GOP lawmakers question constitutionality of State Department grants to spread atheism abroad

Joe Biden is Catholic. I rather doubt he would be promoting atheism.

 

No, the same as no specific religion should

Who is discriminating against them ?

 

They are discriminated against in many other countries. That is what this is about.

This just treats it the same as if a country is discriminating against Christians.

 

https://www.state.gov/statements-of...on-practicing-and-non-affiliated-individuals/

 

Christianity is a religion, atheism is not.

 

OK I think that is all this bill does.

Many countries particularly some radical Muslim/Islamic countries which I believe are the main targets reading the bill itself.

 

So in your word, not promoting your religion is discriminating against your religion ?

Atheism is a lack of belief in a Deity. How is a lack of belief in anything, discriminating against anything.

lets just be honest here, and your real problem is that they aren't promoting christianity ? right ?

 

I think you misunderstood my post.

I don't know or care if there is a god, and I am sure that none of the religions are correct.

Maybe i misunderstood "them" in your post. I assumed that "them" referred to people who aren't religious.

 

Thanks, I went to Grants.gov and State.gov to search for this, but could not find it.

It appears the State Department is funding a grant to promote religious freedom that is not a traditional religion, such as Islam or Christianity, but includes atheism, humanism, and nonpracticing and nonaffiliated individuals. Meets the definition of what SCOTUS defines as religious freedom IMO. So, the 15 or so GOP members are really barking up the wrong tree.

 

Actually atheism is a religion. In Kaufman v McCaughtry and Torcasco v Watkins.

Religion by the simplest definition is a system of valued beliefs which may include the existence or not the existence of a supernatural being. This would include religions such as Buddhism, atheism, secular humanism, etc. Thus, the beliefs may be be stated in the traditional terms.

 

The Middle East, Northern Africa, and points in South Central Asia really need the influence of Humanitarianism and Atheism over its dominant ideology Islam.

 

The meme is absurd. Atheism does not assert any spiritual beliefs. Atheism does not assert anything, so therefore, there are no adherents. Because Atheism does not assert anything it does not claim unassailable truths.

So listed below is the definition of the word religion from Wordnic. What part of this definition applies to atheism?

1. The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe.
2. A particular variety of such belief, especially when organized into a system of doctrine and practice.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

 

I find it ironic (and not a little amusing) that the worst insult that the religious think they can throw at atheists….is to call it a religion…!

Self-loathing perhaps…?

 

Therevneeds to be a gormal structure to à religion.
Thus secular humanism is not a religion.
It is a view of Mans place in the world and an affirmation of his free will.
It does not recognise any supernatural being...in fact quite the opposite.

 

Freedom from religion is not in anyway practicing a religion. How twisted is the thinking that non-belief somehow is?
Apparently there are people the can't wrap their head around the concept of a non-belief in what they believe so strongly.
I think at least part of the problem is the non-believers, atheists, agnostics, lean toward helping and cooperating with others to make a better world, i.e., socialism.
The believers have a problem with that. The believer believe their god will provide, if they pray to hard enough. Well, if there is in reality, no god... That might explain all the strife, wars, selfishness, greed, self-centeredness, of the religious in their attempt at convincing everyone, including themselves, that is what their god wants.

 

They could have tried converting people in the Middle East to Christianity, or Buddhism. But no, it had to be Atheism.

 

In United States v Ballard, the Supreme Court stated or defined what religion is under the Constitution. This case involved persons who were conscientious objectors to war, but the persons did not hold traditional values or beliefs in a "supernatural being" under current law.

In the said decision, the Supreme Court stated first that the court must look at the person's beliefs sincerely and determine if it deserves constitutional protection. Second, those beliefs and faith in those beliefs do not have to be stated in traditional terms, aka formal structure, supernatural being, etc. For example, "a system of beliefs that a human being is essentially a free and immortal spirit who merely inhabits a body—does not propound the existence of a supreme being" is one of the valued beliefs in Scientology, L Ron Hubbards religion. It may have a formal structure but it does not believe in a supernatural being.

Or you can take Buddhism, which does not believe in a supernatural being, but in different levels of existence in which a person is reincarnated based on his actions in this life.

You can read more below in the link
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/religion

 

Exactly. I am a former Catholic, former Christian, now atheist and one of the things I constantly got chewed out for by my family and others in our church is that I'm not uppity or bigoted against others. I would ask why that's wrong but usually just got beaten.

The one question I haven't been able to get answered and would LOVE to know is "If you believe the God/god you believe in will PROVIDE for <whatever social crisis they are ignoring> isn't is possible that you were given this information and brought to this circumstance to help?"

Strangely, none of the people in my 1st or 2nd paragraph, care for my questions. LOL

 

Well your SC can mess with the English language inside your borders. The rest of the world thinks differently.

1 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. 2a(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural. (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance. 2b : the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religion.
https://www.merriam-webster.com › ...
Religion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

The word "institutionalised" means systematic and ordered.

 

Such an ignorant thread. The fund also finances Christian, Islam, Judaism and any other religious belief being persecuted as well as non religious beliefs. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.

 

In most other countries, especially in Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, Scientology is an accepted form of religion. And don't get me started with the religions of the Aborigines and the Maori people. Their religions are not institutionalized as in your definition, or formal, but are still recognized.

But in this thread, and the person who was asking, it had to do with the United States only. And in that case, in our first amendment, the no establishment clause, and the free exercise thereof clause, when it comes to religion, the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority, per Article 6 of our Constitution.

 

Atheism is a religion and when we find ourselves $30T in debt we taxpayers don't need to fund interference into the beliefs of others.

 

Biden is an idiot and does no mind funding, coercively, the most extreme of beliefs. FIGHT THE POWER: Federal judge agrees to expedite religious freedom lawsuit against Biden admin.

Both abroad and at home.

 

Which has nothing to do with the précise definition of à religion.

 

In this particular thread, it does. Considering that the whole threat was started because the United States Department of State was issuing grants on religious freedom to groups such as atheism and human secularism in SE Asia, then the US law, its Constitution, and what is defined as a religion by the said the courts take precedent, not vernacular definitions.