Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,918 Year: 4,175/9,624 Month: 1,046/974 Week: 5/368 Day: 5/11 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What religious rights, if any, are currently being eroded in the USA?
Cynic1
Member (Idle past 6105 days)
Posts: 78
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 35 of 228 (102640)
04-25-2004 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Cold Foreign Object
04-25-2004 6:59 PM


Interesting introduction, Willowtree, and the actual rights being eroded section should be even more interesting. Two things though:
quote:
Atheism is a religion, it is against theism.
Atheism is not a religion. Oh this might be fun and controversial to say, and it really gets the atheist’s blood boiling, but I am afraid it just isn’t the truth.
Religion is defined as (taken from Dictionary.com)
1)
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. Well, obviously since atheists do not believe in a supernatural power, this definition doesn’t apply.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. There are no atheist churches and no one to worship anyway, so this definition doesn’t work. Besides which, disbelief in God means there is no belief at all.
2) The life or condition of a person in a religious order. I hate it when people use a word in a definition of a word. Anyway, there are no atheist monks or priests, so no atheist orders.
3) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. No spirituality in atheism, thus no spiritual leaders.
4) A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Ah HA! Here it is, here is the definition that makes zealous atheism a religion. Unfortunately, it also makes covering one‘s mouth during a sneeze a religion.
Basically, come up with a vague enough definition of religion that would cheapen all religions, and then you have a definition that atheism fits into.
quote:
The United States is the only country in the history of the world to have a system where the Rulers and the ruled must bow to the contents of a piece of paper instead of a capricious king/monarchy.
Just a historical tidbit, you make it sound like this country was the first to have a document to which even the government was bound. Read about the Magna Carta.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-25-2004 6:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-26-2004 7:47 PM Cynic1 has replied

  
Cynic1
Member (Idle past 6105 days)
Posts: 78
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 56 of 228 (102913)
04-26-2004 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Cold Foreign Object
04-26-2004 7:47 PM


I think you meant to respond to someone else's post, but I'll bite.
Are you saying that the first amendment should protect churches from criminal law? It should be okay to kill gays and witches, or perform human sacrifice, or whatever people think is mandated by their religion?
What religious freedoms other than speech and assembly do you think are fair?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-26-2004 7:47 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-26-2004 11:21 PM Cynic1 has replied

  
Cynic1
Member (Idle past 6105 days)
Posts: 78
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 62 of 228 (102947)
04-26-2004 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Cold Foreign Object
04-26-2004 11:21 PM


I see where you are coming from now. Would I be correct in assuming that "victimless" crimes should be allowed to religions? I would agree with this, except that I don't think that victimless crimes should be prohibited to anyone.
I'll put it this way, the Native Americans should be allowed to eat peyote because it doesn't hurt anyone. For the same reason, however, so should I. Although, with this line of thinking, the first amendment still wouldn't impart any specifically religious freedoms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-26-2004 11:21 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 04-27-2004 12:23 AM Cynic1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024