What is Religion?

Im claiming that kill the messenger is not a viable argument.

That would be a failure of distinction

Yes I did!

The ratification of the constitution would have failed without the promise of what I call copy-paste rights. Its all in your history books!

The Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the 1787 U.S. Constitution because they feared that the new national government would be too powerful and thus threaten individual liberties, given the absence of a bill of rights.

Anti-Federalists | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
https://www.mtsu.edu › first-amendment › article › anti-fe...

When did the Constitution ratify with promise of amendments?

In February 1788, a compromise was reached under which Massachusetts and other states would agree to ratify the document with the assurance that amendments would be immediately proposed.

U.S. Constitution Ratified - HISTORY
https://www.history.com › this-day-in-history › u-s-con...
Articles 3 to 12, ratified December 15, 1791, by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.Sep 20, 2022

Bill of Rights (1791) - National Archives |
https://www.archives.gov › milestone-documents › bill-of...

Atheists have world views and morals.

A government mandate to use plastic bags for your garbage is not religous.
A government mandate to get vaccinated is, and no religious exemption is a violation of our reserved rights.

You continue to pull the positions I present out of context.

You failed history, its no surprise this comes as a shock to you, but dont feel bad most people prefer soothing koolaid.

I suggest looking up the Dyer and Spies cases, and you will probably need blackstone also to fully wrap your head around this.

 

I always seem to wind up teaching history and law in these discussions


Among systems that have been characterized as secular religions are Modern Satanism, Secular Buddhism, Secular Judaism, Religion of Humanity, Jacobinism, and ...

Secular religion - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Secular_religion
Political religion · ‎Overview · ‎Origin of the theory · ‎Historical cases


What is the difference between the English Bill of Rights and the U.S. Bill of Rights?

The English Bill of Rights prevented the establishment of Catholic religious institutions but didn't separate church and state. Reflecting Locke's influence on America's founding fathers, the American Bill of Rights separated church and state.Jan 12, 2022

The English Bill of Rights vs. American Bill of Rights - Study.com
https://study.com › academy › lesson › the-english-bill-...

Pretty much copy-paste

How is the Magna Carta similar to the United States Constitution?


Several guarantees that were understood at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution descended from Magna Carta, including freedom from unlawful searches and seizures, the right to a speedy trial, the right to a jury trial, the writ of habeas corpus, and protection against loss of life, liberty, or property ...Sep 14, 2016

Magna Carta, the Rule of Law, and the U.S. Constitution - IAALS
https://iaals.du.edu › blog › magna-carta-rule-law-and-...
Why did the Founding Fathers want separation of church and state?

Again pretty much copy-paste

Both Jefferson and fellow Virginian James Madison felt that state support for a particular religion or for any religion was improper. They argued that compelling citizens to support through taxation a faith they did not follow violated their natural right to religious liberty.

Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
https://www.mtsu.edu › first-amendment › article › establi...

The US failed to separate church and state in practice.

 

In the beginning it took both the agreement of the people and agreement of the governmentto form a contract between the people and the government.

Today only the government decides, controls and dictates the contract.

The People have been excluded from the process.

What a deal! Make a contract then be excluded from deciding its meaning, sounds like a great arrangement to me!

I did a quick read on this and its not an atrocious misrepresentation of original intent but it should illuminate how the government was intended far better than most sites I have seen that promote slavery. Im sure I can find issues with it but I think its worth a read anyway. Terms to Know

 

Sure 'you' can trust the CDC if you like!

Florida Department of Health analysis found “an increased risk of cardiac-related death among men 18-39” who received COVID mRNA vaccines; “the benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac- related death among men in this age group”; “Covid mRNA vaccine found to cause 84% increase in DEATH for men ages 18-39”
Analysis by Florida Department of Health about COVID-19 mRNA vaccines contains multiple methodological problems

The above is not officially 'side-by-side' peer reviewed however the british covid data collection proves exactly the same results with higher mortality of those vaccinated between 18-39 than the unvaccinated.



the latest honest joe gig is its "rare", is not, the vaccinated death rate in this group is higher than unvaccinated and anyone that speaks out about it to inform the public are considered paranoid conspiracy theorists.

The CDC director and Fauci both got covid, (laughable) and despite that we know the risks are higher than the benefit for this inadequately tested vaccine, the CDC now insists healthy 5 year olds should also take their vaccine.

Anyway Im sure there are plenty of threads for all the easily provable nonsense you posted in that rant, frankly though I really prefer to get this back on the religion track instead of chasing your constant diversions.

 

I suppose you all will need this too, I forgot to include it.

a person's right to freedom of speech, or the right to vote. Many constitutional rights are outlined in the Bill of Rights, which includes the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. On the other hand, a statutory right is a legal right granted to someone under state or federal law.

What is a statutory right? Definition and Applications
Free Online Legal Forms, Templates & Documents | LawDistrict › Legal Dictionary

What is a statutory right? Definition and Applications | LawDistrict

Constitutional Right vs. Statutory Right

In the United States, constitutional rights are the civil rights and liberties guaranteed to the citizens by the U.S. constitution. For example, a person’s right to freedom of speech, or the right to vote. Many constitutional rights are outlined in the Bill of Rights, which includes the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution.

On the other hand, a statutory right is a legal right granted to someone under state or federal law. These cannot violate or conflict with constitutional rights, and they must comply with the fundamental requirements of the constitution.

Other examples of constitutional rights include:

Equal protection under the law
Freedom of religion
Freedom of association
Freedom to petition & assemble
Right to bear arms
Right to privacy

A right is something that cannot be legally denied, such as the rights to free speech, press, religion, and raising a family. A privilege is something that can be given and taken away and is considered to be a special advantage or opportunity that is available only to certain people.

How are Rights and Privileges Different for Professionals
Award Winning Connecticut Professional License Defense Lawyers - The License Lawyers › rights-privilege


In modern democratic states, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth.

Privilege (law) - Wikipedia
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia › wiki › Privilege_(law)


There are some real dimwit attorneys or wanna be's out there writing all sorts of garbage. They always manage to use the word rights when in fact they are talking about privileges. Context is important.

The government has NO rights, only authority granted to it by the constitution. The 'People' have 'Reserved Rights' memorialized in the Bill of Rights that was incorporated into the constitution.

 

I think it's fascinating to explore where eccentric ideas come from, especially when they concern government and religion. This isn't a purely academic interest, since a variety of such ideas are afloat today--circulated by the internet and amplified by political demagogues into movements that can impact our democracy. We still have ideas of the "sovereign citizens' movement floating about, and apparently influencing some of the rioters who invaded our national Capitol Building on Jan.6, 2021.https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrhSpcpKKtjZrQHtklXNyoA;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Nj/RV=2/RE=1672190122/RO=10/RU=https://www.rawstory.com/maga-soveriegn-citizen//RK=2/RS=OINHZ8NfFLNbvB3lmhg9PuAlRiw-These folks hold the distinction of being top cop killers in the U.S.A. Sovereign Citizens Are America’s Top Cop-Killers We had a dude in our town who joined this movement and dragged his wife in too, claiming he was no longer a U.S. citizen and didn't have to pay his taxes. His wife worked at the tag agency and lost her job after making the same claim, since citizenship was a prerequisite for the job. Other currents are QAnon, which circulates virulent claims about the Deep State that really is running the U.S.,as well as chilling tales about Satanic, blood-drinking pedophiles and anti-vax propaganda. The anti-vax movement spans ordinary political divides, beginning with radical environmentalists and being taken over by the MAGA crowd. Of course long before that we had the supermarket tabloids. I remember my wife reading the cover story on one of them: woman gives birth to two-headed calf and asking "Do you think anybody really believes this stuff." "Yes, dear, I'm afraid they do." These have their counterparts in TV channels like Fox, media moguls like Rupert Murdock and recently Elon Musk, TV pundits like Larry Jones,etc.Then there's the anti-science movement, which seems to have infected large segments of the Republican Party. This seems to have originated in fundamentalist efforts to discredit evolution and astronomical accounts of the origin and age of the earth, which conflict with early Iron Age ideas on the subjects. Hippies by no means have been immune to irrational beliefs filtering in from the New Age Movement, which was influenced by leftover occult beliefs from nineteenth century Theosophy.

Psychologist and skeptic Dr. Michael Schermer has written a couple of good books on the psychological mechanisms behind this phenomenon: Why People Believe Weird Things and The Believing Brain. Our primate brains have always had trouble distinguishing between the signal and the noise; on the one hand there is a desire for simple (sometimes over-simplified explanations, while on the other hand, we worry about things outside of our control and concoct sometimes complex alternative realities to explain them ; the characteristic he calls "patternicity" related to the neurotransmitter dopamine helps us see patterns in the world around us,but sometimes to overdue it, leading to paranoid schizophrenic delusions; etc.Compounding all this is confirmation bias--the tendency to find support for what we want to believe--and the Dunning-Kruger effect--a cognitive bias leading people with low ability, expertise, or experience to over-estimate their knowledge. The philosophy of postmodernism , fortunately on the wane but leaving a messy residue of radical relativism, denies objective truth,or at lest our ability to discern it, and regards all truth claims as simply assertions of self-interested claimers. (Think Trump's former adviser Kellyanne Conway's "alternative facts"). One person's facts is another's "fake news".

And what does this have to do with the topic of this thread? Oh, I dunno. The post came to me after reading some of the recent offerings by another poster who will remain nameless. It's a challenge for rational people to make their way in a world where so many alternate realities compete for our attention with the aid of the internet and other modern communications technology. I've resorted to existentialism as a fallback--placing my bets and taking my chances. But I like to make educated bets, based as much as possible on reason, substantial credible evidence,expert opinion, personal experience, and extensive reading: in other words, on sound judgment. For example, I can't prove that Trump and his MAGA cohorts are a menace to society, but my best judgment tells me they are, supported by what I think is ample substantial evidence (See the Trump Scorecard on HF). Substantial evidence is legally defined as enough to convince a reasonable person, even though other reasonable persons may not be convinced. The "reasonable person" is, of course, a hypothetical standard, but is used all the time in the law in tort law and in judging the work of administrative officials.

So getting back to what is religion, I find it unhelpful to be super-logical positivist on the subject, requiring "proof' or empircal verification before I believe anyhthing. But I think as least substantial evidence is in order, and where extraordinary claims like virgin births and the walking dead are concerned, skepticism is warranted. As I've said before, definitions aren't true or false, just more or less useful. To me, it's useful to take a broad,inclusive view of the subject, so that we can benefit from comparisons with phenomena that seem similar to traditional theistic movements. And so that we don't exclude Buddhists, Taoists, humanists, ethical culturists, etc, from the legal protections of the First Amendment, tax exemptions, conscientious objection status, etc.But religion can't be just whatever we want it to be, or our purely subjective , though intensely felt, opinions about this or that. I go by the standards set by scholars like Durkheim and cluster analysts in comparative religion: there must be code, creed, cultus (ritual) and or community--all or most of those characteristics--and some sense of the sacred, setting the beliefs and practices apart from the profane and mundane activities of daily life and giving them special reverence and devotion. Sorry for the long lecture, but I find it frustrating to try to communicate these thoughts in the back and forth of social media diaglogue.

 

Because its highly unlikely have anything of value, I dont blame you.

That agrees with what I have been saying since the first page, glad you finally see what I was talking about.

Durkheim did not set standards, you are claiming that his research thats based on primitive tribal custom applies to modern society which is a real stretch ignoring the OP which again I remind you is the elephant in the room that drives to the core elements of what religion actually is as it applies to the modern world.

Actually those we citations from various legal cites proving my point.

Thanks for the laymans version, I prefer the technical professional versions that I cited.

Sure governments have rights between other governments, however I thought this was in reference to the government versus the people?

Not if you waltz into federal court some day!

a perfect right describes the extent of its 'authority'.

Yeh powers are delegated by the constitution.
Ah my favorite constitutional assassin!
Second only to Joseph Story!
Yeh somewhere in my archives I have a nice list of cases he presided that tore up the constitution.

If you must!

Promise? No.....

 

The First Amendment provides the legal framework by which persons or groups who think their rights are being infringed can petition the Courts, government wntities, to protect them by injunctions and damage awards. If the establishment claim is being violated, anybody whose rights are being infrnged can bring the case. But if the claim involves denial of benefits which religions are entitled to under a statute (e.g., tax exemptions), they must be recognized as religions in order to have standing.

 

every government officer swears an oath to uphold the constitution, in that is supposed to include protection, but it applies typically in the form of judgment in your favor in a suit.

 

the organization does not fit a secular humanist profile.

 

sure but I dont think you all do!
atheism is the logical negation of theism, neither atheism nor theism negates religion therefore religion is not synonomous with belief or disbelief in a God, clearly it describes something else.

if someone wants to jump out of a perfectly working plane and gamble the chute will open is that ok? What if they want to play russian roulette?

 

I wlll hate myself for doing this, because Shy One won't understand what I'm saying, probably no one else is interested, and it will further take us off topic. But I think your whole approach is so untenable that I should probably say something in rebuttal. Note, I withdrew the original, which you already replied to. Just as you mangled Durkheim by eliminating what he considered to be essential ingredients of his theory, society and community, you proceed with a complex theory that incorporates snippets of questionable legal theories which you further distort with your own misinterpretations.

Yes, as I've said repeatedly, Durkheim's theory was based on a single primitive society that can't be applied directly to complex modern ones. But his emphasis on societal influence, and the importance of the sacred, community, and ritual are still applicable. And I did not say I was going by Durkheim alone, but by studies of comparative religion using cluster analysis, which I've cited so often earlier in this thread and other discussions with Meagain that I don't have the strength to cite them all again. Two will have to suffice. Prothero, God is Not One, and Mark Berkson, Cultural Literacy for Religion.

Those were not laymen's versions but defiinitons from dictionaries. It's impossible to tell what source(s) from the myriad you provide you are using:

Federalist No. 31, authored by Alexander Hamilton, tells us :" that a disposition in the State governments to encroach upon the rights of the Union is quite as probable as a disposition in the Union to encroach upon the rights of the State governments" So apparently the Union andState governments have rights. In Fenemore v. United States, 3 U.S. 357 (1797) Justice Iredell,writes: "The only question, therefore, that remains to be decided, turns upon the right of the United States, to affirm the original transaction; and, if they have that right, it follows, inevitably, that they ought to recover from the Defendant an equivalent for the value of the certificate, which was surreptitiously obtained. I have no difficulty in saying, that the right exists; and that, the public interest, involved in the credit of a public paper medium, required the exercise of the right in a case of this kind."(Note that the right here is for recovery of damages by the U.S. government from the plaintiff, a private citizen.) And in Hannay v. Eve, 7 U.S. 242 (1806) (Marshall, C.J., for the Court):"Congress having a perfect right, in a state of open war, to tempt the navigators of enemy-vessels to bring them into the American ports …" The U.S and the government of whatever state you're from can sue you to vindicate its claims, which essentially is what a right is. If you don't think so, try not paying your taxes and see what happens.

Thank you for that! I suspected it, but you just confirmed what an extremist you are! You're attacking a foundational cases in constitutional law that go back to John Marshall in the eighteenth century. Lots of folks at the time didn't like it either, but as he explained he was interpreting a constitution intended to endure for posterity. So he gave it the appropriately reasonable interpretation, contsruing "necessary and proper" broadly to uphold the implied powers of the constitution. This case is bedrock. Even our "conservative" majority on SCOTUS that overturned nearly half a century by reversing Roe is unlikely to be crazy enough to try to overturn over a couple of centuries of precedent with McCulloch. There goes the Air Force, the civil rights acts, the federal highway system, labor legislation, etc. Putin, here we come! If McCulloch had gone the other way, we'd probably be a small, fragile country not far from where we were under the Articles of Confederation. We'd never have become a mighty country that spanned the coasts. Maybe I'd be living in Mississippi instead of Oklahoma, cuz you'd never have been able to push us Chickasaws ofwhat you're proposing ff our tribal homeland. Whatever amateur legal analysis you put forward, flies in the face of common sense! You might as well be King or Queen Canute, sitting on the beach telling the tide to stop! You can't turn back the tide of history!

 

Im sorry but I guess it just slipped under my radar.

But I cant locate where the constitution authorizes an expansion of this extraconstitutional necessary and proper that literally issues a blank check to the government?

I suppose you think everything that floated through the courts is just a-ok sinply because they ruled that way?

The supreme court reversed several rulings but I assure you they will never give up the power Marshal gave them!

Yeh I already responded to this.

Definitions from dictionaries only pertain to popular usage and for the most part totally useless for an academic discussion that drills down to core meanings which you seem to be avoiding.

I responded to this already and have shown that Durkheims core philosophy can apply to someone stranded on an island.

Had you demonstrated in argument that it cannot be applied, that it has to your cast in concrete version than I would take a sit back and concede, but in fact you didnt even attempt it.

So if you have someone that you can quote that demonstrates that what you require beyond what I have already demonstrated to the contrary I would love to see it.

not.
You are confusing understanding with disagreeing with you.
Yes my approach has been severely strawmanned and taken out of context even after explaining, you simply repeat the misrepresentations as if I never corrected you.
Nothing is said about society in the OP, the OP runs much closer to the core, in other words what is religion, not how does religion manifest itself in societies as you seem to think is immutable.
Durkheim talks about the core of religion itself with regard to philosophy/metaphysics/psychology in the OP. Ive seen no rebuttal from anyone here except lots of name calling from you and avoidance of what is said in the OP demanding to over shadow it out of context with what is 'stated'.

 

Dang time out see edits below

not.
You are confusing understanding with disagreeing with you.

Yes my approach has been severely strawmanned and taken out of context even after explaining, you simply repeat the misrepresentations as if I never corrected you.

Nothing is said about society in the OP, the OP runs much closer to the core, in other words what is religion, not how does religion manifest itself in societies as you seem to think is immutable.

Durkheim talks about the core of religion itself with regard to philosophy/metaphysics/psychology in the OP.

Ive seen no rebuttal from anyone here except lots of name calling from you and avoidance of what Durkheim said in the OP and demanding to over shadow out of context with what is 'stated' in the OP with his other theories.

If you can prove my rebuttal is wrong psychologically, metaphysically, philosophically, in context such that the application can be shown to actually incorrect then I am all ears and look forward to it.