It’s Time for an Outright Ban on the Promotion of Atheism.

Unfortunately, the founders didn't foresee atheism would be declared a religion by the Supreme Court, and that it would become the de facto religion of the country by default. That's why the First Amendment needs to be amended; to accomodate for that miscalculation.

The true effect of the First Amendment has been "Atheism will be the established religion of the United States". Few Americans would want that. And that's how it needs to be presented to them.
Do you understand what that ruling means? It affords people with no religion the same protection as religions. It does not make atheism a religion.
 
So now you want to ban Judaism and Islam.
Judaism does not command abortions, so my proposal does not ban Judaism. I don't know if Islam commands the killing of infidels, but if it does, then yes, it should be banned.
 
Judaism does not command abortions, so my proposal does not ban Judaism. I don't know if Islam commands the killing of infidels, but if it does, then yes, it should be banned.
Judaism allows abortions. You are my rights to follow my religion.
 
Do you understand what that ruling means? It affords people with no religion the same protection as religions. It does not make atheism a religion.
The First Amendment is effectively making atheism the state religion. Yes it is.
 
Another poster said Judaism does not allow abortion. I tend to believe that view.
Reading comprehension. it allows abortion in some cases.

And you original quote:
Mashmont said:
Yeah, I mean, if your religion involves killing people, that's not where we should be going. Muslims who want to kill infidels would have the same problem in my proposal.

You want to ban religions that allow things you disagree with.
 
The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005)

In keeping with this idea, the Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones.  ​
Well, I suppose that means in the USSC's eyes atheism has as much validity as any other religion. I can see you accept that by the way you accept the USSC's rulings on the matter. Kudos.
 
Last edited:
Where did He mention what?
This. Where did Jesus mention this...
Artificial birth control is immoral. That is a law Jesus established through His church. It's immoral because it frustrates the sharing, procreative, and unitive nature of sex.
So, all church laws are established by Jesus? And when they're changed, they're changed by Jesus?

How wonderful.

I'm sure you won't complain about them then.
 
Last edited:
Nope. My family has been in America since the early 1600s. I'm American through and through.
The question was asked due to the form of response to the post about believing other than Jesus. It did not say "an" other.
 
Do you understand what that ruling means? It affords people with no religion the same protection as religions. It does not make atheism a religion.
It gives a very specialised and legal meaning to the term 'religion'.
 
No one is forcing Catholics to have an abortion.
Again, the Milgram effect. If those in authority assure people that the greatest wrong is really okay, two-thirds of the population will automatically fall into line and do wrong. It is human nature's reaction to authority figures, and we all ought to be aware of it. Always look closely into anything anyone in authority says. My rule of thumb is to use Donald Duck.

Donald Duck says abortion is okay. Does that sound like something a duck would say, or would you consider that a smart remark coming from a duck? A duck is not in a position of authority, so two-thirds (the majority) will not automatically go along with him.

Any decision the Supreme Court, Congress, or the President makes, change to Donald Duck came to a decision. The ruling is....
 
Anyway, lol...
There is one organization that makes it their job to decide which group is a religion and which is not, and that’s The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the USA. Religions receive highly favorable treatment in the USA and the IRS wants to avoid giving these advantages to organizations that are not genuine religions. So the IRS has a set of criteria they apply to any group claiming to be a religion. The primary criteria are listed below with how atheist groups qualify [shown in parenthesis].
  1. Distinct legal existence [Some atheist groups are legal entities.]
  2. Recognized creed and form of worship [No creed or forms of worship.]
  3. Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government [No ecclesiastical governance.]
  4. Formal code of doctrine and discipline [No doctrine.]
  5. Distinct religious history [No religious history.]
  6. Membership not associated with any other church or denomination [Atheists may join any number of atheist groups.]
  7. Organization of ordained ministers [No ministers of any kind.]
  8. Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study [No courses of study.]
  9. Literature of its own [No literature reserved for one group.]
  10. Established places of worship [No worship.]
  11. Regular religious services [No religious services.]
  12. Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young [No instructing the young.]
  13. Schools for the preparation of its members [No atheist schools.]
With only one criterion applicable to atheists (and that one all political parties and many clubs share), the IRS won’t be granting religious tax exemptions to atheist groups any time soon.
 
Donald Duck says abortion is okay. Does that sound like something a duck would say, or would you consider that a smart remark coming from a duck? A duck is not in a position of authority, so two-thirds (the majority) will not automatically go along with him.
Donald Duck says everyone must pay taxes. Does that sound like something a duck would say, or would you consider that a smart remark coming from a duck? A duck is not in a position of authority, so two-thirds (the majority) will not automatically go along with him.
 

Forum List

Back
Top