Freedom From Atheism

the Government is not saying there is no god.....that would be supporting atheism.....

not saying there is a God is not the same as supporting atheism

the Government should not be telling people there "IS a God" or that there "IS NOT a God"

.

 

Please explain?

 

He's well and truly convinced me and most posters reading this thread.

 

Why do theists assault atheists, and all those who govern themselves with a secular moral compass by demanding everyone else conform to their theist agenda?

Find the answer to one and you will have the answer to both.

What happens when those freedoms conflict? Who decides for both who is or is not right?

Specifically what freedom do you feel denied?

 

Such as?

 

very simple, that one person has to violate their religion to bake a cake by prescription for and in support of someone elses relgion. It really is self explanatory is it not?

- - - Updated - - -

Now theres a thought, move them all to iran.

 

So then you are accusing the gvmnt of establishing theist laws that run contrary and violate the atheist religion, I'd argue that at this time gay marriage is atheist since no theist religion through out history condoned it.

When conflicts arise typically it involves a trespass on or against another person, not the religion in and of itself.

Since it deals with religion outside the purview of laws under the united states the people need a court that can handle adjudicating religious matters.

 

A bakery is a business thus subject to the laws of the State. Religious freedom is not without limits. If one will not serve gays then one needs to go into another business that insulates them from coming in contact with gays... or one could just practice tolerance of harmless action as being gay in and of itself harms no one. America is a Constitutional Representative Republic not a Christian Theocracy. If you want to live in a Christian Theocracy at this moment in time Vatican City is the only choice.

Secular laws in general operate upon the premise of mitigating of harm. Religious law has a bad habit of labeling harmless action as immoral which is itself immoral by my measure of morality.

 

well there is always the exception that will believe anything and everything they are told now isnt there?

 

A bakery is run by people thus subject to the laws of their religion long before they are subject to the laws of the state.

 

Harmless by whose religion and whose moral compass? Atheist religion? Atheist moral compass? Is that the reference we are to use in this?

 

As a bakery is not a religion but a business it is subject to the laws of the State.

 

So then you are against freedom of religion altogether?

- - - Updated - - -

But the people are subject to the laws of their religion before they are subject to the laws of the state. stop dodging that point already.

It appears you are against freedom of religion which of course means that everyone gets to practice [exercise] their own religion not one over another.

 

you want me to explain what religion is?

 

a gvmnt is secular only under the condition of netrality.

forcing one person to to accommodate or become and accessory to someone elses religion is no longer a neutral position but establishes a contrarian religion.

 

There are sects of Christianity that do support same sex marriage as do many Christians. If an atheist baker wants to only serve atheists then the same laws that do not allow discrimination towards gays also do not allow discrimination towards Christians. A baker cannot discriminate against others based upon ethnicity, sexuality, or for religious reasons or the lack thereof.

A person is not a religion.

Which would violate the Constitution as no law should be made respecting of religion or the free expression thereof. This applies to religions and again a person is not a religion. A baker is free to express their religious views to people who enter their shop, but as a baker is not a religion and a bakery is a business the baker and the business are subject to the laws of the State.

 

discriminating based on religion is a crime

now if you want to open a private exclusive club, the gov will let you discriminate to your hearts content

 

one judge one case is all it takes to violate millions of peoples rights.

the only reference to Chruistianity being against polygamy is with respect to church leaders not the congregation so I have no idea where you came up with that.

 

Saying it is so does not make it so. The law is on my side. A person is not a religion thus they have protected speech but no right to discriminate based upon religious standards in business. You can scream that you are right from a mountain top yet based upon secular law you are wrong.

 

so then why does the gvmnt get to do it?

 

Secular standards. Tell me what harm you perceive as being caused?

 

do what? they can't discriminate, if they say you can't have a drivers license cause you believe in God, let us know as that is a violation of your rights

.

 

So now you are going to argue people have no religion? OMG!

Ok so once again you fail to see the cognitive dissonance in your arguments. Every person has a religion why do you continually create strawmen? I never said a person is a religion, I will soon be ignoring you if you continue to debate in that fashion. Nah I have no problem what so ever arguing the proofs that I am correct.

The the rules of business are in violation of reserved rights, you just went full circle for the 3rd time.

 

You need to come up with an example that is closer to the discussion, thats too far off path for me to comment on. (it is not in the same context as this argument)