Not allow Atheists to graduate from HS? GOP says yes!

[Mavorpen]

It is. But the Atheists in it are not part of it.

So you are backtracking?

There are Hindu Atheists. That does not mean the religion does not believe in God.

In other words, you're wrong no matter what. So which is it. Do Hindu atheists exist or not?

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Atheists don't have freedom of lack thereof of worship.

No, the Supreme Court settled this. Under the First Amendment atheists have the freedom to exercise their religious views even though their views consist of a rejection of religion.

The Supreme Court was wrong. Atheists have no right under the First Amendment.

[Benomia]

...atheism has to be fought, because it is fanaticism...
...it is fanaticism....

...fanaticism has to be stopped...

...your fanaticism...

I said now, watch what you say, now we're calling you a radical, a liberal, fanatical, criminal -Adolf Hitler.

[United States of Raptors]

You can't seriously be that ignorant...
Every citizen has all the rights set forth in the constitution. Hell, for a number of them you don't even have to be a citizen.

Atheists don't have freedom of lack thereof of worship.

So Hinduism isn't a religion?

It is. But the Atheists in it are not part of it.

Are you really that stupid? Where in the constitution does it say that Atheists have no rights? Atheism is technically defined as a religion and thus they have rights. I suggest you read the whole declaration of independance and constitution again, study it, and correct your big fat stupidity.

[The UK in Exile]

No, the Supreme Court settled this. Under the First Amendment atheists have the freedom to exercise their religious views even though their views consist of a rejection of religion.

The Supreme Court was wrong. Atheists have no right under the First Amendment.

its infallible. like the pope.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

No, the Supreme Court settled this. Under the First Amendment atheists have the freedom to exercise their religious views even though their views consist of a rejection of religion.

The Supreme Court was wrong. Atheists have no right under the First Amendment.

Yes, because your opinion carries more weight than that of America's highest judicial body.

I hope I don't have to explain how absurd that sounds.

[Wisconsin9]

No, the Supreme Court settled this. Under the First Amendment atheists have the freedom to exercise their religious views even though their views consist of a rejection of religion.

The Supreme Court was wrong. Atheists have no right under the First Amendment.

And again, you're wrong. Like I said, the UDHR affords equal protection under the law to all humans residing in a country's jurisdiction regardless of status.

[United States of Raptors]

I have a strange feeling that the USSR guy is trolling.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

The Supreme Court was wrong. Atheists have no right under the First Amendment.

And again, you're wrong. Like I said, the UDHR affords equal protection under the law to all humans residing in a country's jurisdiction regardless of status.

Yet the 1st Amendement gives no right of religion to Atheists.

[Shnercropolis]

http://pastebin.com/d2nvt263

the hell is this?

[The UK in Exile]

And again, you're wrong. Like I said, the UDHR affords equal protection under the law to all humans residing in a country's jurisdiction regardless of status.

Yet the 1st Amendement gives no right of religion to Atheists.

prove it.

[Wisconsin9]

And again, you're wrong. Like I said, the UDHR affords equal protection under the law to all humans residing in a country's jurisdiction regardless of status.

Yet the 1st Amendement gives no right of religion to Atheists.

No, but again, the UDHR does.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Yet the 1st Amendement gives no right of religion to Atheists.

prove it.

It does not mention 'or lack thereof' when giving rights to religions.

Yet the 1st Amendement gives no right of religion to Atheists.

No, but again, the UDHR does.

If neither the Constitution nor the 1st Amendment gives Atheists rights, how could it?

[Mavorpen]

And again, you're wrong. Like I said, the UDHR affords equal protection under the law to all humans residing in a country's jurisdiction regardless of status.

Yet the 1st Amendement gives no right of religion to Atheists.

So you don't have the right to believe in God?

It is. But the Atheists in it are not part of it.

So you are backtracking?

There are Hindu Atheists. That does not mean the religion does not believe in God.

In other words, you're wrong no matter what. So which is it. Do Hindu atheists exist or not?

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Yet the 1st Amendement gives no right of religion to Atheists.

So you don't have the right to believe in God?

So you are backtracking?

In other words, you're wrong no matter what. So which is it. Do Hindu atheists exist or not?

I do. You don't.

No.

[Krintera]

I thought the US had seperation of church and state, like it was a civilized country?

[The UK in Exile]

prove it.

It does not mention 'or lack thereof' when giving rights to religions.

no, no, no. show me a court that upheld this opinion. or concede. also note it didn't give rights to religions, it gave them to people.

[Mavorpen]

So you don't have the right to believe in God?

I do. You don't.

No.

So Hinduism isn't a religion?

[Shnercropolis]

prove it.

It does not mention 'or lack thereof' when giving rights to religions.

No, but again, the UDHR does.

If neither the Constitution nor the 1st Amendment gives Atheists rights, how could it?

because it is enforced in every country.

[Wisconsin9]

No, but again, the UDHR does.

If neither the Constitution nor the 1st Amendment gives Atheists rights, how could it?

Because the UDHR applies to everyone.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

It does not mention 'or lack thereof' when giving rights to religions.

no, no, no. show me a court that upheld this opinion. or concede. also note it didn't give rights to religions, it gave them to people.

If it is not mentioned in the First Amendment than I do not need to.

I do. You don't.

No.

So Hinduism isn't a religion?

No.

[Mavorpen]

No.

So Hindus don't have rights?

[Individuality-ness]

no, no, no. show me a court that upheld this opinion. or concede. also note it didn't give rights to religions, it gave them to people.

If it is not mentioned in the First Amendment than I do not need to.

Yes you do.

[Shnercropolis]

no, no, no. show me a court that upheld this opinion. or concede. also note it didn't give rights to religions, it gave them to people.

If it is not mentioned in the First Amendment than I do not need to.

So Hinduism isn't a religion?

No.

Alright. Listen. So far your argument has been "the rights aren't guaranteed" and denials. Do you intend to do anything other than stubbornly defend your completely baseless opinion?

[The UK in Exile]

no, no, no. show me a court that upheld this opinion. or concede. also note it didn't give rights to religions, it gave them to people.

If it is not mentioned in the First Amendment than I do not need to.

sure you do, everyone else says atheism comes under the heading of "religion."

the supreme court says that it comes under the heading of "religion."