Discussion:
Atheists claim they bow down to no gods and have no masters.
(too old to reply)
Tim Browne
2017-04-01 05:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It must gall the hell out of those crotch sniffers to have to
use the legal system to seek equality with religionists.
Especially when that same system has declared atheism a religion.

--
An atheist is a man who believes himself to be an accident.

-Francis Thompson
 
Mr. B1ack
2017-04-01 05:56:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 07:25:47 +0200 (CEST), "Tim Browne"
Post by Tim Browne
It must gall the hell out of those crotch sniffers to have to
use the legal system to seek equality with religionists.
Especially when that same system has declared atheism a religion.
A rather cartoon version of "atheists".

Atheism is NOT a religion. MILITANT atheism kinda IS
however ... you can spot 'em by their holy zeal to crush
all infidel theists.
Robert Carnegie
2017-04-01 12:59:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mr. B1ack
On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 07:25:47 +0200 (CEST), "Tim Browne"
Post by Tim Browne
It must gall the hell out of those crotch sniffers to have to
use the legal system to seek equality with religionists.
Especially when that same system has declared atheism a religion.
A rather cartoon version of "atheists".
The first part is my practical definition of atheism:
not worshipping. "No masters" was not clear to me;
"Joe Bruno" has taken it as "teacher" or "someone
who knows more than you do". Of course, I respect
Charles Darwin but I know a lot of things that
he didn't know. Another interpretation is that
Tim Browne favours slavery: the /present/
constitutional position on that is reasonably clear.

As for religion, the actual point is that
"religious freedom" is or should be now understood
as including the freedom to not practise religion
at all.
aaa
2017-04-01 13:27:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Mr. B1ack
On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 07:25:47 +0200 (CEST), "Tim Browne"
Post by Tim Browne
It must gall the hell out of those crotch sniffers to have to
use the legal system to seek equality with religionists.
Especially when that same system has declared atheism a religion.
A rather cartoon version of "atheists".
not worshipping. "No masters" was not clear to me;
"Joe Bruno" has taken it as "teacher" or "someone
who knows more than you do". Of course, I respect
Charles Darwin but I know a lot of things that
he didn't know. Another interpretation is that
Tim Browne favours slavery: the /present/
constitutional position on that is reasonably clear.
As for religion, the actual point is that
"religious freedom" is or should be now understood
as including the freedom to not practise religion
at all.
Such freedom is limited to your own personal space. You don't have the
freedom infringing into the public space.
Robert Carnegie
2017-04-01 13:35:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Mr. B1ack
On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 07:25:47 +0200 (CEST), "Tim Browne"
Post by Tim Browne
It must gall the hell out of those crotch sniffers to have to
use the legal system to seek equality with religionists.
Especially when that same system has declared atheism a religion.
A rather cartoon version of "atheists".
not worshipping. "No masters" was not clear to me;
"Joe Bruno" has taken it as "teacher" or "someone
who knows more than you do". Of course, I respect
Charles Darwin but I know a lot of things that
he didn't know. Another interpretation is that
Tim Browne favours slavery: the /present/
constitutional position on that is reasonably clear.
As for religion, the actual point is that
"religious freedom" is or should be now understood
as including the freedom to not practise religion
at all.
Such freedom is limited to your own personal space. You don't have the
freedom infringing into the public space.
You mean I'm not allowed to not worship in public?
aaa
2017-04-01 14:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by aaa
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Mr. B1ack
On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 07:25:47 +0200 (CEST), "Tim Browne"
Post by Tim Browne
It must gall the hell out of those crotch sniffers to have to
use the legal system to seek equality with religionists.
Especially when that same system has declared atheism a religion.
A rather cartoon version of "atheists".
not worshipping. "No masters" was not clear to me;
"Joe Bruno" has taken it as "teacher" or "someone
who knows more than you do". Of course, I respect
Charles Darwin but I know a lot of things that
he didn't know. Another interpretation is that
Tim Browne favours slavery: the /present/
constitutional position on that is reasonably clear.
As for religion, the actual point is that
"religious freedom" is or should be now understood
as including the freedom to not practise religion
at all.
Such freedom is limited to your own personal space. You don't have the
freedom infringing into the public space.
You mean I'm not allowed to not worship in public?
Your personal space in public is still yours to control, but you can't
control or interfere with other people's activity.
Joe Bruno
2017-04-01 07:45:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Browne
It must gall the hell out of those crotch sniffers to have to
use the legal system to seek equality with religionists.
Especially when that same system has declared atheism a religion.
--
An atheist is a man who believes himself to be an accident.
-Francis Thompson
 
It appears to me that they bow to a master named Charles Darwin.
Richard Dawkins is one of his angels.
John Baker
2017-04-01 08:21:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 07:25:47 +0200 (CEST), "Tim Browne"
Post by Tim Browne
It must gall the hell out of those crotch sniffers to have to
use the legal system to seek equality with religionists.
Especially when that same system has declared atheism a religion.
The system has not now or ever declared atheism a religion, you stupid
fuck, only that it is entitled to the same legal protections as a
religion. In short, the same laws that give you the right to practice
your religion give me the right to reject it as the superstitious
bullshit it is. We've had equality under the law with you
Bible-humping fucktards since day one. Get used to it.










AA #1898
Giver of No Fucks
Keeper of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch
Joe Bruno
2017-04-01 08:43:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mr. B1ack
On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 07:25:47 +0200 (CEST), "Tim Browne"
Post by Tim Browne
It must gall the hell out of those crotch sniffers to have to
use the legal system to seek equality with religionists.
Especially when that same system has declared atheism a religion.
The system has not now or ever declared atheism a religion, you stupid
fuck, only that it is entitled to the same legal protections as a
religion. In short, the same laws that give you the right to practice
your religion give me the right to reject it as the superstitious
bullshit it is. We've had equality under the law with you
Bible-humping fucktards since day one.
Since Day one??? NYET. The declaration was made in Federal Court in August 2005.

http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/

Well done, John. You were only off by 225 years.
h***@gmail.com
2017-04-01 10:29:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Mr. B1ack
On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 07:25:47 +0200 (CEST), "Tim Browne"
Post by Tim Browne
It must gall the hell out of those crotch sniffers to have to
use the legal system to seek equality with religionists.
Especially when that same system has declared atheism a religion.
The system has not now or ever declared atheism a religion, you stupid
fuck, only that it is entitled to the same legal protections as a
religion. In short, the same laws that give you the right to practice
your religion give me the right to reject it as the superstitious
bullshit it is. We've had equality under the law with you
Bible-humping fucktards since day one.
Since Day one??? NYET. The declaration was made in Federal Court in August 2005.
Idiot mad fellow, we do not need declaration when the laws and constitution make sure atheists have the same right as any other person.

The Federal court just re-emphasize such right....you are stupid.
Post by Joe Bruno
http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/
Well done, John. You were only off by 225 years.
Rick Johnson
2017-04-02 03:06:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by John Baker
Post by Tim Browne
It must gall the hell out of those crotch sniffers to
have to use the legal system to seek equality with
religionists. Especially when that same system has
declared atheism a religion.
The system has not now or ever declared atheism a
religion, you stupid fuck, only that it is entitled to the
same legal protections as a religion. In short, the same
laws that give you the right to practice your religion
give me the right to reject it as the superstitious
bullshit it is. We've had equality under the law with you
Bible-humping fucktards since day one.
Since Day one??? NYET. The declaration was made in Federal
Court in August 2005.
http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/
Well done, John. You were only off by 225 years.
Obviously John was referencing the constitution: "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereo[...]" -- protects
atheists from state tyranny as much as it protects theists
from state tyranny. Of course, if had the oppurtunity to
rewrite that clause, i would be more explict about non-
religious people, but the implict implication is there. You
cannot establish a state church. And you cannot compell us
to participate. We have the right to be free. And you have
the right to be a mental slave. That's freedom baby.
aaa
2017-04-01 09:20:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mr. B1ack
On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 07:25:47 +0200 (CEST), "Tim Browne"
Post by Tim Browne
It must gall the hell out of those crotch sniffers to have to
use the legal system to seek equality with religionists.
Especially when that same system has declared atheism a religion.
The system has not now or ever declared atheism a religion, you stupid
fuck, only that it is entitled to the same legal protections as a
religion. In short, the same laws that give you the right to practice
your religion give me the right to reject it as the superstitious
bullshit it is.
Yet, you demand the same religious right while denying yourself having
any kind of religious belief. By limiting religious belief to place of
worship, you have made the public space the place of your non-belief
alone, and you think your right is violated?


We've had equality under the law with you
Post by Mr. B1ack
Bible-humping fucktards since day one. Get used to it.
h***@gmail.com
2017-04-01 10:32:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Mr. B1ack
On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 07:25:47 +0200 (CEST), "Tim Browne"
Post by Tim Browne
It must gall the hell out of those crotch sniffers to have to
use the legal system to seek equality with religionists.
Especially when that same system has declared atheism a religion.
The system has not now or ever declared atheism a religion, you stupid
fuck, only that it is entitled to the same legal protections as a
religion. In short, the same laws that give you the right to practice
your religion give me the right to reject it as the superstitious
bullshit it is.
Yet, you demand the same religious right while denying yourself having
any kind of religious belief. By limiting religious belief to place of
worship, you have made the public space the place of your non-belief
alone, and you think your right is violated?
Why do we have to demand the same right when the laws and constitution are in place???????

We atheists have never initiate any court order or ruling to forbid theism praying, or stop the flow of tithes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


What sense you think you can speak when you have your brain damaged????
Post by aaa
We've had equality under the law with you
Post by Mr. B1ack
Bible-humping fucktards since day one. Get used to it.
aaa
2017-04-01 13:07:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by Mr. B1ack
On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 07:25:47 +0200 (CEST), "Tim Browne"
Post by Tim Browne
It must gall the hell out of those crotch sniffers to have to
use the legal system to seek equality with religionists.
Especially when that same system has declared atheism a
religion.
The system has not now or ever declared atheism a religion, you
stupid fuck, only that it is entitled to the same legal
protections as a religion. In short, the same laws that give you
the right to practice your religion give me the right to reject
it as the superstitious bullshit it is.
Yet, you demand the same religious right while denying yourself
having any kind of religious belief. By limiting religious belief
to place of worship, you have made the public space the place of
your non-belief alone, and you think your right is violated?
Why do we have to demand the same right when the laws and
constitution are in place???????
I have no problem with you demanding equal right. I have a problem with
you denying that such right is for your own belief. You are
inconsistent. Atheism is a belief which makes it the same as any
religion. Otherwise, the law that protects religious belief can't give
you any protection for your non-belief. There is nothing for the law to
protect.
Post by h***@gmail.com
We atheists have never initiate any court order or ruling to forbid
theism praying, or stop the flow of tithes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What sense you think you can speak when you have your brain
damaged????
Post by aaa
We've had equality under the law with you
Post by Mr. B1ack
Bible-humping fucktards since day one. Get used to it.
Smiler
2017-04-02 01:38:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by aaa
Post by Mr. B1ack
On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 07:25:47 +0200 (CEST), "Tim Browne"
It must gall the hell out of those crotch sniffers to have to use
the legal system to seek equality with religionists. Especially when
that same system has declared atheism a religion.
The system has not now or ever declared atheism a religion, you
stupid fuck, only that it is entitled to the same legal protections
as a religion. In short, the same laws that give you the right to
practice your religion give me the right to reject it as the
superstitious bullshit it is.
Yet, you demand the same religious right while denying yourself having
any kind of religious belief. By limiting religious belief to place of
worship, you have made the public space the place of your non-belief
alone, and you think your right is violated?
Why do we have to demand the same right when the laws and constitution
are in place???????
I have no problem with you demanding equal right. I have a problem with
you denying that such right is for your own belief. You are
inconsistent. Atheism is a belief which makes it the same as any
religion.
What belief is that, liar?
Post by aaa
Otherwise, the law that protects religious belief can't give
you any protection for your non-belief. There is nothing for the law to
protect.
The law protects non-belief equally with belief.
Post by aaa
Post by h***@gmail.com
We atheists have never initiate any court order or ruling to forbid
theism praying, or stop the flow of tithes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What sense you think you can speak when you have your brain damaged????
Post by aaa
Post by Mr. B1ack
We've had equality under the law with you
Bible-humping fucktards since day one. Get used to it.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Rick Johnson
2017-04-02 04:10:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by John Baker
Post by Tim Browne
It must gall the hell out of those crotch sniffers to
have to use the legal system to seek equality with
religionists. Especially when that same system has
declared atheism a religion.
The system has not now or ever declared atheism a
religion, you stupid fuck, only that it is entitled to the
same legal protections as a religion. In short, the same
laws that give you the right to practice your religion
give me the right to reject it as the superstitious
bullshit it is.
Yet, you demand the same religious right while denying
yourself having any kind of religious belief.
There is nothing "religious" about demanding to be treated
as an equal. We are talking about civil law and civility
here. Not religious edict.
Post by aaa
By limiting religious belief to place of worship,
You are confusing beliefs with practices. No one can force
you to stop believing in your god-delusion. Trust me, if i
could remove that malware from your grey matter, i would.
But i can't. No one can. No one but *YOU*, that is.
Post by aaa
you have made the public space the place of your non-belief
alone,
Really? When were all the ten commandments shrines removed
from their pedestals? When were the religious art pieces
removed from the capital buildings? When was "in god we
trust" removed from our monies? When will the constitution
finally be relieved of all the god references? If you are
viewing america from the moon perhaps you can conclude that
we are now a secular society, but even the slightest
scrutiny will uncover evidence that suggest an insidious
religious element still infects every aspect of our
government and public life.
Post by aaa
and you think your right is violated?
Our rights have been violated. And they continue to be
violated. Your right to practise is not a right to
brainwash. It is not a right to harass. You can practise in
your churches and homes and private gatherings, which is
more than generous. And you should consider yourself lucky
to live in a time and place of religious tolerance. You have
no idea how bad things could be. You and your ilk are
bitching about christmas trees and easter bunnies. It's
beyond silly. Grow up! You all sound like spoiled children
who are unwilling to share toys at playtime. You have your
delusion, now go comfort yourself in its warm fuzzy embrace.

But that's not enough for you, is it? You want your
delusion, *AND* then you want to ram it down our throats!
You want to spit in our faces. You want to parade around and
thump your chest and tell us how awful we are because we
don't belong to your social group. These are not the
behaviors of a rational, even-tempered individual, nor are
they the behaviors of a tolerant person, no, these are the
behaviors of a hateful and potentially violent person.

Please do some introspection. Spend some time thinking
about what is important in the public sphere, and what is
not.

Imagine a scenario were multiple people enter a room, and
each person has an iPod and earphones for listening to a
personal library of music. (and, of course, each person
thinks their music is the best music ever) And now imagine
that a loud obnoxious person enters the room blaring their
favorite type of music, but this person does not want to use
earphones, no, this person demands that she has a right to
blare her music as loud as she wants in public, and she has
no reguard for the feelings of the other people in the room.
Would this person be acting in a considerate manner? Would
this person deserve respect from the other people in the
room? No. But *YOU* are the loud obnoxious person. You are
demanding that everyone must listen to your favorite music,
but we don't like it. So all we're asking is that you put on
some earphones; or go home; or go to club; or go to friends
house. You can still listen to your music, and we won't ever
demand that you stop, but we do demand that you consume your
music in a manner that is not infringing on the rights of
others.

Is that too much to ask?

Really?

Tim
2017-04-01 09:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Browne
It must gall the hell out of those crotch sniffers to have to
use the legal system to seek equality with religionists.
Especially when that same system has declared atheism a religion.
The same system declared that corporations are individuals. You're in a desperate situation when you have to let the courts decide what words mean so as to defend your belief in an invisible sky friend.
Kevrob
2017-04-01 09:45:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by Tim Browne
It must gall the hell out of those crotch sniffers to have to
use the legal system to seek equality with religionists.
Especially when that same system has declared atheism a religion.
The same system declared that corporations are individuals.
"Legal persons" for some uses. they can't vote in elections or
be made to serve on juries, but since their owners have rights,
including the right to peaceably assemble, those rights aren't
extinguished when people act in concert. The Dartmouth case is
nearly 2000 years old. It didn't start with Citizens United.

Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/17/518.html
Post by Tim
You're in a desperate situation when you have to let the courts decide what words mean so as to defend your belief in an invisible sky friend.
Tandy is hanging his hat on the following, most of which I
posted in a thread here 0n 26 Oct 2016;

Message-ID: <18f2aaec-ee91-4f1a-b106-***@googlegroups.com>


http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1467028.html

United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit.

James J. KAUFMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary R. McCAUGHTRY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-1914.
Decided: August 19, 2005

People who aren't prisoners are allowed to join explicitly
atheist organizations, or religious ones - Unitarian Universalists,
Ethical Culture Society - which do not require belief in a deity.

In his pleading, Kaufman specifically mentioned "humanism."

[quote]

While at Waupun, Kaufman submitted an official form titled “Request for
New Religious Practice,” in which he asked to form an inmate group
interested in humanism, atheism, and free speaking.   The group would
work “[t]o stimulate and promote Freedom of Thought and inquiry
concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals and
practices[, and to] educate and provide information concerning
religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices.”  
See Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 2004 WL 257133, *4 (W.D.Wis. Feb.9, 2004).  
Kaufman also submitted a list of atheist groups and literature.   The
officials concluded that Kaufman's request was not motivated by
“religious” beliefs.   Accordingly, rather than evaluating the
proposal under the state's relatively more flexible policy for new
religious groups, see Wis. Admin.   Code § DOC 309.61, they considered
it under the procedure for forming a new inmate activity group, see
Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 309.365.   Applying the latter standard, they
denied the request, stating that they were not forming new activity
groups at that time.

[/quote]

Further down, the court explains it is only considering atheism as
a religion in a "...specialized sense....."

[quote]

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.

[/quote]

and again

[quote]

Indeed, Torcaso specifically included “Secular Humanism” as an
example of a religion.  Id. at 495 n. 11, 81 S.Ct. 1680.

[/quote]

The humanists, secular or otherwise, have their own organization:

http://americanhumanist.org/

It is plain that, inmates who wanted to set up a bible study group,
perhaps supported by one of the chaplains serving the prison, or
a group studying another faith, would have privileges atheist
inmates would not have access to, unless they faked interest in
studying some religion.

For the record, IANAL. I was never even a naval officer tasked
with legal duties by his CO when no lawyer was available.
I do know how to use a search engine, and citing the name of the
case, and the opinion is extremely easy in this day and age.

Wikipedia has an article on the Torcaso case, which mooted any
state laws requiring a religious test for office.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins

So, he knows the "courts say atheism is a religion" is a distortion,
and continues to spread the canard for no good reason I can conceive of,
other than general trollishness.

Further down in that thread, I wrote:

Be that as it may, in a philosophical discussion, I'll be damned*
if I'm going to let lawyers decide what is, or isn't a religion.
Read the opinion I quoted. Search out the opinions from the
cases cited. It is plain that the courts only class atheism as
a religion for the purposes of defending non-believers right to
exercise their constitutional rights to either the free exercise of
religion, or, since the essence of freedom of such action is to
act or NOT act, to refrain from believing, worshiping, swearing
by a deity, praying, etc.

In what reading of the First Amendment does the government, legislature,
judiciary or executive, become the arbiter of what is or is not a
religion? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose? [Note, we are not
discussing tax exemption, here.]

......

* Damned in only the metaphorical sense. You believers can judge
whether I will be truly damned or not, but you risk being damned
if you are a Christian and you try that: judge not lest ye be
judged, as the legends have it.

Mr Browne is aptly named, as he is so full of it his eyes are that color.


Kevin R
Rick Johnson
2017-04-02 02:52:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by Tim Browne
It must gall the hell out of those crotch sniffers to have
to use the legal system to seek equality with
religionists. Especially when that same system has
declared atheism a religion.
The same system declared that corporations are individuals.
Yep. And that money is speech.
h***@gmail.com
2017-04-01 10:26:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim Browne
It must gall the hell out of those crotch sniffers to have to
use the legal system to seek equality with religionists.
Especially when that same system has declared atheism a religion.
--
An atheist is a man who believes himself to be an accident.
-Francis Thompson
 
Moron, how can atheism be a religion when no atheist pray or have a church to go to? And there is no atheist organization to milk its members?????
Loading...