Satanic Invocation Opens County Commission Meeting in Nevada

When you say we aren't allowed to have any representation of God in the public sphere. You are inherently endorsing atheism.

 

When did I or anyone else say that. But at least you are okay with celebrating Satan in the public sphere! Kudos to you on that. Hail Satan!

 

What does having a secular society mean?

 

That's better than only allowing atheists to have their beliefs or lack thereof represented in public.

 

It means no religion rules the society. Have you never heard of the Founding Fathers?

 

No one has suggested that.

 

Describe what a society would look like that promoted atheism while providing two protections for those who aren't atheist. Those two protections being they can't be denied their civil rights and they can't be denied the ability to run for office.

Cause I'm pretty sure you'll describe exactly what we have today. How would it be any different?

 

I've never said any society should "promote atheism." But plenty of secular societies have provided the protections you are asking about, including the US. Why does that kind of freedom upset you?

 

This "endorsing atheism" argument is the most convoluted nonsense I've seen in a long time.

 

Not a religion. And we are just as free, under the 1st Amendment, to not believe in any deity just as much as everyone else is free to practice whatever religion they prefer. This is a secular nation, regardless of whichever religion the founders practiced, or not.

If you think that gives an advantage to atheists, ask yourself: how many members of congress are openly atheist? How difficult do you think it is to get elected in this country to any office without naming your God?

Atheists are just about the only minority against whom it is still legal to discriminate.

 

Who actually said that? Have you that quote?

 

Yes, you actually can. It would simply be a matter of claiming that my atheism offends you due to your religious beliefs, thereby claiming your religious freedom, which, in this country, would likely overrule my right to freedom from religion. If it were between you and a satanist, for example, then you'd have a problem.

If I sound cynical about this, it's due to experience. It should be the case that your right to believe should be exactly the same as my right to not believe. If wishes were fishes ...

 

Promoted atheism?

 

If I can discriminate against you based upon the sole fact you're an atheist because it's not a religion, i have no problem with your position.

My problem comes when you claim to be an atheist and also claim religious protection because of it.

BTW you can't both not have religious protections AND "be as free as we are".

 

Yes. If you have religious iconography in the public sphere, let's use a classroom for instance... If you have religious iconography in the classroom, you would assert that it is promotion and endorsement of religion by government.

Moreover, if you claim "religious protections" under the first amendment as an atheist, then atheism is legally as much of a religion as Christianity. Therefore when you demand the removal of all religious iconography, you are INHERENTLY promoting and endorsing a religion in atheism.

 

I didn't say you have. I said that if we were to describe what a society which promoted or endorsed atheism over religion looked like, along with those two protections I referenced, it would look EXACTLY the same as what we have now.

So FUNCTIONALLY our society operates in the public sphere as a society which endorses and promotes atheism.

 

Now if atheism is NOT a religion then there's not a problem with it being endorsed in the public sphere. But if it's not a religion you have absolutely ZERO right to claim religious protection for your atheism. Which means I can fire you and deny you service and deny you housing based on the sole fact you're an atheist and I don't like it.

So which one is it? Is it a religion or not? You can't have it both ways.

 

no, it's not believing in a God

many Atheistic Religions out there

 

Per the Supreme Court, it is. A religion or a faith based belief system is not limited to a God, mulitple gods, and so forth, but it also allows the faith-based where there is no god to begin with.

 

Buddha is a god, and is prayed to for guidance since he is the only one who has achieved "enlightenment."

 

It seems to be a claim that is wholly yours, so why don’t you describe it?

 

Athiestism shares all the same elements as any religious organization lol.

As much as athiests want to be different, they are cut of the same cloth.

And discrimination is largely directed at white people these days, regardless of religious affiliation.

 

I think they'll probably end invocations:

 

Atheism isn't a religion. Neither is theism. They are each positions on one specific question. You need more than that for a religion.

 

I was a practicing Buddhists for years. Aside from a few Tibetan schools, no, Buddhists do not consider Buddha to be a god. Gods (the daevas) are in the same boat as humans. And I've never heard any Buddhist claim that Buddha was the only one who achieved enlightenment.