What is Religion?

religion is also a 'public' affair notably when someone imposes their religion(s) on to me in the public arena.

This is a typical atheist complaint about deity based religions, however the imposition of 'religion' applies to 'everyone', not only believers on to atheists but also atheists on to believers. Everyone!

If you impose an atheist philosophy against a Christian you just imposed a 'secular religion' on to a 'deity based' religion.

 

I happen to agree with the Torcaso decision, which had to do with a religious test for a notary public. Maryland law required people holding that position to take an oath professing their belief in God and an atheist notary refused.The U.S. Supreme Court upheld his position because the state had violated the constitutional provision against requiring a religious test for public office. "There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us — it sets up a religious test which was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public office of profit or trust in Maryland." Some think that the Court in Torasco recognized secular humanism to be a religion, because footnote 11 mentioned organized groups of humanists and ethical culturists receiving tax exemptions if they meting regularly to share and celebrate their beliefs.. I'd agree, if hey have creed, code, cultus (ritual) and community, and some sense of the sacred--reverence or devotion to spiritual matters or ideals beyond the mundane concerns of everyday life. . I think Durkheim would also approve. I am bothered though by the implication that a person must be a groupie in order to qualify as religious. Durkheim notwithstanding, I think strong personal spiritual or ethical convictions should count, too, to some extent if sincerely and deeply held.

Here the conscientious objection cases might be relevant. The Selective Service in the U.S. recognizes that beliefs may qualify for CO status "moral or ethical"; however, a man’s reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest.” Those wishing to make such a claim must testify as to the sincerity of their beliefs. I could see the potential of this getting out of hand, if people were claiming sincere, heartfelt convictions as a reason to discriminate against people and deny them service. If I were a judge, I think I'd be inclined to find compelling state interest in overriding religious bigotry that interferes with equal protection and the free flow of goods and services. I suspect that the religious zealots on the present Supreme Court are inclined to do the opposite.

I think that's really stretching it. The Court restricted its conception to organized religions, which (à la Durkheim) do not necessarily involve supernatural beings but probably involve some equivalent of the sacred. Granted the Court hasn't made this clear yet..

Some atheists are such fundamentalists! I think the better approach is that taken by the Court with religious practices it considers detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare and morals. All cases of government action interfering with one's conscientious religious practice must be given strict judicial scrutiny or a presumed to be invalid, but a showing of compelling or overriding state interest in public health, safety, welfare or morals can uphold the interference That would take care of the human sacrifice, stoning of adulteresses and gays, polygamy, etc. But I agree:."religion has nothing to do with your public business, bake the cake". I think overriding considerations of equal protection and public accommodation in interstate commerce should qualify as compelling state interests. Reynolds v. U.s. (1879); Cleveland v. U.S.(1946)

 

Neither the establishment clause nor the free exercise clause have ever been interpreted by the courts as absolutes. As mentioned supra, the court gives them the benefit of strict scrutiny and requires a compelling state interest for government regulations which interfere with them, but have never recognized the religious absolutism you seem to be advocating.

Of course it doesn't , but it also has never been interpreted to override all considerations of public health, safety, welfare or morals.

 

...

 

If they didn't it would be admission to the establishment of religion.

Durkheim like so many others were a subject of his time.

Today speaking out against the covid vaccination will get you destroyed and discredited by advocates for profit!

Health experts are quitting the NIH and CDC in droves because they're embarrassed by 'bad science'

• The NIH and CDC are reportedly facing staffing shortages as low morale drives away employees
• Decisions like the closure of schools and then requiring face masks once they reopened led to many questioning leadership
• Lately, the authorization of COVID-19 vaccines for children four years old of younger has confused some in America's top medical agencies
• Bari Weiss' 'Common Sense' Substack reports that data from both Pfizer and Moderna's clinical trials for jabs in under-5s show limited effectiveness

Health experts are quitting the NIH and CDC in droves because they are embarrassed by 'bad science' | Daily Mail Online

Yet the government through their 'compelling interest' mandate the vaccines claiming its gold plated facts!

In most places in ancient times it got you jailed or dead! Durkheim conducted his study of some unsophisticated tribe in your version which does not really apply to the sophisticated in my version.

this is still a huge problem today not only in the rest of the world but here in the US as well.

the government comes up with an excuse to have an interest and forces you to comply, screw your religion.

Which precisely conforms with the op with regard to durkheim, but its not just 'conviction', again it must be put into action to qualify!

Yes which forms a court led dictatorship,

the Court decides what's healthy for you,

the Court decides what's safe for you,

the Court decides your welfare

the Court decides your morals,

not you,

not the people,

It seems to me we have an obvious void, the people are not required and not included in this decision making process.

You're doing a great job telling us what the government wants which as we know full well does not match ehat the people want,

look what they did with Roe versus Wade going in and going out.

Judicial scrutiny? How about 'PEOPLE' scrutiny?
The first thing that needs to be traditionally scrutinized is where do they, (the secular courts), get the authority to judicially scrutinize and rule on 'Religion' since the Bill of Rights granted them no such authority!

Since when does government authority granted by the people 'override' the inherent rights of the people, seriously?

The moment a foreigner becomes a citizen they soon discover the US commandments.

there's no separation between religion and government in the United States.

Thou shalt not have more than one wife the Lord US sayeth!

Thou shalt not stone thy adulterous wife, the Lord US sayeth.

Thus sayeth the Lord thy God!

If you come to the United States leave your religion behind because we offer you

freedom to have our religion our way.

So then bake the cake with no decorations.
Unfortunately that was not satisfactory for the gay girls.
They wanted the cake decorated with homosexual artwork.
This artwork is seen in the public eye and
therefore an expression of not rejecting gay marriage
which like I said before and everybody conveniently jumps past the point,
forces the Christian bakery to become an accessory to the commission of a sin.

Your hangnail could become a compelling interest of the state and that is the problem.

Otherwise you would find compelling interest as a stipulation in the Bill of Rights. You dont!

In other words the Bill of Rights would state you have the right to XYZ with the exception of the government's compelling interest.

The Bill of Rights makes no such implication or statement / stipulation.

This is all made up mumbo jumbo to promote the progression of state interference into your inherent rights, UNLESS IT'S PUT TO A REFERENDUM!

Yes I understand completely, scratch the preamble and change it from we the people to we the courts of the United States.

The word REFERENDUM comes to mind.

case in point! boom!

as 'dictated' by the government, and of course without a REFERENDUM!

Who needs the input from people the people are just the idiots being governed.

What you post is not on point arguments, you are posting is your agreement with status quo as established and we know that the government has established its secular self as a religion.

 

Yes. I think we've been lucky since the great "switch in time that saved nine" in 1937. Our luck may be running out. I think though that the conservatives on the court are overestimating their power. The Court is more dependent on legitimacy than any other branch of government. According to the polls, that legitimacy is rapidly slipping away. That poses a crisis for our system of government, but the conservative justices brought it on themselves.

 

RvW should have been thrown out and rejected by scotus since this is religious, not forcing their religion on to the people.

RvW is not a compelling interest since there are alternative methods.

The court should have explained to the litigants that a valid complaint is with regard to services, that women are entitled to medical services and dropped it at that, however never waste a good opportunity to infringe on the inherent rights of the people.

 

I clarified that, the above is a failure to quote my full statement.

polygamy, Christianity ie gay cakes

I already explained that why do I not see a quote of that explanation?

 

No it does not unless you want to remove 'parents' from the equation and 'place' children under direct state supervision, good luck with that!

If atheists have no morals, no worldview then you could legitimately exclude them, otherwise they are as much as a religion as any other source.

 

American Atheists envisions a world in which public policy is made using the best evidence we have rather than religious dogma and where religious beliefs are no longer seen as an excuse for bigotry or cause to receive special treatment from the government. We fight for religious equality for all Americans by protecting what Thomas Jefferson called the “wall of separation” between state and church created by the First Amendment.

We strive to create an environment where atheism and atheists are accepted as members of our nation’s communities and where casual bigotry against our community is seen as abhorrent and unacceptable. We promote understanding of atheists through education, outreach, and community building and work to end the stigma associated with being an atheist in America.

We aim to make the road to authenticity, openness, and honesty about the things we believe and don’t believe easier for the next person who travels it by being outspoken about our atheism and by ensuring that the voices of atheists are always heard in communities throughout the nation, in politics, and in the media.

By working with coalition partners within the atheist movement and across the political spectrum where we can find common ground, American Atheists fights to improve public policy for all Americans, protect real religious freedom by defending the wall of separation between religion and government, and promote the acceptance and understanding of atheists.

By using every tool available to us, including our nation’s legal system, political advocacy, and outreach campaigns, American Atheists works to advance atheism in the United States and abroad.

Aims and Purposes
Therefore, the Aims and Purposes of American Atheists are to:

• Stimulate and promote freedom of thought and inquiry concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices;
• Collect, preserve, and disseminate information, data, and literature on all religions and promote a more thorough understanding of them, their origins, and their histories;
• Advocate, labor for, and promote in all lawful ways the establishment and maintenance of a thoroughly secular system of education available to all;
• Encourage the development and public acceptance of a humane ethical system stressing the mutual sympathy, understanding, and interdependence of all people and the corresponding responsibility of each individual in relation to society;
• Develop and propagate a social philosophy in which humankind is central and must itself be the source of strength, progress, and ideals for the wellbeing and happiness of humanity;
• Promote the study of the arts and sciences and of all problems affecting the maintenance, perpetuation, and enrichment of human (and other) life; and,
• Engage in such social, educational, legal, and cultural activity as well as be useful and beneficial to the members of American Atheists and to society as a whole.

Our Vision


Sounds pretty religious with its own institutionalized dogma to me!

 

So might speaking out for it in some parts of the country. Or get your tires slashed.

Quoting the Daily Mail as authority now? What next, Alex Jones.? Fact Check/Media Bias:https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/

• Overall, we rate Daily Mail Right Biased and Questionable due to numerous failed fact checks and poor information sourcing

This provides new insight into where you may be getting your worldview.

Hey, you brought him up, remember. Of course his work is dated and has lots of flaws, notably overgeneralizing on the basis of one unrepresentative tribe in Central Australia. But its the real version, warts and all. Your makeover makes it your theory, especially when you throw out what he considered to be the main point and make it into some kind of religious individualism.

"the people" better be careful then who they elect to office, cuz they appoint the judges. But if I had to chose, I'd take my chances with judges rather than "the people", most of whom are semi-educated, inattentive,and fair game for demagogues.

 

are you claiming that the daily mail is not qualified to interview people and put the results of the interview up for viewers?

Typical shoot the messenger to avoid discussing the issues!

 

Ruling for or against the abilities of one to obtain needed professional services is not the same as condoning abortion, but if we are arguing amongst ourselves because of crap rulings we are not looking at the government. Very beneficial for the governments interest.

 

without a REFERENDUM.

a REFERENDUM declares the voice of the 'People', not some politician with a crystal ball, or some Judge taking payments under the table.

Anarchy is a topic all to itself, there is nothing inherently wrong with anarchy provided we have a justice system. 'Short cuts' to 'equitable' justice in favor of the State, 'statutes' not required!

I dont agree with the kelptocracy it has degenerated into.

Degeneration and corruption has already thrown out most of the Bill of Rights.