Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a stupid argument because if there is one thing that is settle law is my RIGHT not to give a damn about your religion much less having to believe in one.
The individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. Moreover, the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. Pp. 48-55.
Wallace v. Jaffree (No. 83-812)
705 F.2d 1526 and 713 F.2d 614,
At one time it was thought that this right [referring to the right to choose one's own creed] merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.
James J. KAUFMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary R. McCAUGHTRY, et al.,
We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, 10 and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs. 11
Roy R. TORCASO, Appellant, v. Clayton K. WATKINS, Clerk of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland.
This is a stupid argument because if there is one thing that is settle law is my RIGHT not to give a damn about your religion much less having to believe in one.
The individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. Moreover, the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. Pp. 48-55.
Wallace v. Jaffree (No. 83-812)
705 F.2d 1526 and 713 F.2d 614,
At one time it was thought that this right [referring to the right to choose one's own creed] merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.
James J. KAUFMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary R. McCAUGHTRY, et al.,
We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, 10 and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs. 11
Roy R. TORCASO, Appellant, v. Clayton K. WATKINS, Clerk of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland.
The context of my response (which you omitted) stands for itself.
The context of my response (which you omitted) stands for itself.
But not under law. So your post means squat. Lacking any freedom from religion opens up oppression from religion, history has proven that in Europe over the centuries that one religion gaining power and oppressing those who do not believe in it. I have the freedom to not be oppressed by yours or anyones religion.
I would never demand others submit to my belief so that I am never to encounter that which I do not agree with. I would not want another demanding I abide by their belief. That is, atheism is a belief like any other and so the demand of "respect" for that belief in the form of all others suppressing their own in that presence is self serving.
So It is the tenant to which is being applied that there is no demand for any particular belief mandated on another.
He who plays by the dictionary... dies by the dictionary.
A tenet is a principle on which a belief is based.
A tenant is someone who rents an apartment.
One of these things is not like the other. Learn the difference.
He who plays by the dictionary... dies by the dictionary.
I always say to say what you mean and mean what you say, but with written word, spelling counts. I do proofreading and see common errors all the time. For one guy I increased his scores on his class papers from 7 out of 10 to 10 out of 10. Small errors, like their, there and they're are extremely common. Or alot instead of a lot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
