Posted on Dec 26, 2016
New International Religious Freedom Act a first for atheists
7.54K
39
21
5
5
0
Congress passed and the president signed into law protections for atheists and non-believers.
New International Religious Freedom Act a first for atheists
Posted from stltoday.com
Atheism
Religion
Law
Society
Christianity
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
5
5
0
Thank God!. "Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down someones throat".
(5)
(0)
3
3
0
The article quotes a law professor "There has always been a controversy to the degree to which they (atheists) should be protected. This law makes sure that they are to be protected to the same extent." Doesn't the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment already do that?
--All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.--
Why must we once more try to create another "protected class".
--All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.--
Why must we once more try to create another "protected class".
(3)
(0)
Maj John Bell
SPC Kevin Ford - http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1467028.html
I offer the following source with a few selected excerpts.
1) 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.
2) A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths)
3) Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion.
4) We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion.
5) The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions...
6) 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.
7) Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics. As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman's religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise.
I offer the following source with a few selected excerpts.
1) 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.
2) A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths)
3) Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion.
4) We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion.
5) The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions...
6) 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.
7) Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics. As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman's religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise.
FindLaw's United States Seventh Circuit case and opinions.
FindLaw's searchable database of United States Seventh Circuit decisions since
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
Maj John Bell - As I said in the first post on this thread, "Such an argument usually loses in court but that really isn't the point; the point is that since it isn't explicitly mentioned some took that as license to discriminate on the basis or lack of religion."
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
SPC Kevin Ford - The problems is that we already have so many laws that duplicate each other that our system of laws and regulations has become ridiculous. We need to look to removing duplicate, ridiculous, and obsolete laws, not adding new laws.
And for the third time: How does this law make such anti-atheism discrimination any more difficult? less likely? or more easily prosecuted?
And for the third time: How does this law make such anti-atheism discrimination any more difficult? less likely? or more easily prosecuted?
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
Maj John Bell -
1) Most people don't understand case law but they understand statutory law. Many people don't even understand case law is a thing which is why we hear uninformed cries of legislating from the bench. This misunderstanding extends to our own legislators on the state and federal level.
2) Case law itself, sans word from the SCOTUS, is not universal and it is good to clarify intent through a statutory process so misunderstandings don't happen. This is, as far as I know, something not definitively ruled on be the SCOTUS. Several circut courts, but that's not the same thing. (I could be wrong on that as I haven't spent a lot of time looking).
3) The act itself isn't just about how we treat with our own citizens but how we treat with people in other countries. If you want to learn more about the full intent of the law (outside of the above article which just pulls out a specific provision) you can find it here.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/an-opening-for-trump-obama-signs-international-religious-freedom-act
1) Most people don't understand case law but they understand statutory law. Many people don't even understand case law is a thing which is why we hear uninformed cries of legislating from the bench. This misunderstanding extends to our own legislators on the state and federal level.
2) Case law itself, sans word from the SCOTUS, is not universal and it is good to clarify intent through a statutory process so misunderstandings don't happen. This is, as far as I know, something not definitively ruled on be the SCOTUS. Several circut courts, but that's not the same thing. (I could be wrong on that as I haven't spent a lot of time looking).
3) The act itself isn't just about how we treat with our own citizens but how we treat with people in other countries. If you want to learn more about the full intent of the law (outside of the above article which just pulls out a specific provision) you can find it here.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/an-opening-for-trump-obama-signs-international-religious-freedom-act
An Opening for Trump? Obama Signs International Religious Freedom Act
The bipartisan bill, designed to strengthen the U.S. response to religious persecution, could assist the new administration in refocusing...
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Thank you for the interesting article, hopefully it will make all side happy to be included in all levels of religious rights.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google