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.
You get even more ridiculous with every post. Please, post a link to where atheism is listed as a religion. You say there are many cases, so go ahead and post some. What are you waiting for? Too lazy to substantiate your claims?
It's you who is lazy.
You see it being debated here in open forum...do you think we are debating about cases that don't exist?
Google: "Court Rules Atheism A Religion"
Educate yourself from there.
It's you who is lazy.
You see it being debated here in open forum...do you think we are debating about cases that don't exist?
Google: "Court Rules Atheism A Religion"
Educate yourself from there.
So you want me to look up something that YOU claim is true? I guess you really are too lazy to post anything. Especially when you know it isn't true. You claim there are many cases, so present them, Gldn. Or is it that you don't actually know what you are talking about, so instead, like a good little fundy (Which you obviously are, regardless of whether you are religious or not) you deflect the burden onto someone else.
So in short, post what you have. I am not doing your job for you.
It's you who is lazy.
You see it being debated here in open forum...do you think we are debating about cases that don't exist?
No you are the lazy one because you will not provide your own citations for your own nonsense. Instead you ask people to google it for you. And when they do.... and what they find shows you to be talking the nonsense we all appear to know you are talking.... you merely reply with "Keep looking, that was not the right result".
So you get to sit there, not substantiate and thing you say, and just keep claiming "You have not found the right google result yet" every time people come back failing to find a thing to support your crap.
No the reason it is being debated here is NOT that the cases do not exist. You got that little bit right at least. The issue is your interpretation of the rulings in those cases is so distorted from reality that it is an exact reversal of it. You do not understand law, you have been called on it, and you got nuttin but "Go google it for me" to respond with.
Google it yourself, or follow the links I have already provides. Educate yourself from there.
Or maybe pick up a law 101 book so you might get to the point where you will even understand what you find when you do that google search or follow my links. Because until you get to that level, you can read 1000 links on the ruling and still not understand a bit of it, as you demonstrably do not here.
That is YOUR assessment of it, you are the one twisting and turning, because the reality is different to what you are spewing out of your head. As usual you just express this feux mirth when you know you are wrong. It is an MO defense mechanism you have used for years.
I have explained that you are wrong, I have explained how you are wrong, I have offered other quotes related to it. And I can provide you link after link torpedoing your distortions of reality.
You have offered.... well nothing but how funny you find it all because you do not actually understand it. You do not understand the first thing about law so you pretend to find it all so funny that people could possibly know more than you. And you back up your assertions with... well repetition of the assertions. You literally got nuttin kid and you need to get hip to that, ya dig?
Even someone with a relatively low level of knowledge of law, like myself, can recognize a tourist and bluffer in the subject, like yourself, when it is this blatant.
"'Cause everybody hates a tourist,
Especially one who thinks it's all such a laugh"
Pulp - Common People
As you have said...neither of us are legal experts.
I give the expert legal assessment on the matter.
This is easy to settle: Court rules atheism a religion
From the article:
“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.
Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court’s ruling “a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.”
“Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion,” said Fahling.
The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.
Notice that the senior attorney (certainly a true expert on the matter), who actually took exception to it, said of the ruling, "Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion."
You must go with the experts in these matters...that's what you always say Nozz!
So, there ya go! It has been so ruled! Atheism IS a Religion!
BAM!!
But then...I already knew that. My wisdom and common sense sufficed.
BTW...nice to see I'm rubbing off on you. You will be well served by the improvement once you are hip to it.
As you have said...neither of us are legal experts.
I give the expert legal assessment on the matter.
This is easy to settle: Court rules atheism a religion
From the article:
“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.
Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court’s ruling “a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.”
“Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion,” said Fahling.
The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.
Notice that the senior attorney (certainly a true expert on the matter), who actually took exception to it, said of the ruling, "Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion."
You must go with the experts in these matters...that's what you always say Nozz!
So, there ya go! It has been so ruled! Atheism IS a Religion!
BAM!!
But then...I already knew that. My wisdom and common sense sufficed.
BTW...nice to see I'm rubbing off on you. You will be well served by the improvement once you are hip to it.
From your link:
"Haggerty ruled that Holden’s constitutional rights were violated under the First and Fifth Amendments. In his ruling, he moved to recognize secular humanism as a religion for “Establishment Clause” purposes."
So you want me to look up something that YOU claim is true? I guess you really are too lazy to post anything. Especially when you know it isn't true. You claim there are many cases, so present them, Gldn. Or is it that you don't actually know what you are talking about, so instead, like a good little fundy (Which you obviously are, regardless of whether you are religious or not) you deflect the burden onto someone else.
So in short, post what you have. I am not doing your job for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
No you are the lazy one because you will not provide your own citations for your own nonsense. Instead you ask people to google it for you. And when they do.... and what they find shows you to be talking the nonsense we all appear to know you are talking.... you merely reply with "Keep looking, that was not the right result".
So you get to sit there, not substantiate and thing you say, and just keep claiming "You have not found the right google result yet" every time people come back failing to find a thing to support your crap.
No the reason it is being debated here is NOT that the cases do not exist. You got that little bit right at least. The issue is your interpretation of the rulings in those cases is so distorted from reality that it is an exact reversal of it. You do not understand law, you have been called on it, and you got nuttin but "Go google it for me" to respond with.
Google it yourself, or follow the links I have already provides. Educate yourself from there.
Or maybe pick up a law 101 book so you might get to the point where you will even understand what you find when you do that google search or follow my links. Because until you get to that level, you can read 1000 links on the ruling and still not understand a bit of it, as you demonstrably do not here.
You guys will like this too: Public Law 97-280
Glad we have a "Separation of Church and State" in this country...NOT!!
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.
