U.S. Supreme Court Ruling (1961): ATHEISM IS RELIGION

[Alter2Ego]

Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. As recently as 2005, the Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of Kaufman v. McCaughtry again ruled that Atheism is Religion.  In spite of the many court rulings along that line, members of the Religion of Atheism insist they are not religious. 

Atheist religionists frequently attempt to take the higher ground by insisting that because of belief in God, Christians and other theists have committed all sorts of human rights violations in the name of "cultish religions."  According to the many atheists I have debated at other websites, it is the belief in God that has caused people to commit the various atrocities common to sinful mankind. Remove religion, belief in God, and belief in the Bible--the atheists frequently argue--and the world will be a better place. This latter conclusion is flawed for the following reasons:

1.  Atheism is itself a religion.

2.  Atheists have committed human rights violations en masse throughout history and have killed far more people than have those claiming to be theists.  For instance, Joseph Stalin--the atheist--ordered the deaths of between 40 million to 62 million of his own Russian people (20 million of whom were everyday Soviet civilians).  Compare that to the 9 million or so killed by Adolph Hitler, the Roman Catholic who merely claimed he was a Christian.  The point being, anybody can claim they are a theist.

In reality, the problem is not the Bible or God. The problem is false religions that have failed to teach the masses Biblical truths. Blaming God for the crimes of people whose behaviors he himself rejects is an attempt at passing the buck.

"See! This only I have found, that the true God made mankind upright, but THEY THEMSELVES have sought out many plans." (Ecclesiastes 7:29) 

DISCUSSION POINTS:
1.  Considering that atheists have themselves committed human rights violations under the banner of non-belief in a supernatural God or gods, why can one argue that "belief in god" is not the actual reason behind crimes against humanity?

2.  Atheists routinely argue they do not belong to a religion.  According to them, non-belief in God is proof positive that they are not religious.  The U.S. Supreme Court and other U.S. courts say otherwise. What arguments can you present to effectively dispute the court rulings?

[Rlyeh]

24 minutes ago, Alter2Ego said:

In reality, the problem is not the Bible or God. The problem is false religions that have failed to teach the masses Biblical truths. Blaming God for the crimes of people whose behaviors he himself rejects is an attempt at passing the buck.

Biblical truths like defending slavery, something both the OT and NT does.

[Piney]

3 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Biblical truths like defending slavery, something both the OT and NT does.

And defending genocide if you read The Book of Samuel. 

[Rlyeh]

29 minutes ago, Alter2Ego said:

Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/488/

It states no such thing.

[Piney]

31 minutes ago, Alter2Ego said:

2.  Atheists have committed human rights violations en masse throughout history and have killed far more people than have those claiming to be theists.  For instance, Joseph Stalin--the atheist--ordered the deaths of between 40 million to 62 million of his own Russian people (20 million of whom were everyday Soviet civilians).  Compare that to the 9 million or so killed by Adolph Hitler, the Roman Catholic who merely claimed he was a Christian.  The point being, anybody can claim they are a theist.

The persecution of the pagans, Charlemagne's Crusade against the Saxons, the Middle Eastern Crusades, the Northern Crusades, the Crusades against the Finns, the Wars for Religion, Russia's Crusade against the Indigenous Siberians and the Spanish slaughter of non-Christians throughout Asia and the Americas say otherwise. 

31 minutes ago, Alter2Ego said:

DISCUSSION POINTS:
1.  Considering that atheists have themselves committed human rights violations under the banner of non-belief in a supernatural God or gods, why can one argue that "belief in god" is not the actual reason behind crimes against humanity?

Have you ever heard of the Red Cross or AFSC? It's full of secular humanists and even has a few Mormons and Jews.

It has no Jehovah's Witnesses. 

[XenoFish]

This must be 'salting the wound' month.

[Alter2Ego]

13 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/488/

It states no such thing.

Rlyeh:

Of course it does.  It is stated in the very first paragraph of the court transcript, as well as at Footnote 11. 

Below is the quotation of paragraph 1 where the Court clearly states that the "freedom of belief and religion" for the Plaintiff (atheist Roy Torcaso) was "unconstitutionally" invaded, in violation of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.

"Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public, but he was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. Claiming that this requirement violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, he sued in a state court to compel issuance of his commission, but relief was denied. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing, without need for implementing legislation, and requires declaration of a belief in God as a qualification for office. Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. Pp. 367 U. S. 489-496.

 

Alter2Ego

[XenoFish]

6 minutes ago, Alter2Ego said:

freedom of belief and religion

There's this little word you overlooked.

Edited August 6 by XenoFish

[cormac mac airt]

The OP is quite obviously a lie: 

Quote

3. The Supreme Court ruled that secular humanism is a religion. 

This myth is based on a misunderstanding about how Supreme Court decisions are written, and was finally laid to rest by a Federal Circuit Court ruling issued in 1994. 

In the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins decision, Justice Hugo Black commented in a footnote, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others." Such footnotes, known as "dicta," are written to provide factual background to the legal principles in a decision. These dicta never have the force of law. They are merely comments. 

The claim that secular humanism can be considered a religion for legal purposes was finally considered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Peloza v. Capistrano School District. In this 1994 case, a science teacher argued that, by requiring him to teach evolution, his school district was forcing him to teach the "religion" of secular humanism. The Court responded, "We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are `religions' for Establishment Clause purposes." The Supreme Court refused to review the case; they refused to reverse a ruling that secular humanism is not a religion. 

"But," you might ask, "even if secular humanism isn't a religion for legal purposes, isn't it really a religion in practical terms?" No. Look at it this way: Suppose Justice Black had been writing about an issue of interstate commerce in agricultural products, and in a footnote he included "apples" in a list of root crops. He would be wrong. It wouldn't matter what laws were involved-apples are fruits, not roots! As a factual matter, he was partly wrong about Buddhism because some branches of Buddhism do worship the Buddha as a deity. And he was wrong about secular humanism. 

Secular humanism is not a religion by any definition: There are no supernatural beliefs, no creeds that all humanists are required to accept, no sacred texts or required rituals. Humanists are not expected or required to have "faith" in what is said by any authority, living or dead, human or "supernatural." 

People may find values and meaning in life through either humanistic or religious worldviews. But religions claim that meaning is based on a god or the supernatural, while humanists derive their meaning and values from the natural world. Secular humanism is a naturalistic, nonreligious worldview.

10 Myths About Secular Humanism by Matt Cherry & Molleen Matsumura

cormac

Edited August 6 by cormac mac airt
Cleanup

[Rlyeh]

1 minute ago, Alter2Ego said:

Rlyeh:

Of course it does.

No where does it say atheism is a religion.

 

1 minute ago, Alter2Ego said:

  It is stated in the very first paragraph of the court transcript, as well as at Footnote 11. 

Below is the quotation of paragraph 1 where the Court clearly states that the "freedom of belief and religion" for the Plaintiff (atheist Roy Torcaso) was "unconstitutionally" invaded, in violation of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.

The goalposts are moving.  

[Alter2Ego]

42 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Biblical truths like defending slavery, something both the OT and NT does.

Rlyeh:

The type of slavery covered in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) was the behavior of all of the nations that participated in wars and captured people from the opposing side.  But it was nothing like the chattel slavery that the Europeans inflicted upon Africans during the European scramble for African land.  This is confirmed my numerous sources.  Below is one such source:

 

"Slavery in the Old Testament was very different and involved a variety of methods, situations, and restrictions. But the Old Testament is clear about capturing people and selling them as chattel: kidnapping was a crime punishable by death (Exodus 21:16)."

https://www.compellingtruth.org/slavery-Old-Testament.html

 

As for "slavery" in the New Testament aka Christian Greek Scriptures, be sure and quote scripture where you find mention of slavery, and I will provide you with the context.

Alter2Ego

Edited August 6 by Alter2Ego

[Alter2Ego]

14 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

The goalposts are moving.  

Rlyeh:

The goal post didn't move, and you know it.  The court transcript from the link you yourself provide says atheist Torcaso's "freedom of religion and belief" were being violated.

 

Edited August 6 by Alter2Ego

[Rlyeh]

1 minute ago, Alter2Ego said:

Rlyeh:

The type of slavery covered in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) was the behavior of all of the nations that participated in wars and captured people from the opposing side.

Which was still chattel slavery, in fact slaves could be bought and kept for life.

 

1 minute ago, Alter2Ego said:

  But it was nothing like the chattel slavery that the Europeans inflicted upon Africans during the European scramble for African land. 

Sounds like the slavery in which Africans sold their prisoners to Europeans.

 

1 minute ago, Alter2Ego said:

This is confirmed my numerous sources.  Below is one such source:

 

"Slavery in the Old Testament was very different and involved a variety of methods, situations, and restrictions. But the Old Testament is clear about capturing people and selling them as chattel: kidnapping was a crime punishable by death (Exodus 21:16)."

https://www.compellingtruth.org/slavery-Old-Testament.html

 

Alter2Ego

So capturing and selling people is wrong, unless it's during war.  

[Rlyeh]

4 minutes ago, Alter2Ego said:

Rlyeh:

The goal post didn't move, and you know it.  The court transcript from the link you yourself provide says atheist Torcaso's "freedom of religion and belief" were being violated.

 

Come on then, quote where it states atheism is a religion.

Hint; it doesn't.

Edited August 6 by Rlyeh

[Alter2Ego]

15 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

No where does it say atheism is a religion.

Rlyeh:

Look at Footnote 11. 

 

[Footnote 11]

Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id. at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.

 

FYI:  A Secular Humanist is an Atheist.

[Alter2Ego]

4 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Which was still chattel slavery, in fact slaves could be bought and kept for life.

Sounds like the slavery in which Africans sold their prisoners to Europeans.

So capturing and selling people is wrong, unless it's during war.  

Rlyeh:

I just got through quoting a source that said slavery during ancient times was not chattel slavery.  So if you want to keep making the same false claim, suit yourself.

[Rlyeh]

13 minutes ago, Alter2Ego said:

Rlyeh:

I just got through quoting a source that said slavery during ancient times was not chattel slavery.  So if you want to keep making the same false claim, suit yourself.

The one you yourself contradicted.  Find out what chattel slavery is so you don't embarrass yourself again.

Leviticus 25:45 is speaking of chattel slavery.  Perhaps you should read your Bible sometime?

Edited August 6 by Rlyeh

[eight bits]

33 minutes ago, Alter2Ego said:

freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment

includes the freedom not to adhere to a religion, for any reason, or for no reason at all.

That does not make "wanting to play golf on Saturday and Sunday mornings" a religion. Nor does it make atheism a religion.

 

[Alter2Ego]

1 hour ago, Piney said:

The persecution of the pagans, Charlemagne's Crusade against the Saxons, the Middle Eastern Crusades, the Northern Crusades, the Crusades against the Finns, the Wars for Religion, Russia's Crusade against the Indigenous Siberians and the Spanish slaughter of non-Christians throughout Asia and the Americas say otherwise. 

Have you ever heard of the Red Cross or AFSC? It's full of secular humanists and even has a few Mormons and Jews.

It has no Jehovah's Witnesses. 

Piney:

As stated in my OP, false religions, including those claiming they are Christian, have committed all types of wrongdoings.  But the Atheist Religionists have slaughtered far more people than the false theists.  This is confirmed by many sources.

[Alter2Ego]

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

The one you yourself contradicted.  Find out what chattel slavery is so you don't embarrass yourself again.

Leviticus 25:45 is speaking of chattel slavery.  Perhaps you should read your Bible sometime?

Rlyeh:

The only person being embarrassed here is you yourself.  Notice the quotation of Levitus 25:45 below, followed by the definition of "Chattel Slavery."

Leviticus 25:45

"Also from the sons of the foreign settlers who are residing with you, from them and from their families that are born to them in your land you may buy slaves, and they will become your possession."

That scripture does not say that the foreign settlers were slaves.  It said they or their children could be purchased as slaves.  Chattel slavery refers to people that are already enslaved and all of their resulting children are automatically slaves. 

 

chattel slavery

1. the enslaving and owning of human beings and their offspring as property, able to be bought, sold, and forced to work without wages, as distinguished from other systems of forced, unpaid, or low-wage labor also considered to be slavery.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/chattel slavery

 

Chattel slavery is the most brutal form of slavery, where people are treated as personal property that can be bought, sold, or given away. They and their descendants are permanently enslaved.

https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/apush/chattel-slavery

 

As anyone reading this thread can see, Chattel Slavery is the type of slavery that the Europeans dreamed up and inflicted upon Black Africans for 400 years because of the European greed for wealth, power, and African land.

Edited August 7 by Alter2Ego

[Alter2Ego]

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

Which was still chattel slavery, in fact slaves could be bought and kept for life.

Sounds like the slavery in which Africans sold their prisoners to Europeans.

So capturing and selling people is wrong, unless it's during war.  

Rlyeh:

Now you're trying to make excuses for Europeans who instigated the scramble for Africa.  Good try, Rlyeh, but it won't work.  Here's why:

You are conveniently avoiding the fact that the European scramble for Africa was about stealing African land and killing off and removing as much of the natives as they could (which is what happened with the Native Americans in the USA), or else enslaving them in the colonies and enriching themselves in the process. Black Africans selling Black African war prisoners to Europeans is a prime example of Divide and Conquer.  It's done by corrupting people who are already enemies with one another.  It takes a special type of criminal to corrupt other criminals.

 

Nobody comes out smelling like roses after they've illegally purchased war prisoners, packed them into the bottom of slave ships like sardines, and then proceeded to enslave those who survived the journey and their descendants for 400 years, raped and impregnated enslaved women and 12-year-old black girls, hacking off parts of people's limbs to persuade them to stop trying to escape.  It takes a special kind of evil to inflict that type of punishment--up close--upon generations of innocent people for 400 years perpetrated by generations of White people.

"The trans-Atlantic slave trade was the capture, forcible transport and sale of native Africans to Europeans for lifelong bondage in the Americas. Lasting from the 16^th to 19^th centuries, it is responsible, more than any other project or phenomenon in the history of the modern world, for the creation of the African diaspora—the dispersal of Black people outside their places of origin on the continent of Africa."

https://www.history.com/news/african-diaspora-trans-atlantic-slave-trade

 

Keep in mind that the Europeans claimed they were being good Christians while they were brutalizing other human beings. Perfect examples of criminals parading as Christians.  I can well understand why many people no longer want anything to do with Theism.  They blame Jehovah for the wicked behavior of people who claim to worship Him.  However, the scripture that I quoted within my OP states:

"See! This only I have found, that the true God made mankind upright, but THEY THEMSELVES have sought out many plans." (Ecclesiastes 7:29) 

[Occupational Hubris]

Why is it always the religious nets tell athiests what they do and do not believe? They can't seem to grasp the religion simply has zero place in my life. 

[Alter2Ego]

7 minutes ago, Occupational Hubris said:

Why is it always the religious nets tell athiests what they do and do not believe? They can't seem to grasp the religion simply has zero place in my life. 

Occupational Hubris:

Spoken like a loyal member of the Religion of Atheism.

[Occupational Hubris]

3 minutes ago, Alter2Ego said:

Occupational Hubris:

Spoken like a loyal member of the Religion of Atheism.

Literally means nothing. thanks for playing. 

[psyche101]

44 minutes ago, Alter2Ego said:

Piney:

As stated in my OP, false religions, including those claiming they are Christian, have committed all types of wrongdoings.  But the Atheist Religionists have slaughtered far more people than the false theists.  This is confirmed by many sources.

 

Is this how you justify religious atrocities to yourself? 

Religious people like to call atheism a religion because they can't actually grasp atheism.