You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Freedom of Religion gets the axe
- Thread starter Covertibility
- Start date
imagine that....mr.spellcheck being corrected...If it can be proved that Wicca parents produce children who are destructive to society, that such offsprings actions can be measued to show a specific causal relationship between Wicca beliefs and harmful actions, you might have a case.
Quote from jem:
I still think the question is does Wicca or witchcraft present a danger to the child.
That is a question that should be addressed. Independent of ones view of Christianity.
As a country we already know the courts are willing to prevent killings as part of a religion. And the use of drugs as part of a religion.
At some point the powers of the police state interefere with ones rights.
There are clashes between fundamental rights all the time.
Here we think we see Christians trying to assert their beliefs on non-christians.
When this case is properly resolved, it will be a question of the states interest in a child welfare and have nothing to do with a belief in Jesus.
Quote from ratboy88:
AND IF IT WERE ANY OTHER BELIEF SYSTEM I WOULD NOT HAVE RESPONDED TO HIS POST !!!!!!!! DUHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!! but he applied the 1st amendment as to protecting satanism which our founding fathers did not have in mind when they sought religious freedom. the authors of the constitution/1st amendment probably agreed with the founding fathers in their disdain for satanism. therefore maybe....just maybe, wicca/witchcraft/the craft/satanism aren't protected religions in regards to the 1st amendment. but we all know GG had none of this in mind when he saw an opportunity to bash a christian judge. in summation, the principle that GG was concerned about may not be a legitimate principle in the first place.
Not that it should matter but just so you know wiccans don't worship satan.
You guys might want to learn a little about wicca. Most of the wiccans i know are very peaceful souls.
I woulda thought all the wannabe libertarians around here would love wicca.
It's central moral tenet is "An it harm none, do what thou wilt."
Basically, as long as you're not hurting anybody do whatcha like.
They are also big on "what goes around comes around" sort of like the golden rule on steroids.
You can read more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca
Blessed Be yall
Quote from market_hacker:
Not that it should matter but just so you know wiccans don't worship satan.
You guys might want to learn a little about wicca. Most of the wiccans i know are very peaceful souls.
I woulda thought all the wannabe libertarians around here would love wicca.
It's central moral tenet is "An it harm none, do what thou wilt."
Basically, as long as you're not hurting anybody do whatcha like.
They are also big on "what goes around comes around" sort of like the golden rule on steroids.
You can read more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca
Blessed Be yall
i think that most wiccans have been fooled... and i already read the wikipedia bit. if you care to delve a little more into the history of wicca you will see conflicts between what they think wicca is and it's true genesis. btw, they do worship The Horned God and use a variation of the pentagram. as with most cults the leaders have a better understanding for the true purpose. the lower levels are kept ignorant. if one goes back far enough you will trace their deity to the Light Bearer, i.e. Lucifer. their philosophy is in line with "his" i.e. that they are in control and responsible for their destiny. they control their "salvation". they are gods themselves. this is in direct conflict with christianity and the bible recognizes Lucifer as the fallen one.....the deceiver.
hollywood is making it fashionable to be a witch with all the little shows portraying hot young chicks saving the day. even modern wicca is only 50 yrs old.... although they claim that theirs is ancient wisdom. obviously we could debate the merits indefinitely and no one would give an inch so why don't we just stick to the 1st amendment argument.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Forming a belief, holding and practicing that belief when it is concerning God, is considered a religion by the courts.
Atheists form, hold, and practice a belief in non God.
Atheism has been granted the exact same protections as any other religious belief system.
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, majority opinion; Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
"No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance." U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, majority opinion; Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
Just because X is granted the same legal protection as Y, does not mean that X is identical to Y or even of the same category. Atheism is not a religion by any accepted definition of the term. Atheists don't gather at places of worship, they don't have a fairly uniform moral code that they preach to atheists "non-believers", they don't worship a divine being, they don't have any sacred texts, they don't have any centralised institution or religious leaders whose teachings they follow. The only thing atheists have in common is a belief that there is no divine being or beings. By definition, something that denies the truth of religion cannot be a religion.
All religions are beliefs, but not all beliefs are religions. Atheism is a belief, and not a religion.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Each and every time the atheist reads, hears, or thinks of the word God, they practice their atheism.
Not believing something is not equivalent to "practicing" a religion, in any meaningful sense of the term. When someone says "I think politicians are liars", you don't say they are "practising" their "religion" of scepticism. They are simply being sceptical. Scepticism of elected representatives is not a religion, it's just a belief about the veracity of politicians. Equally, atheism is not a religion, it's just a belief about the veracity of religions and their advocates.
You may not hold Atheism as a religion, but from what I have seen in these forums, I see people form beliefs that they can't verify as necessarily true (just like beliefs of God), and I have seen these people hold these beliefs with faith as strong as any religious person I have ever seen.
The level of emotionalism seen consistently here by the atheists matches the level of emotionalism by theists, which indicates a strong attachment to the respective belief systems.
Just as people claim that music is their religion, politics is their religion, sex is their religion, so too atheism for those who post here seems to fit the same criteria.
Atheism denies the truth of God, not the truth of religion.
The key component of a belief that brings it to the level of religion is the repetitive practice of that belief in the face of opposition, and the emotional investment beyond a pure intellectual belief.
The difference between having a heart felt soulful belief in something and simply holding an idea in the mind about something is the difference between a computer and a human being. A robot could be programmed to perform all the external and measurable actions of a particular religion, you could have a robot priest perform mass, give confession, be seen externally praying.....but no one would say that a robot is actually practicing the Catholic religion because of the external acts.
It is this internal relationship between a person and their ideas, whether they are invested emotionally or not that ultimately determines their religiosity toward their beliefs...their passion concerning their beliefs, and their attachment to their beliefs.
The level of emotionalism seen consistently here by the atheists matches the level of emotionalism by theists, which indicates a strong attachment to the respective belief systems.
Just as people claim that music is their religion, politics is their religion, sex is their religion, so too atheism for those who post here seems to fit the same criteria.
Atheism denies the truth of God, not the truth of religion.
The key component of a belief that brings it to the level of religion is the repetitive practice of that belief in the face of opposition, and the emotional investment beyond a pure intellectual belief.
The difference between having a heart felt soulful belief in something and simply holding an idea in the mind about something is the difference between a computer and a human being. A robot could be programmed to perform all the external and measurable actions of a particular religion, you could have a robot priest perform mass, give confession, be seen externally praying.....but no one would say that a robot is actually practicing the Catholic religion because of the external acts.
It is this internal relationship between a person and their ideas, whether they are invested emotionally or not that ultimately determines their religiosity toward their beliefs...their passion concerning their beliefs, and their attachment to their beliefs.
Quote from Cutten:
Just because X is granted the same legal protection as Y, does not mean that X is identical to Y or even of the same category. Atheism is not a religion by any accepted definition of the term. Atheists don't gather at places of worship, they don't have a fairly uniform moral code that they preach to atheists "non-believers", they don't worship a divine being, they don't have any sacred texts, they don't have any centralised institution or religious leaders whose teachings they follow. The only thing atheists have in common is a belief that there is no divine being or beings. By definition, something that denies the truth of religion cannot be a religion.
All religions are beliefs, but not all beliefs are religions. Atheism is a belief, and not a religion.