Summations Only

Quite. I just burned one the other day.

Witches burn very easily; over the years I've found it better to cook them for a long time in a very low oven. To prevent the meat drying out, add:"Eye of newt, and toe of frog,
Wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg, and howlet's wing,--
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble."

And to make sure that she really is a witch:

And of course the author of the OP has not responded to any posts. There should be a penalty for not participating in your own thread. Classic fundie troll.His OP is nothing but misrepresentation of reality at best and probably lies in reality.

From OP of Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents? From OP of PROOF: Judeo-Christian Bible Inspired of God And of course this thread.

The topic title is "Federal Court & U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: Atheism is Religion", which pretty well defines the topic theme. It probably has already been covered adequately, and many of the recent messages have nothing to do with the topic theme. And now it's descended to taking pot shots at Alter2Ego.Do messages relevant to the topic theme, or don't post to this topic.Go to "General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List')" if you wish to discuss moderation issues.AdminnemooseusABE: Back to my initial thought about this topic - Going into summation mode, effective as of 60 messages.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : ABE.

The OP appears to be reading what is not there. No evidence has been provided to support the claim of the thread title.

Bad idea.Edited by NoNukes, : Avoid a goring...

Insert boring homily about squeezing turnips and expecting something different this one time.We didn't even get vegetable juice.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The title of the thread was a lie, and then it went downhill from there.

Yes.The title was a big, bold untruth. What else to discuss here?

The OP was a misrepresentation of the truth. No, it was a lie.And the fact that he cannot even support his lies is a huge issue and should be part of the debate, no matter what Moose says.If a person does not contribute to their own thread then the thread should be shut down as this one is being.

quote:

---

NWR:

​

quote:

---

ALTER2EGO:
Atheists consistently attempt to take the higher ground by insisting Christians are mental midgets for believing in a non-existent "sky gawd."

---

This is an example of what is usually called a "sweeping generalization." You are taking what a few atheists say, and implying that all atheists do that. They don't.

​

By the way, some theists say rather nasty things about atheists. Should we indict all theists for that?

---

ALTER2EGO -to- NWR:
I have not been to this website for some time, so I was not even aware that this thread had been approved.And no, I am not making a generalization. I have been told exactly what I posted in my OP by atheists at numerous websites where I have debated.BTW: You will note that I did not use the expression: "All atheists consistently attempt...."

quote:

---

PERCY:
Clearly the courts have only ruled that atheism is religion for the narrow purposes of applying the First Amendment. Note the part where it says “the Court understands the reference to religion [by the Supreme Court] to include what it often calls 'nonreligion.'”

---

ALTER2EGO -to- PERCY:
So you are agreeing with my OP that Atheism is indeed Religion--even if it is merely for First Amendment reasons (although that is not correct). Atheism is also considered "Religion" under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

quote:

---

PERCY:
Just as clearly, courts have ruled that atheism is not a religion for purposes of taxation. Certainly atheism isn't a religion if you define religion as belief in a supreme being or beings.

---

Your point being? That because the IRS refuses to give atheist organizations tax relief, that automatically cancels out the Supreme Court ruling?The position of the IRS does not cancel out the fact that Atheism is still Religion, particularly since atheists routinely use their Religion status for the following purposes:1. To get their own chaplains and distribute their literature.2. To conscientiously object to war based upon their RELIGION status.Edited by Alter2Ego, : No reason given.

quote:

---

COYOTE:
Your claim that two courts have determined that atheism is a religion is unfounded.

​

Regarding Kaufman v. McCaughtry, what the Federal Court declared was that in a particular prison, under First Amendment rights, atheists have the same rights to meet as do religious groups.

​

The court noted:

​

quote:

---

It is undisputed that other religious groups are permitted to meet at Kaufman's prison, and the defendants have advanced no secular reason why the security concerns they cited as a reason to deny his request for an atheist group do not apply equally to gatherings of Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or Wiccan inmates.

---

---

ALTER2EGO -to- COYOTE:
You quoted the parts of the Court transcript that suit your purposes. At a future time, I intend to post some of the pertinent portions that you deliberately left out.But guess what: even the parts you quoted indicate Atheism is Religion. For instance, the Federal Appeals Court that you partially quoted above used the expression: "other religions groups," which immediately indicates that Atheism and its Secular Humanist philosophy is part and parcel of the "other religious groups."

quote:

---

COYOTE:
This is not the same as a court ruling that atheism is a religion. The court ruled that if you allow specific religious groups to meet, there is no valid security reason to prohibit anti-religious groups (i.e., atheists) to meet as well--under the same First Amendment. While being accorded the rights of a religious group under the law, this does not make them a religious group.

---

See that? You said it there again.BTW: I read the court transcript and did not see the expression "anti-religious groups" therein. But of course I could have over-looked it. So would you mind quoting, for the rest of us, where the Wisconsin Federal Appeals Court used the expression: "anti-religious groups"?