be a coward to not panic against your terrible attempt of an 'attack'?
You aren't panicked, but you are acting cowardly. Do you not realize how sad it is to be cowardly without panic?
Even here, of course, where you attempted the same thing again, and would have annoyed me the same way had I gone with your terrible attempts again.
You mean in the thing you quoted where I gave you an incredibly well reasoned argument that you couldn't handle at all?
The only case where I would 'berate' someone is when what they are asking is already answered by me
Well, if that's what you were trying for you failed.
If anything has been unclear, or missing, then I explain that.
Well, if that's what you were trying for you failed.
You, on the other hand, ask only the things I've already said, except for some mistaken alignment of heavens.
Then I'd be an 'incredibly shitty debater' on such high levels of nonsense. And that'd probably be your optimal state.
Fine by me. In fact, that follows pretty directly from what I said, even though I'm stating it again for you. (And in case I didn't explicitly say it, you probably would have thought you've found another opportunity to bore me by nonsense.)
You aren't good enough to act like me, nor can you be.
Pretty fucking arrogant for a fucking guy who can't debate. Anybody is good enough to perform as shitty as you.
I'd see such an act as an insult if it wasn't around the limits of your capabilities.
Now you think your fucking behavior is insulting too. You aren't as fucking dumb as you act. Congratulations. You are absolutely right. Anyone who acts like you is insulting their opponent.
Just answer what does an idiot like you mean by opposing something in a particular way.
That's not even the fucking question I was avoiding. Fuck you are dumb. I gave you fucking examples already. If you want to end the fucking thing with all of your being, you oppose it. If you don't want the thing to be popular, you oppose it. If you don't think the thing is correct and you believe something else, you oppose it. The word oppose/dislike can mean many fucking things. When I ask in what particular way I am asking in what way the thing is being opposed. How fucking dumb are you?
What about self-censoring your uncivilised behaviour?
It is always someone else's problem with you, right?
That way, it'd be easier to understand whether you are saying anything at all.
When I didn't act like you, you still didn't understand, so that is obviously not true.
That's the one I asked last time when we were on topic, peasant. Then you couldn't answer it and here we are.
Wrong again dipshit. You asked me in what way I oppose religion do you could give us your fucked up analogy. You are too fucking dumb to even have a conversation, how the fuck do you think you can others peasants?
An idiot who can't see what's already been said before trying such attacks. I won't be explaining to you what I said last time in this thread. Read it by yourself.
Are you serious, Zoolander, I just told you.
You just said what it means to oppose something. I see nothing that can be called a 'way' to do it.
An idiot who can't see what's already been said before trying such attacks.
An idiot who doesn't remember what has been said before trying such attacks.
I won't be explaining to you what I said last time in this thread. Read it by yourself.
I just went back and read the thread. You asked me for the reasons why I oppose religion so you could make your bullshit analogy. If we read the thread we find that you don't know what is going on.
You just said what it means to oppose something. I see nothing that can be called a 'way' to do it.
It so sad how bad you are with words. I wonder if there is a word that you are actually familiar with. If you can't even handle the word "way" what else can't you handle?
I just went back and read the thread. You asked me for the reasons why I oppose religion so you could make your bullshit analogy. If we read the thread we find that you don't know what is going on.
Good. As a hint, last time means that I've said it after that. I don't care much about an analogy; that's unimportant.
It so sad how bad you are with words. I wonder if there is a word that you are actually familiar with. If you can't even handle the word "way" what else can't you handle?
My skill at using my words can not be measured by any of your puny efforts. It is your ignorance about words that annoys me here.
How is anything you've said a 'way' to oppose something?
Probably we'll end with some meaning on your question I can reply to.
As a hint, last time means that I've said it after that
Here us a fucking hint for you: it didn't fucking matter what you think the situation is, you are always wrong. Listen to the people who know what is going on.
don't care much about an analogy; that's unimportant.
How convenient. You don't think the argument that you were going to make was important do you don't need to make it.
My skill at using my words can not be measured by any of your puny efforts.
Yes, non existent shills can't be measured.
It is your ignorance about words that annoys me here.
You don't know what the word "way" means. That makes you the ignorant one, dipshit. You have still given me zero reasons to actually care if you are being annoyed. Especially since you get the most annoyed at good arguments.
How is anything you've said a 'way' to oppose something?
How the fuck isn't it a way?
Probably we'll end with some meaning on your question I can reply to.
You don't know how to reply, so we won't no matter how good my arguments are. Evidence: this debate.
How convenient. You don't think the argument that you were going to make was important do you don't need to make it.
That was more of a recap because I know you can't read by yourself.
How the fuck isn't it a way?
Because, what you said were levels of opposition. I don't see how can there be a way to do so. (which leads us back to the question - How is any of it a way to oppose?)
That was more of a recap because I know you can't read by yourself.
You don't realize that the words have to be written down in order for them to be read.
Because, what you said were levels of opposition. I don't see how can there be a way to do so. (which leads us back to the question - How is any of it a way to oppose?)
Ok. You don't like the word "way". That's fine. It is irrelevant though. You are admitting that there are levels of opposition, right? Hopefully you can also admit that you didn't give a level of opposition when you made your bullshit clarification in your first bullshit response. Since you didn't give a level of opposition clarification you failed regardless of your insistence that the word "way" wad used wrong.
I expected a counter argument to my nonsense. You never provided one, therefore you believe that my stuff isn't nonsense. Now I just expect you to go fuck yourself.
It means I disagree with atheists, but support their rights. Yeshua is my God, but I support the rights of those who disagree with me. Do unto others, you know?
Back in 1993, Democrats not only believed in the Constitutional guarantee of religious liberty, they defended it. This was clearly evidenced when then-President Bill Clinton signed into law a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Prominent current vocal opponents to Indiana’s RFRA were a mere 22 years ago vehement defenders of religious freedom.
Although as First Lady in 1993, Hillary Clinton did not chastise her husband, Bill, for signing the federal RFRA into law, she had some sharp criticism for Pence for doing the same in Indiana.
The Progressive / Left does not believe in the Freedom of Religion !
Not all liberals are Democrats, and not all Democrats are liberal. This is why I oppose the party system. That said, liberals still do support the right to freedom of belief for all people.
Top Obama administration official and Hillary Clinton both attacked people who oppose same-sex marriage. First it was Martin R. Castro, a Chicago Democrat who said that “religious freedom” and “religious liberty” have become “code words” for intolerance, “Christian supremacy” and committing every form of identity-politics sin, and thus must yield to anti-discrimination laws.
People have the right to oppose same sex marriage, but they don't have the right to force that belief on other people. Freedom of beliuef is not the rught to force your beliefs on other people. Gays have the right to get married. Many religious people are progay.
The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,” Castro said. Now the Democrat Castro really goes off : This new emphasis on civil rights over free exercise of religion will spill over into religious schools and colleges that want to hire teachers who affirm the school’s doctrinal views, such as an inerrant Bible.
Don't be mistaken the Progressive / Left will stop at nothing when comes to attacking Freedom of Religion !
In what way is it okay to "oppose same sex marriage" without forcing it on other people? Please given one example of a way people can legitimately exercise their right to oppose same sex marriage?
I support same sex marriage, but also support same sex marriage, but also support the right of bigots to their opinions. Don't strawman me. I am saying that it is legally okay to be antigay, not it is morally okay. Legality and morality can differ. You should know this as a former law student.
The first amendment protects both the right to practice a religion and the right to be free of religion. The question posed is does it protect the right to practice atheism. If you are an atheist you do not practice a non-belief, you simply do not believe in a "higher being". So while the first amendment protects your right to believe, it doesnt protect your right to "practice" because as an athiest you are not practicing anything.
This is ridiculous. Why do none of you understand that atheism is not a position it is the lack of a position! To use an analogy: If someone asked you whether or not you liked a type of chocolate bar you had never tried, you would say you lacked a position, not that you think it's bad or good but that you simply don't have a dog in this fight. That is what atheism is, atheism is simply not being a part of the religion, atheism is outside of religion entirely.
Why do none of you understand Atheism in not a position!
To barrow your analogy: If someone asked whether or not a chocolate bar was liked, one I had never tried. The response is no I do not like the candy bar. I would have tried it if I felt that it would be appealing to me. Its listed ingredients seemed unpleasant to me, or I am allergic to an ingredient.
“Atheism is outside of religion entirely.”
Any publicly shared belief is a Religion by basic principle. Your analogy is leading the reader to a conclusion. It is doing this by ignoring any reason why “something” may have gone untried.
A basic State is a line that can enclose an area where the one lines two ends meet.
It is less bias to say “shared belief” then “God” as only one is describing the most well-known public similarity. Not the most common similarity all religions share together.
It is a shared belief about worship. Atheists don't worship. Republicans don't worship. The point of the word is to help describe things. If you take everything that is remotely similar to religion the word religion means nothing.
Yes, being Republican is a form of religion. The Ideology is that a basic formation of separation can work on a described principles regardless of democracy. “Citing” would be (Mathematical Algebra’s linear equations among many) as the outcome is fixed and not based on all fact, just one fact, ignoring the rest.
Yes, shared belief is describing all religion by definition. It is a fact that defines an important part of. Not the most common similarity of many known religions, not a part that religions vote to share together. It is an important part of a religion, something a religion cannot do without or it will dissolve.
The Separation of Church and States is a process of Separation that does not directly confront religion. It describes a religion and “State” as two separate entities not one. State being a line which is bent or formed in such a way that both ends of a line meet.
Well, James Madison said: Religious bondage shackles the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect."
Thomas Jefferson said: "We discover, in the gospels, a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication."
James Madison also said: "The purpose of the separation of church and state is to keep, forever from these shores, the ceaseless strife that has soaked the sands of Europe in blood for centuries."
John Adams wrote: "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief that the history of mankind has produced, the CROSS. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
John Adams also said: "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Why would these founding fathers NOT consider atheism in freedom of religion??
Why would the Founding fathers “Not” consider atheism in the Freedom of religion?
A direct simple answer is Atheism describes a public denial and abolish without representation. It can only legally be seen as a claim of independence from religious lean.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Means the First change made on the United States Basic Principle of Separation. The First Amendment cannot be interpreted only abused or defended. It is describing and admitting basic principles behind the formation of free Religions in a society.
The basic Constitutional meaning in the First Amendment is all religion is built on the public sharing of belief. The First part of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof.” Is a legal disclaimer as congress is a house of representation, of the people, for the people, by States held by the union of representation before the Executive office and Supreme Court.
No, The First Amendment does not provide protection to any religion. It is a Declaration of Independence for the United States Constitution. Atheism is protected directly under the United States Constitution. All religions are by theory protected under the United States Constitution by right to representation or self-representation.
The Supreme Court has subsequently rules freedom of religion a right under the First Amendment, however. It has also included atheism as a religion in its rulings.
The Use of Supreme Court ruling is proving the point. The First Amendment is the First change to the basic principle of Separation. A Supreme Court Ruling is a United States Constitutional application of protection by separation, not a First Amendment protecting Atheism. Atheism is not protected by the First Amendment it is granted separation to be accepted as a religion, as prescribed by the First Change made on the United States Constitution.
To properly understand my position the argument made we would need to examine how many Atheist receive tax except status? Where in the First Amendment is such status even offered? It is not. Understand?
You make a great point but is it stopping short of the goal?
The facts of the matter are that the judiciary has explicitly identified religions as a Constitutional right and atheism as a religion, which establishes a Constitutional right to practice atheism. Whether that right is treated with appropriate equity is immaterial to the question at hand, as it concerns a de facto rather than de jur reality.
You are operating upon a further misconception that because a right is not expressly identified in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that it is therefore not protected under their purview. This is inconsistent with US jurisprudence and practice, which has enumerated further rights as following from the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Through the transitive property, it is the First amendment which protects the right to practice atheism because the pertinent legal opinions were advanced from application of the clauses contained within the First Amendment.
Atheists may also register their organizations as religious and qualify for tax exemption, so the answer to quantity would be however many apply for it. I do not understand your angle there at all. Nor do I have any idea what you think "the goal" is.
Addressing the issue of: “as you believe the United States Constitution should be interpreted today.” All Constitutions are not the same, be clear hold com, understand the importance of basic idea and precedent.
Legal Counsel interprets Law and United States Constitution. Interpretations are a practice not fact. They use fact. Counsel is licensed by State for the privilege to do so, make interpretations. The admittance made in this commitment to the law is that they become bias and cannot preserve, protect and defend the United States Constitution.
This happens because they are trying to achieve justice on behalf of a single party or entity and do not represent the United States Constitution as a client. This can make them hated but in no way excludes the form the United States Constitutional Separation.
As this is an open debate, information can be placed willingly as common knowledge, providing an opportunity for a common defense for all who take part in debate from harsh criticisms, which may appear here before us all.
The declaration of Independence provides a clear path of separation which in the end could call for the alteration or complete abolishment of Religious House of representation. The name Church is not a limitation as for in a “United State”, these are words to express private religious house of representation in general.
Any destructive means expressed as a witness, here, is believe to only be following after a basic complete course of judicial separation. Or the known, expressed witness account of past actions.
As an idevigaual defending the U. S. Constitution.
Kaufman Vs. McCaughtry(Great Point!) is using a prisoner held in a penitentiary, the United States Constitutional argument is lost upon conviction. All self-evident truth is shown that the convicted are part of a Separation process. All rights are dispensed by Miranda.
Precedent, gathering of any kind is a privilege in any confined space this includes Jail or prison, as by United States Constitution, incarceration is part of an ongoing basic practice in a Separation process. Which can be carried out from the state of detentions to the complete extreme of regulated death.
However Atheism has no rights, it makes only a public limited claim of understanding. (It is saying, I do not know, and may not want to know) An Atheist is a person who may only have a set of private beliefs that might be directed public. It is only the principles within the United States Constitution which describe distribution of human rights. The distribution is described in two basic ways, by the use of separation, first: a person is being singled out, second: the separation is by group, created as a Union.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not affect the security of the practice of religion, even with the “free exorcise” clause. It is not the U.S. Constitution that directly places restriction on religion, and the practice there of. It provides Judicial separation only. It is the “Alter or Abolish the course of a tyrannical governing bodies.” From the Declaration of Independence which sets a scale to the extent any judicial separation can be sought out, with a nonbiased fashion, by the U.S. Constitutional separation process.
The U.S. Constitution insures only the opportunity to a judicial separation. The First Amendment describes a refusal of this invitation as a declaration of Independence by religion set by precedent of the United States Declaration of Independence then United States Constitution. In connection to taxation as payment in advance for representation. This is the trap set by precedent, Religions collect donations which equates as taxation to members.
The First change described to the Constitution in Amendment One is toward the bias Separation process itself. Religions can be accused as a Tyrannical form of governing body, when not offering a Basic non bias separation process themselves. The members of a religion are often tax payers of some kind, or citizens of the United States of America.
The fact remains Atheism is practiced under the United States Constitution. It is a spoken and written denial of something not described to the Atheist, by others. It has a connection to the 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment right, as are most all religion at some point are a militia. Words, and the assembly of people being the most basic Arm that a person can bring to bear against others, be it Speech, Press, or Grievance.
What religions often do not practice is a Fifth Amendment. As religions often compel criminals to be a witness against themselves without U.S. Constitutional non bias separation as a guide to due process of law.
