Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
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., 125 S.Ct. 2722 (2005). The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.” In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”
The court ruled, in other words, that for the purposes of the first amendment, atheism has to be given the same status as a religion. It did not rule that atheism actually is a religion.
Now you're not even making sense.
From a Libertarian Perspective, the only Actions which should be Legally Punished as "Crimes" are precisely those Actions which Harm or Defraud another Human Being (you know... Aggression, Perfidy, Theft, Fraud, Despoilment; in other words, exactly the Second Table of the Ten Commandments) -- Theonomic Libertarianism simply represents an virtuous improvement over Secular Libertarianism in recognizing the Contract of Marriage as the most Socially-Fundamental and Justiciable of All Private Contracts.
But surely you are not saying that "breach of contract wouldn't be a crime"!!
Without the freely-willed Organization of Accountability known as the "Private Contract", Man has no modus of social interaction and no recourse for justice -- except the Totalitarianism of the State!
Surely you must agree that -- in order for a Voluntary, Non-Totalitarian Civil Society to exist -- Private Contracts MUST be Sacrosanct, and Breach-of-Contract MUST be Against the Law.
Would you not agree?
I note from the kind of apologia that push the same "Julius Caesar" point that the second most credible historical document by that reckoning is Homer's Iliad and Odyssey. Excellently funny. Maybe we should all worship the Greek Gods if the physical evidence falsifies the purported words of Jesus.
Since the writings of Julius Caesar don't require me to suspend disbelief (except possibly in the matter of the number of casualties inflicted on enemy armies and the size of enemy armies) and no-one is worshiping Julius Caesar on the strength of those manuscripts I don't need to be as skeptical about them. Caesar as a historical figure is cross-referenced in numerous historical documents. Large claims (eg being the son of God, and physical resurrection) require large evidence.
Don't be ridiculous. Of course we can. Large claims require large evidence. That's all. The synoptic gospels appear to originate from a single source document, probably written around AD60, and John appears to have been written somewhat later.
Breach of contract is a civil matter, not a criminal offense. The remedy is to sue, not to seek prosecution.
Easy on the caffeine.
If atheism qualifies as a religion under the law, where are the tax breaks?
Who cares? Evolution isn't atheistic. :)
Nonetheless, you are admitting that Breach of Contract (including Marital Perfidy) should be referred to the Civil Courts for adjudication.
Thus, the rectitude of Theonomic Libertarianism is established, in referring only the Second Table of the Law to the general authority of the Magistrate, and the First Table to the Presbyter. (As opposed to the Reconstructionist approach of establishing State Enforcement over Both Tables of the Law).
Best, OP
Did you have anything intellectually valuable to add to the discussion, or should I just ignore you?
Just curious.
Don't you even read what you post?
No. One more time: marriage is not a contract.
That joke has not evolved since the last hundred times it was posted.
Which means nothing more or less than speech promoting atheism is protected, that atheists cannot be discriminated against, and (probably) that facilities, privileges and services provided by the government for religious congregations cannot be denied to atheists.
This is all about government obligations and prohibitions. It says nothing about whether atheism is a religion in the philosophical sense.
Knock off the personal attacks!
This from someone who thinks atheism is a religion (like bald is a hair color) and that Pasteur disproved abiogenesis.
It wasnt a joke.
How about the $45 billion given annually to public education in California to further a godless evolutionist agenda?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.