Comments on: Old idea, new news http://atheists.org/blog/2005/08/25/old_idea_new_news A Blog of Atheist Thought Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:40:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: stitico http://atheists.org/blog/2005/08/25/old_idea_new_news/comment-page-1#comment-4743 stitico Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-4743 I see calling atheism a religion to be nothing but a "legal fiction", a doctrine , allowing something known to be false, to be legally presumed to be true, and hence, unchallengeable, thereby allowing courts to assume jurisdiction.<br /> It's OK with me if the government recognizes atheism to be a religion because even though we know that it is not, we'll get greater recognition and be eligible for benefits that are unjustly received by religious organizations. Nasturally, I would prefer that no preferences be given to religion, but until that happens, if it ever does, then we have our "foot in the door" and can benefit from this ruling. Stitico I see calling atheism a religion to be nothing but a “legal fiction”, a doctrine , allowing something known to be false, to be legally presumed to be true, and hence, unchallengeable, thereby allowing courts to assume jurisdiction.
It’s OK with me if the government recognizes atheism to be a religion because even though we know that it is not, we’ll get greater recognition and be eligible for benefits that are unjustly received by religious organizations. Nasturally, I would prefer that no preferences be given to religion, but until that happens, if it ever does, then we have our “foot in the door” and can benefit from this ruling. Stitico

]]> By: pixel http://atheists.org/blog/2005/08/25/old_idea_new_news/comment-page-1#comment-5100 pixel Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-5100 Well, I don't care if religious prisoners want to form their own groups, but I HATE the idea of calling atheism a "religion!" I'm glad they are giving the prisoner the right to form an atheist group, just wish they would have worded the decision differently.<br /> <br /> It's like when Michael Newdow said that atheism was his "religion." I supported him in his fight to get the words "under God" out of the pledge, but don't like him calling atheism a religion!<br /> Well, I don’t care if religious prisoners want to form their own groups, but I HATE the idea of calling atheism a “religion!” I’m glad they are giving the prisoner the right to form an atheist group, just wish they would have worded the decision differently.

It’s like when Michael Newdow said that atheism was his “religion.” I supported him in his fight to get the words “under God” out of the pledge, but don’t like him calling atheism a religion!

]]> By: flanonblvr http://atheists.org/blog/2005/08/25/old_idea_new_news/comment-page-1#comment-5105 flanonblvr Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-5105 i would like to see the wording of the ruling before i form a specific opinion thereof. however, if the court ruled that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion or the freedom to have no religion, then i don't see a problem with what they ruled. <br /> <br /> david, you said that the ruling upholds prior law that holds "[that non-theistic "belief" or philosophic systems were, for purposes of the law, "religious" in nature]". so i would interpret that to mean that atheists being non-religious is equivalent to protection afforded those who are religious. so they aren't really calling it a religion, just that it is related to reliogion by its nature.<br /> <br /> i would like to see the wording of the ruling before i form a specific opinion thereof. however, if the court ruled that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion or the freedom to have no religion, then i don’t see a problem with what they ruled.

david, you said that the ruling upholds prior law that holds “[that non-theistic "belief" or philosophic systems were, for purposes of the law, "religious" in nature]“. so i would interpret that to mean that atheists being non-religious is equivalent to protection afforded those who are religious. so they aren’t really calling it a religion, just that it is related to reliogion by its nature.

]]> By: JP http://atheists.org/blog/2005/08/25/old_idea_new_news/comment-page-1#comment-5108 JP Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-5108 The problem with the ruling is that non-religious groups are discriminated against.<br /> <br /> Say I'm a prisoner and I want to start an emotional intelligence support group for inmates -- a group that would help men better understand and control their emotions. Discussions and exercises would be based on psychological literature.<br /> <br /> It's not a religion, nor is it anything that will be classed with religion, at least not without another Supreme Court ruling.<br /> <br /> I'm not allowed to run a group that helps men be more emotionally secure with themselves and others, but the fundamentalist Christian in the next cell block can run a group that denigrates homosexuals, demeans women, dismisses other religions and supports conservative Republican dogma. In short, the fundies are permitted to recruit Neanderthals.<br /> <br /> <br /> The problem with the ruling is that non-religious groups are discriminated against.

Say I’m a prisoner and I want to start an emotional intelligence support group for inmates — a group that would help men better understand and control their emotions. Discussions and exercises would be based on psychological literature.

It’s not a religion, nor is it anything that will be classed with religion, at least not without another Supreme Court ruling.

I’m not allowed to run a group that helps men be more emotionally secure with themselves and others, but the fundamentalist Christian in the next cell block can run a group that denigrates homosexuals, demeans women, dismisses other religions and supports conservative Republican dogma. In short, the fundies are permitted to recruit Neanderthals.

]]> By: http://atheists.org/blog/2005/08/25/old_idea_new_news/comment-page-1#comment-5109 Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-5109 Look wizards - what result would you rather have - a ruling that atheists have no rights to meet to do whatever they want together - or a ruling that they have equal rights with theists?<br /> <br /> The result is correct. A rose by any other name....<br /> <br /> Finally, what does it matter - we know it is not a religion. <br /> <br /> I barely associate with you folks - and prisoners have few rights left to them. <br /> <br /> How many of us would permit dangerous convicted felons of the Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart and Ann Coulter ilk to join Chuckles Colson's "Prison Ministry"? None would be my guess. They do their harm by having an audiance.<br /> <br /> We'd throw them into solitary and tell them to talk to the other three in there with them *the holy trinity* and F**K their free expression BS.<br /> <br /> So, right result - wrong nomenclature. Who gives a shit?<br /> <br /> For that matter, Madlyn Murray O'Hare made law by obtaining the tax status of religious organizations for her operation. <br /> <br /> Hmm, perhaps it is time to put in a grant request for some of that tax revenue earmarked for "faith-based" projects?<br /> <br /> Who is going to stand on nomenclature when we could take tax dollars away from the theists and apply it to something worthwhile - like food and medicine for needy people?<br /> <br /> OK now, speak up all of you who would turn down free money earmarked for theists!<br /> Look wizards – what result would you rather have – a ruling that atheists have no rights to meet to do whatever they want together – or a ruling that they have equal rights with theists?

The result is correct. A rose by any other name….

Finally, what does it matter – we know it is not a religion.

I barely associate with you folks – and prisoners have few rights left to them.

How many of us would permit dangerous convicted felons of the Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart and Ann Coulter ilk to join Chuckles Colson’s “Prison Ministry”? None would be my guess. They do their harm by having an audiance.

We’d throw them into solitary and tell them to talk to the other three in there with them *the holy trinity* and F**K their free expression BS.

So, right result – wrong nomenclature. Who gives a shit?

For that matter, Madlyn Murray O’Hare made law by obtaining the tax status of religious organizations for her operation.

Hmm, perhaps it is time to put in a grant request for some of that tax revenue earmarked for “faith-based” projects?

Who is going to stand on nomenclature when we could take tax dollars away from the theists and apply it to something worthwhile – like food and medicine for needy people?

OK now, speak up all of you who would turn down free money earmarked for theists!

]]>