FFRF gets its panties in a twist

[Seth]

Atheism and Secularism are religious groups?

The law says a restaurant has to serve you.
Do you want to eat the food?

No, the law does NOT say the restaurant has to serve you, it says that the restaurant (which IS a "place of public accommodation while a florist shop is not) cannot discriminate against or segregate customers based on specific proscribed considerations which do not include political affiliation or belief.

Nor do they include manner of dress, behavior, personal hygiene or a host of other factors that may be used to discriminate, including whether the owner of the establishment likes your appearance or the color of your hair.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So atheism is a political belief, not a religious one.

[Gallstones]

Atheism and Secularism are religious groups?

The law says a restaurant has to serve you.
Do you want to eat the food?

No, the law does NOT say the restaurant has to serve you, it says that the restaurant (which IS a "place of public accommodation while a florist shop is not) cannot discriminate against or segregate customers based on specific proscribed considerations which do not include political affiliation or belief.

Nor do they include manner of dress, behavior, personal hygiene or a host of other factors that may be used to discriminate, including whether the owner of the establishment likes your appearance or the color of your hair.

That wasn't a statement. It was a prelude to the question.

If a business--say one that serves food--is forced by law to serve everyone regardless, and that business dislikes a certain person for some group affilition; then I, if I'm that person, would be highly reluctant to eat the food.

[Seth]

It's Rhode Island General Law 11-24-2, not the CRA.

Depends wholly on the definition of religion. Not in the stupid pedantic what is or is not a religion sense, atheism for example may be a meta-belief, a belief about religion rather than a religious belief per se, but if the First Amendment and these laws that protect religion are to avoid being discriminatory then 'religion - religious belief' has to mean beliefs about religion as well. The UK has made it explicit by talking about religious belief or lack of it, this covers not just the non-religious but also the religious who could be discriminated against for their perceived lack of a specific religious belief (like not wearing a burka).

Wrong.

Rhode Island General Law 11-24-2.

"No person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation, resort, or amusement shall directly or indirectly refuse, withhold from, or deny to any person on account of race or color, religion, country of ancestral origin, disability, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of that public space."

Note that "political belief or affiliation" is not included in the list.

Secularism, which is the basis of Ahlquist's legal claim against the school is not a religion or a religious belief. There are plenty of theists who are also Secularists who believe in the separation of church and state. Therefore, Secularist political activism such as Ahlquist's is not a religious matter, it's a secular political matter, and others may discriminate against her, or the FFRF as much as they like in opposition to those political beliefs and activist practices.

[Seth]

So atheism is a political belief, not a religious one.

No, Secularism is a political belief. Atheism can certainly be a religious belief.

The discrimination involved was based on safety concerns, but even if not, it amounts to a political protest against Secularist organizations like the FFRF (who after all was the one trying to make the order), which is perfectly lawful.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So atheism is a political belief, not a religious one.

No, Secularism is a political belief. Atheism can certainly be a religious belief.

The discrimination involved was based on safety concerns, but even if not, it amounts to a political protest against Secularist organizations like the FFRF (who after all was the one trying to make the order), which is perfectly lawful.

You are more desperately in need of dictionary than any white man in history. (Apologies to Robin Williams.)

[Seth]

Time to amend the Civil Rights Act to cover non-belief and to support freedom from religion.

You cannot have freedom from religion without infringing on freedom of religion, and the Constitution (not the federal Civil Rights Act) expressly prohibits the government from enacting laws which infringe upon the free exercise of religion.

In other words, the Constitution mandates that all persons, including atheists, tolerate the peaceable free expression of religion by others, while at the same time prohibiting the government from "establishing" a state religion or from either advancing or inhibiting that free exercise of religion.

So, while it is proper for Secularists to argue against government acts that amount to advancing religion, as was clearly the case with the religious prayer banner that Ahlquist justifiably complained about, are improper, it is not proper for Secularists, or Atheists, to argue for suppression of religious free expression, or "freedom from religion," because no one has even the smallest civil right to be free from the peaceable public or private expression of religion by others.

Atheism is not common ground under the law, and Secularism, which is the advocacy of the separation of church and state, is neither a religion nor can it be used to inhibit free religious expression by anyone other than government employees in the official performance of their duties.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"You cannot have freedom from religion without infringing on freedom of religion" Bullshit. And if that were true, the default should be freedom from that delusional religious garbage.

[Seth]

So atheism is a political belief, not a religious one.

No, Secularism is a political belief. Atheism can certainly be a religious belief.

The discrimination involved was based on safety concerns, but even if not, it amounts to a political protest against Secularist organizations like the FFRF (who after all was the one trying to make the order), which is perfectly lawful.

You are more desperately in need of dictionary than any white man in history. (Apologies to Robin Williams.)

You are more desperately in need of the ability to read a dictionary than any person in history. (with apologies to no one)

sec·u·lar·ism
noun \ˈse-kyə-lə-ˌri-zəm\
Definition of SECULARISM
: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations
— sec·u·lar·ist \-rist\ noun
— secularist also sec·u·lar·is·tic \ˌse-kyə-lə-ˈris-tik\ adjective

Secularism is the principle of separation between government institutions and the persons mandated to represent the State from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief. (See also Separation of church and state and Laïcité.) In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be unbiased by religious influence.[1] (See also public reason.) Some scholars are now arguing that the very idea of secularism will change.
Source: Wikipedia

Secularism is the antithesis of religion. It's a pure political belief and secular activism is a pure political act and therefore not protected against discrimination under the Civil Rights Act (or Rhode Island law).

[Audley Strange]

Is this how the WBC are allowed to act like such cunts and are tolerated? If it is the case that Govt cannot interfere with free exercise of religion, how could things like the Branch Davidian siege (without getting into the ugly aftermath) happen? Is it because the regime at the time were in breach of the constitution that so many Militia and paleo-conservative types see it as evidence of Federal Tryanny?

Genuinely just asking.

Though I have to wonder if the spirit (if not the letter) of the constitution heavily implies freedom FROM religion by not having a central Establishment church.

(edited towards coherence)

[Seth]

"You cannot have freedom from religion without infringing on freedom of religion" Bullshit. And if that were true, the default should be freedom from that delusional religious garbage.

Typical juvenile proclamations sans the least shred of intellectual content or reason.

Why don't you try to describe how one can have a society with a right to be free "from" religious expression by members of the society without necessarily using the force of law and government to suppress those religious expressions?

You might want to ask Stalin and Mao how they did it. Here's a clue for the fractional wits in the audience: you do it by exterminating anyone who expresses any religious beliefs. That cost the world a hundred million lives in the last century alone.

That's what Gawdzilla wants, mass extermination of people of faith so that he doesn't have to tolerate any religious expression in public.

It would be sad if it weren't so horrifically sadistic and arrogant.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sorry, Seeth, but your absurdity is showing.

[Audley Strange]

To be fair Seth, thats what the majority of religious and political zealots strive and have always strived for. Eradication of oppositional thoughts. Industrialisation of such methods happened at a time of drastic political experiments and upheaval and were therefore used in political cleansings, but I don't doubt that if it wasn't for the Holy See's self imposed technological retardation they would have had ample opportunity to get a higher body count well before the 20th century.

[amused]

1. Opposing birth control
Quote: "One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." (Speaking with CaffeinatedThoughts.com, Oct. 18, 2011)

http://theweek.com/article/index/223041 ... rum-quotes

Senator RICK SANTORUM ("It Takes a Family"): They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulation low and that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can't go it alone, that there is no such society that I'm aware of where we've had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4784905

The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum

If you pressed Santorum to provide a basis for all these claims, he would undoubtedly turn to his religion as the authority for them. He wants to be president, where he would try to enforce his beliefs on the population at large. What's the difference to say that opposition to him is secularism, or a desire for freedom from (his) religion?

[Seth]

Is this how the WBC are allowed to act like such cunts and are tolerated? If it is the case that Govt cannot interfere with free exercise of religion, how could things like the Branch Davidian siege (without getting into the ugly aftermath) happen? Is it because the regime at the time were in breach of the constitution that so many Militia and paleo-conservative types see it as evidence of Federal Tryanny?

The Waco siege was not about religion, it was (ostensibly, according to Janet Reno) about "child abuse" and firearms violations. The reason that so many people see Waco as an instance of federal tyranny (which it was) is because of the tactics used by the BATF and the specious excuses used by Janet Reno that authorized federal involvement in the first place, and supposedly justified the FBI assault that killed 86 people, mostly innocent women and children.

The federal tyranny involved was in the actions of the BATF when it attempted to serve warrants on Koresh and started shooting at him through the front door, which triggered return fire from the rest of the cult. Rather than quietly taking Koresh into custody on one of the many occasions when he left the compound and went to town (which Texas Rangers and the local Sheriff told the BATF they could easily do) the BATF decided on a frontal assault for propaganda purposes, and they got their asses shot off in the process.

Was their assault technically lawful? Probably, although there is significant controversy over the "evidence" found in the rubble that tended to support the BATF's assertion that Koresh and his followers were illegally converting semi-automatic firearms into machine guns. Neither the BATF nor the FBI have ever allowed an independent forensic examination of the weapons recovered from the rubble, and there is plenty of speculation that the reports were falsified, some of it coming from several members who escaped the blaze who claimed that there were no illegal weapons in the compound.

And yes, the "Free Exercise Clause" is why the WBC get to be cunts. They engage in both free religious expression and free religious expression, and they do so, very carefully, in ways which do not violate OTHER laws prohibiting harmful acts. They are all lawyers (it's a single family for the most part) and they tread a very narrow line between free speech and incitement to riot, and they are very very good at not crossing the line.

Genuinely just asking.

Thanks for asking.

Though I have to wonder if the spirit (if not the letter) of the constitution was to, by not having an Established State church heavily implies have freedom FROM religion.

Nope. If you read the contemporary writings of the Founders, it is perfectly clear that their intent was to protect and preserve freedom OF religious expression and practice, not protect anyone against private expressions of religion. Their only intent was to prevent the evil that they had just escaped from, which was a state-sanctioned church that had the imprimatur of the King.

Indeed, when the Constitution was drafted and signed, several of the original 13 states had state religions themselves. The Founders wanted the central federal government not to have the power to suppress those state religions or create a single federal government religion, but they were perfectly comfortable with the idea of the people of the new states to determine, at the state level, whether or not religion would have a part in legislative acts. Their belief was that by protecting the sovereignty of the states against federal intrusions on religion, that people would naturally migrate to states that best represented their religious beliefs and needs.

Some Founders argued that religion ought to be severed from legislative acts at all levels, but that opinion did not survive the drafting of the Constitution, and it wasn't until the post-Civil War Reconstruction that the 14th Amendment was passed, under which the proscription on state-sponsored religion was extended to the states themselves. That's nearly a hundred years of state-level state-sponsored religion during which things ran reasonably well in the US.

But there was never any thought of protecting anyone against the peaceable expression of religion in public by others. It was that sort of thing that was expressly protected by the Founders because they had just freed themselves from a regime that used the law, violence and particularly taxes to suppress disfavored religions.

Freedom from religion was never a consideration, and in fact for most of the first hundred years of the Republic, atheists were explicitly, and lawfully, excluded from holding public office. It wasn't until relatively lately, sometime in the fifties I believe, that atheists were granted protected status as a "religion" by the Supreme Court using the 14th Amendment as an excuse...in a rather interesting bit of circumlocution and rationalization as I recall.