Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
In UK most home robberies are home invasions when the victims are home. In the United States, that is rare. Most home robberies are done when people aren't home.
So we Americans also price these benefits against guns and find that they are a net positive.
My viewpoint is that the government should not favor one religion over another religion. I, like the courts, have a broad construction of what a religion is. This after all being a legal argument.
You think that theistic religions should be disadvantaged, and that Atheism and Secular Humanism should be advantaged in government, to protect that separation of church and state, changing their definition to suit your argument. Then you think that no law should be based on religious belief; when in fact all law is.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't protects against all kinds of offense. It doesn't protect based on sexual orientation. And that is what the nexus of this Indiana law is about. So no bullshit about that ending action at the cash register. That's false.
I'm done with this goal post moving and your rhetoric. If you want to come back with some logic and facts have at it, but quit calling me a liar when you don't have a clue what the fuck your talking about.
KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY, 7th Circuit, rules Atheism is a Religion.
But whether atheism is a “religion” for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972).
Id. at 52-53, 105 S.Ct. 2479. In keeping with this idea, the Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones.
So tell me about this "aTooth-Fairyist" religion of yours. Are you sure you're not the ignorant one here?
This is because while courts do in fact acknowledge that Atheism is a religion, they are applying a Separation of Church and State doctrine to prevent any religion or mention of God from the state.
And no God is Atheism.
Thus my problem with the courts ruling based on a nonexistent separation of church and state in the constitution rather than the clear freedom of religious express and prohibition of the establishment of a state religion(which the courts have established defacto instead of dejure, re atheism.)
So there is "freedom of speech" right in the Amendment. Right next to the prohibition on congress to pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, Which is right next to the prohibition of Congress to create a Federal Government's officially established religion(i.e. a state religion). No where does it separate the state from being effected by religion. In fact the way the courts have ruled that recognition of any religion by any governmental agent, is a defacto establishment of atheism as a state religion.
As for things grownups understand; they understand the difference between violence which is not protected and being an asshole, which is protected by the aforementioned freedom of speech. So your law preventing someone from being an asshole to people they don't like is oppressing not only their religious rights but their speech rights as well. Here is a law professor agreeing that racist speech is protected speech, i.e. being an asshole to people.
Having trouble finding it? Here is a link to the constitution I'm still waiting for where "separation of church and state" in the constitution. When you find it let me know how that is more clear than "Shall Not Be Infringed" in the second. Oh you think its in the Bill of Rights well go look and let me know where. Show me the quote.
Conversely you can let me know how respecting the religious views of others (i.e. not " prohibiting the free exercise thereof") is Congress making a "law respecting an establishment of religion."
If you ask very nicely I may actually tell you where the phrase "separation of church and state" comes from, but if/when I do the whole quote will undermine your beliefs.
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s new rules could put some Republican governors in a bind. The rules say that states’ risk assessments must include “consideration of changing environmental or climate conditions that may affect and influence the long-term vulnerability from hazards in the state.”
The policy, which goes into effect in March 2016, doesn’t affect federal money for relief after a hurricane, flood, or other natural disaster. But states seeking disaster preparedness money from Washington will be required to assess how climate change threatens their communities, a requirement that wasn’t included in FEMA’s 2008 guidelines."
Link to Original Source