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

[Shnercropolis]

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?

Listen.
if the Supreme court decides on something with the constitution, it is automatically right. The only thing that can override that is 66% of the US citizenship or something like that, and I'm fairly sure everyone agrees that atheists can be citizens too.

[Mavorpen]

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?

Then they aren't wrong to say atheists have rights. If you're arguing that things not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution are not rights, then you have none of these rights under the Constitution:

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)

Therefore, the Supreme Court would be wrong under your argument.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

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.

They can make mistakes.

[Individuality-ness]

So? Did I say they were always wrong?

Listen.
if the Supreme court decides on something with the constitution, it is automatically right. The only thing that can override that is 66% of the US citizenship or something like that, and I'm fairly sure everyone agrees that atheists can be citizens too.

Wrong. The only way you can override the Supreme Court would be a constitutional amendment. Or a new Supreme Court ruling.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

So? Did I say they were always wrong?

Then they aren't wrong to say atheists have rights. If you're arguing that things not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution are not rights, then you have none of these rights under the Constitution:

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)

Therefore, the Supreme Court would be wrong under your argument.

SCOTUS Was wrong on Atheists having right of a lack thereof of worship, and other things that are quite off topic.

[Individuality-ness]

Then they aren't wrong to say atheists have rights. If you're arguing that things not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution are not rights, then you have none of these rights under the Constitution:

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)

Therefore, the Supreme Court would be wrong under your argument.

SCOTUS Was wrong on Atheists having right of a lack thereof of worship, and other things that are quite off topic.

Because a non-American knows more about the Constitution than the Supreme Court. *roll*

[Mavorpen]

Then they aren't wrong to say atheists have rights. If you're arguing that things not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution are not rights, then you have none of these rights under the Constitution:

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)

Therefore, the Supreme Court would be wrong under your argument.

SCOTUS Was wrong on Atheists having right of a lack thereof of worship, and other things that are quite off topic.

Why are they wrong?

[Ovisterra]

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

They can make mistakes.

That doesn't mean they're not the highest authority for laws like this. It also doesn't mean their decisions aren't legally binding.

You holding some silly, offensive, basic-human-right-denying views that are contrary to what the Supreme Court and most of the rest of the world think does not make you "the voice of reason" or right.

[Pavlostani]

The GOP is back to it's antics again?

Very well. Connecticut, California and Massachusetts should respond by witholding diplomas from Christians. Arizona would be purple with rage, but probably drop the bill.

[Mavorpen]

By the way:

Yes we do.

So atheists have rights? Because Christian atheists exist.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

SCOTUS Was wrong on Atheists having right of a lack thereof of worship, and other things that are quite off topic.

Why are they wrong?

Because they're a secret nest of sodomites whose debauched fountain-pen-related antics make Jesus cry.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

SCOTUS Was wrong on Atheists having right of a lack thereof of worship, and other things that are quite off topic.

Why are they wrong?

Because it does not say that right is granted within any Amendment or the Constitution itself.

[The UK in Exile]

Then they aren't wrong to say atheists have rights. If you're arguing that things not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution are not rights, then you have none of these rights under the Constitution:

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)

Therefore, the Supreme Court would be wrong under your argument.

SCOTUS Was wrong on Atheists having right of a lack thereof of worship.

they can't be wrong because they decide what is or isn't right in this instance. they are the law.

[Cannot think of a name]

If you all are going to work this hard to entertain someone you should charge admission or at least put out a hat.

I mean, sure, someone makes a ridiculous assertion, you don't want to just let that lay. But at what point do you decide that you've been punching a balloon and it's obvious to even the dimmest of third party readers?

And this isn't even a slick attempt to get around the trollnaming rule, I don't give a shit if he's 'trolling' or not, or if he believes this (though I contend that he does not), but that it's essentially the same argument gamesay for like, how many pages? Can any of you honestly say if you were dropped at any point in this argument you'd be able to tell if it was the beginning, middle, or end?

What am I doing...this is more futile than the thing I'm railing against...

[Individuality-ness]

Why are they wrong?

Because it does not say that right is granted within any Amendment or the Constitution itself.

Neither do these:
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)

Hence, you're cherry picking and you're wrong.

[Genivaria]

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

I don't see where it labels atheism as a religion.
I DO see that the Supreme Court took the stance of neutrality aka Secularism in regards to religion which I very much approve of.
As far as I'm concerned the only response the government should ever give when asked about God, the soul, the afterlife, or religion in general is "No comment."

[Ovisterra]

Why are they wrong?

Because it does not say that right is granted within any Amendment or the Constitution itself.

So? Lots of rights aren't in the constitution.

Anyway, it is in the UDHR, which the US signed. So yes, they do have those rights.

[Stedicules]

snip

[Benomia]

If I am not mistaken, the US practices Common Law. I think this means that laws can exist (and be enforced) without them having to be in the constitution.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

SCOTUS Was wrong on Atheists having right of a lack thereof of worship.

they can't be wrong because they decide what is or isn't right in this instance. they are the law.

Laws are not always justified.

Because it does not say that right is granted within any Amendment or the Constitution itself.

So? Lots of rights aren't in the constitution.

Anyway, it is in the UDHR, which the US signed. So yes, they do have those rights.

Which is not in the Constitution.

[Individuality-ness]

If you all are going to work this hard to entertain someone you should charge admission or at least put out a hat.

I mean, sure, someone makes a ridiculous assertion, you don't want to just let that lay. But at what point do you decide that you've been punching a balloon and it's obvious to even the dimmest of third party readers?

And this isn't even a slick attempt to get around the trollnaming rule, I don't give a shit if he's 'trolling' or not, or if he believes this (though I contend that he does not), but that it's essentially the same argument gamesay for like, how many pages? Can any of you honestly say if you were dropped at any point in this argument you'd be able to tell if it was the beginning, middle, or end?

What am I doing...this is more futile than the thing I'm railing against...

Trying to keep NSG sane and failing CTOAN.

[Mavorpen]

Why are they wrong?

Because it does not say that right is granted within any Amendment or the Constitution itself.

Neither are 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)

[Dyakovo]

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

They can make mistakes.

Actually, no, they really can't... If they something is constitutional, then it is. If they say it isn't then it isn't. SCotUS is the final say on what is or is not constitutional. If you disagree with their ruling, it is you that is wrong, not them.

[The UK in Exile]

they can't be wrong because they decide what is or isn't right in this instance. they are the law.

Laws are not always justified.

Dura Lex, Sed Lex.

[The UK in Exile]

the supreme court says it is.



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

I don't see where it labels atheism as a religion.
I DO see that the Supreme Court took the stance of neutrality aka Secularism in regards to religion which I very much approve of.
As far as I'm concerned the only response the government should ever give when asked about God, the soul, the afterlife, or religion in general is "No comment."

The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2722, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2005). The Establishment Clause itself says only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls "nonreligion." In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as "the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion."

It is also noteworthy that the administrative code governing Wisconsin prisons states that one factor the warden is prohibited from considering in deciding whether an inmate's request to form a new religious group should be granted is "the absence from the beliefs of a concept of a supreme being." See Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 309.61(d)(3), cited in Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 2004 WL 257133, at *9. Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics. As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman's religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise.