Let's rewind this.<quoted text>
I don't get the feeling that you understand what those words even mean.
What tenets or doctrines do you think that "atheism" has which would lead to influence over legislation? I've never heard any stories about magic beings that were convincing. Do you think this will lead me to push for legislation banning ANY such belief for ANYONE? There isn't anything about lacking a belief in gods which can serve as the "basis" for anything else.
I'm sure that efforts to define or measure religious extremism are pointless. Find Scalia's recent interview where he outlines his fear of the Boogeyman. AN ACTUAL BOOGEYMAN. Define and measure THAT. Then explain to me how the legal decisions of such people represent rationality.
Pietro Armando responded:
Exactly, its subject to the claimant's personal views, beliefs, bias, etc.
Legal decisions of those who profess no religious beliefs, or even a bias against such, can be irrational as well. An absence of religious belief does not necessarily make one "rational" .
Also one does not become a Supreme Court Justice by being "irrational".
My point again, is that absence of religious belief doesn't necessarily mean "MORE dedicated to protecting freedom and equality for ALL citizens".And... secular "nonsense"? Really?? Ugh, PLEASE don't tell me that you're one of those misinformed goobers who actually thinks that secularism is your ENEMY. Nothing could be MORE dedicated toward protecting freedom and equality for ALL citizens.
Secular people think it would be so great to outlaw religion, belief in a supernatural entity or divinity, or purge society of all religious references, symbols, or influence. That somehow rainbows would fill the skies, if this were accomplished.To deny secularism, and to try to push it out of government function, is to embrace theology and religious dominionism. And not just ANY religion, but the specific sectarian denominations of whoever may be pushing their religious agenda. Religious people seem to think it would be SO GREAT if religion were deeply integrated in how our government functions, but it never occurs to them that it might not be their flavor of religion which ascends to power, and that they might become the target of whatever rival denomination is given authority over them.
Sounds great in theory, but in reality, it's not that black and white, for example, Christmas is a federal holiday complete with a national Christmas tree lit by the President.Government MUST run religion-free in order to be fair to all the people it serves. That's what secularism IS. Religious neutrality.
Or "hater", "bigot", or "homophobe", as well."Abomination" is not a legal term, it has no legal definition, and it has no place in our legal system. If I hear anyone use that word, in the context of establishing civil law, I will IMMEDIATELY suspect them of trying to use supernatural concepts to influence laws which I must live by.
I agree "abomination" is not a religious term.
If someone wants to live their life calling some of their fellow citizens "abominations" (who aren't harming them or anyone else), they're welcome to it.
"But, I'll be damned before I let my GOVERNMENT do it, echoing THIER anti religious sentiment, and pushing their anti religious doctrine, and left wing to boot" ! A secular government cannot brook such nonsense, and I agree NO citizen, religious, or otherwise should stand for it. Calling their fellow citizens "haters", "bigots", etc, in order to stifle free speech, is unacceptable.But I'll be damned before I let my GOVERNMENT do it, echoing THEIR religious sentiments, and pushing their religious doctrine. A secular government cannot brook such nonsense, and NO citizens should stand for it. Even religious citizens, if they value their religious freedom.