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

[Mavorpen]

So what you're saying is, things that are not even mentioned in the constitution are protected by the Constitution?

How exactly can you then argue that atheists do not have any rights?

No?

Rights to not worship. They are granted all other rights just not a lack of faith, according to the 1st amendment.

So then you do not have these rights:

The right to interstate travel
The right to intrastate travel
The right to privacy (which includes within it a set of rights) including:
a. The right to marriage
b. The right to procreation
c. The right for a women to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability
d. The right to private education (homeschooling one's children)
e. The right to contraception (the right to use contraceptive devices)
f. The right of family relations (the right of related persons to live together)

If you disagree, show me where the Constitution explicitly states you have to those rights.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Than Atheists would not have them either.

Nice dodge. So would you prefer that we have implied rights by the Constitution or that we take all of these away from you to conform to the literalism you support?

Assuming I live in the US.

[Shnercropolis]

Nice dodge. So would you prefer that we have implied rights by the Constitution or that we take all of these away from you to conform to the literalism you support?

Assuming I live in the US.

obviously.

[Individuality-ness]

Yeah, but he's saying that because the First Amendment doesn't directly say that people have the right to "not exercise a religion", so to speak, that we don't actually have said right.

Ah, I see. That would make him ... what's the word? Oh, right ... that would make him wrong.

I know, right? That's why Mav was using that example - because they're not explicitly said in the Constitution.

[Threlizdun]

Assuming I live in the US.

So then you support taking these rights away from everyone because it doesn't matter to you?

[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

[Farnhamia]

Nice dodge. So would you prefer that we have implied rights by the Constitution or that we take all of these away from you to conform to the literalism you support?

Assuming I live in the US.

The whole thread is about the US, unless Arizona managed to sneak off and join Mexico during the night. Dancing around sniggering because you live in some other country is rude. It's like Hippo pretending to be an American conservative adult.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Assuming I live in the US.

So then you support taking these rights away from everyone because it doesn't matter to you?

No, because it does not give Atheists freedom of no religion in any amendment or Constitution passage.

[The UK in Exile]

Atheism is not a religion.

the supreme court says it is.

Given the variety of interpretative problems, the principle of neutrality has provided a good sense of direction: the government may not favor one religion over another, or
religion over irreligion, religious choice being the prerogative of individuals under the Free Exercise Clause.

The Framers and the citizens of their time intended not only to protect the integrity of individual conscience in religious matters, Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S., at 52–54, and n. 38, but to guard against the civic divisiveness that follows when the Government weighs in on one side of religious debate.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal ... inion.html

[Wisconsin9]

So then you support taking these rights away from everyone because it doesn't matter to you?

No, because it does not give Atheists freedom of no religion in any amendment or Constitution passage.

How many times am I going to have to quote the UDHR until you realize that atheism is still legal?

[Individuality-ness]

So then you support taking these rights away from everyone because it doesn't matter to you?

No, because it does not give Atheists freedom of no religion in any amendment or Constitution passage.

That's nice sweetie, that a non-American knows more about the system than the Supreme Court, or by any American resident.

[Mavorpen]

So then you support taking these rights away from everyone because it doesn't matter to you?

No, because it does not give Atheists freedom of no religion in any amendment or Constitution passage.

So then you do not have these rights:

The right to interstate travel
The right to intrastate travel
The right to privacy (which includes within it a set of rights) including:
a. The right to marriage
b. The right to procreation
c. The right for a women to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability
d. The right to private education (homeschooling one's children)
e. The right to contraception (the right to use contraceptive devices)
f. The right of family relations (the right of related persons to live together)

If you disagree, show me where the Constitution explicitly states you have to those rights.

[Farnhamia]

So then you support taking these rights away from everyone because it doesn't matter to you?

No, because it does not give Atheists freedom of no religion in any amendment or Constitution passage.

It might come under the right to privacy, as in it's none of your business whether I believe in a supernatural being or not. By your interpretation, atheists could be barred from holding public office if an oath required "so help me God."

[Miencraft]

I am an atheist member of the GOP and I see no problem.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Atheism is not a religion.

the supreme court says it is.

Given the variety of interpretative problems, the principle of neutrality has provided a good sense of direction: the government may not favor one religion over another, or
religion over irreligion, religious choice being the prerogative of individuals under the Free Exercise Clause.

The Framers and the citizens of their time intended not only to protect the integrity of individual conscience in religious matters, Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S., at 52–54, and n. 38, but to guard against the civic divisiveness that follows when the Government weighs in on one side of religious debate.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal ... inion.html

Because the Supreme Court says so does not make them right.

No, because it does not give Atheists freedom of no religion in any amendment or Constitution passage.

How many times am I going to have to quote the UDHR until you realize that atheism is still legal?

All I am saying is that the Constitution does not grant religious rights to Atheists, not that they are illegal.

[Farnhamia]

I am an atheist member of the GOP and I see no problem.

Then you're not a Real Republican.

[Individuality-ness]

No, because it does not give Atheists freedom of no religion in any amendment or Constitution passage.

It might come under the right to privacy, as in it's none of your business whether I believe in a supernatural being or not. By your interpretation, atheists could be barred from holding public office if an oath required "so help me God."

And freedom of speech.

[Ovisterra]

I am an atheist member of the GOP and I see no problem.

You don't want fellow atheists (and polytheists, for that matter) to be allowed to graduate highschool? Why?

[Shnercropolis]

I am an atheist member of the GOP and I see no problem.

Then you're not a Real Republican.

yeah, at this point Republicanism = fundamentalist/nutcase Christianity

[Mavorpen]

Because the Supreme Court says so does not make them right.

Guess what gives us these rights:

The right to interstate travel
The right to intrastate travel
The right to privacy (which includes within it a set of rights) including:
a. The right to marriage
b. The right to procreation
c. The right for a women to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability
d. The right to private education (homeschooling one's children)
e. The right to contraception (the right to use contraceptive devices)
f. The right of family relations (the right of related persons to live together)

The Supreme Court.

[The UK in Exile]

the supreme court says it is.



http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal ... inion.html

Because the Supreme Court says so does not make them right.

as per the constitution: thats exactly what it means.

[Individuality-ness]

the supreme court says it is.



http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal ... inion.html

Because the Supreme Court says so does not make them right.

For the purposes of the First Amendment, what the Supreme Court rules is what is correct. In which case, you're wrong, because the Supreme Court is the interpreter of the US Constitution. Your opinion means jack shit. Concede already.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Because the Supreme Court says so does not make them right.

Guess what gives us these rights:

The right to interstate travel
The right to intrastate travel
The right to privacy (which includes within it a set of rights) including:
a. The right to marriage
b. The right to procreation
c. The right for a women to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability
d. The right to private education (homeschooling one's children)
e. The right to contraception (the right to use contraceptive devices)
f. The right of family relations (the right of related persons to live together)

The Supreme Court.

So? Did I say they were always wrong?

[The UK in Exile]

Guess what gives us these rights:

The right to interstate travel
The right to intrastate travel
The right to privacy (which includes within it a set of rights) including:
a. The right to marriage
b. The right to procreation
c. The right for a women to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability
d. The right to private education (homeschooling one's children)
e. The right to contraception (the right to use contraceptive devices)
f. The right of family relations (the right of related persons to live together)

The Supreme Court.

So? Did I say they were always wrong?

as per the Constitution they are the final arbiters of what is wrong and right. there is no higher authority.

[Individuality-ness]

Guess what gives us these rights:

The right to interstate travel
The right to intrastate travel
The right to privacy (which includes within it a set of rights) including:
a. The right to marriage
b. The right to procreation
c. The right for a women to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability
d. The right to private education (homeschooling one's children)
e. The right to contraception (the right to use contraceptive devices)
f. The right of family relations (the right of related persons to live together)

The Supreme Court.

So? Did I say they were always wrong?

So you're cherry picking and being hypocritical?