<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Mainstreaming of Atheism &#8212; Sunday School for Atheists</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/11/29/the-mainstreaming-of-atheism-sunday-school-for-atheists/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/11/29/the-mainstreaming-of-atheism-sunday-school-for-atheists/</link>
	<description>General interest observations and true web-log.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 02:18:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: blah blah blah</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/11/29/the-mainstreaming-of-atheism-sunday-school-for-atheists/comment-page-13/#comment-905445</link>
		<dc:creator>blah blah blah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:25:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=14826#comment-905445</guid>
		<description>argh...  it constitutes a ritual, which satisfies part of the definition.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>argh&#8230;  it constitutes a ritual, which satisfies part of the definition.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: blah blah blah</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/11/29/the-mainstreaming-of-atheism-sunday-school-for-atheists/comment-page-12/#comment-905440</link>
		<dc:creator>blah blah blah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:23:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=14826#comment-905440</guid>
		<description>Almost forgot to address the issue of rituals...  It stands to reason that sending kids to Sunday School for the Church of Atheism on a weekly basis is going to constitute a religion.  That also satisfies part of the definition of religion (the 2nd part, the part about moral code is actually the third).

Just thought to correct that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Almost forgot to address the issue of rituals&#8230;  It stands to reason that sending kids to Sunday School for the Church of Atheism on a weekly basis is going to constitute a religion.  That also satisfies part of the definition of religion (the 2nd part, the part about moral code is actually the third).</p>
<p>Just thought to correct that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: blah blah blah</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/11/29/the-mainstreaming-of-atheism-sunday-school-for-atheists/comment-page-12/#comment-905422</link>
		<dc:creator>blah blah blah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:01:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=14826#comment-905422</guid>
		<description>&quot;God is that which nothing greater can be thought&quot; - St. Anselm. 

&quot;Religion (Dictionary.com) - &lt;i&gt;a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.&lt;/i&gt;&quot;

The Church of Atheism does not believe in a god or gods, yet I have nothing to see that shows that they can think of anything greater than god.  Therefore, there is a belief in relation to a higher power.  That satisfies the first part of the definition. 

The Church of Atheism is developing a moral code with the formation of a &quot;Sunday School&quot;.  It seems that fits the second part of the definition.

Cursor - I agree with you wholeheartedly on the last statement of #238.  It all boils down to whatever make you happy...  it just seems that too many on here are all to ready to share their hatred of religion (especially Christianity), including some of the narcissistic editors who strive for nothing more than a Pavlovian response from the useful idiots who troll this site.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;God is that which nothing greater can be thought&#8221; &#8211; St. Anselm. </p>
<p>&#8220;Religion (Dictionary.com) &#8211; <i>a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.</i>&#8221;</p>
<p>The Church of Atheism does not believe in a god or gods, yet I have nothing to see that shows that they can think of anything greater than god.  Therefore, there is a belief in relation to a higher power.  That satisfies the first part of the definition. </p>
<p>The Church of Atheism is developing a moral code with the formation of a &#8220;Sunday School&#8221;.  It seems that fits the second part of the definition.</p>
<p>Cursor &#8211; I agree with you wholeheartedly on the last statement of #238.  It all boils down to whatever make you happy&#8230;  it just seems that too many on here are all to ready to share their hatred of religion (especially Christianity), including some of the narcissistic editors who strive for nothing more than a Pavlovian response from the useful idiots who troll this site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cursor_</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/11/29/the-mainstreaming-of-atheism-sunday-school-for-atheists/comment-page-12/#comment-901847</link>
		<dc:creator>Cursor_</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:56:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=14826#comment-901847</guid>
		<description>When anyone says they don&#039;t need a profit I don&#039;t think they understand life.

EVERYTHING is profit motivated in life. We eat because the profit is we live. If the food happens to taste good its double profit.

Have a house instead of rent and you get profit from that.

Ethics and morals also have a reward factor. The one the comes to mind immediately is that if you follow them the rest of the population will NOT imprison or kill you.

BUT that goes back to teh retribution situation found in religions. Instead of the big bad meanie being an invisible old guy in the sky that watches you pee, it is the neighbour or the city council, your county official of the feds.

But in the end some other force will stike at you should you be immoral or unethical in some way or form. So we are BACK to the do this or I will murdelise yas!

So for those that say I do it not because the invisible old guy in the sky that watches me pee says so, but because if I don&#039;t someone REAL will screw me for it.

So the profit is NOT to get screwed by the inviso guy OR the real people in my land.

That says to me there is NOT much difference down deep and at a base level between the two. It is still fear that makes people do it. And they elimination of that fear keeps you ethical or moral.

Even taking the tact of saying I do it because I LIKE doing it, is just a nice way of saying I conform because its more pleasant not to be in jail or be killed for my animal instincts.

No matter how you cut or slice it, it comes down to fear of retribution. From Inviso or from the local cop on the corner it doesn&#039;t matter.

And that is the point that I wanted to make.

To argue whether a god should make you behave or a society itching to hang ya by your innards; is  inconsequential. So it goes back to, eh whatever makes you happy.

Cursor_</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When anyone says they don&#8217;t need a profit I don&#8217;t think they understand life.</p>
<p>EVERYTHING is profit motivated in life. We eat because the profit is we live. If the food happens to taste good its double profit.</p>
<p>Have a house instead of rent and you get profit from that.</p>
<p>Ethics and morals also have a reward factor. The one the comes to mind immediately is that if you follow them the rest of the population will NOT imprison or kill you.</p>
<p>BUT that goes back to teh retribution situation found in religions. Instead of the big bad meanie being an invisible old guy in the sky that watches you pee, it is the neighbour or the city council, your county official of the feds.</p>
<p>But in the end some other force will stike at you should you be immoral or unethical in some way or form. So we are BACK to the do this or I will murdelise yas!</p>
<p>So for those that say I do it not because the invisible old guy in the sky that watches me pee says so, but because if I don&#8217;t someone REAL will screw me for it.</p>
<p>So the profit is NOT to get screwed by the inviso guy OR the real people in my land.</p>
<p>That says to me there is NOT much difference down deep and at a base level between the two. It is still fear that makes people do it. And they elimination of that fear keeps you ethical or moral.</p>
<p>Even taking the tact of saying I do it because I LIKE doing it, is just a nice way of saying I conform because its more pleasant not to be in jail or be killed for my animal instincts.</p>
<p>No matter how you cut or slice it, it comes down to fear of retribution. From Inviso or from the local cop on the corner it doesn&#8217;t matter.</p>
<p>And that is the point that I wanted to make.</p>
<p>To argue whether a god should make you behave or a society itching to hang ya by your innards; is  inconsequential. So it goes back to, eh whatever makes you happy.</p>
<p>Cursor_</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mister Mustard</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/11/29/the-mainstreaming-of-atheism-sunday-school-for-atheists/comment-page-12/#comment-899973</link>
		<dc:creator>Mister Mustard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2007 05:48:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=14826#comment-899973</guid>
		<description>&gt;&gt;SMITE ME, YOU IMAGINARY SKY-THING

Tally, I hate to tell you this.  But even the most devout of your infidel brethren have already noted, YOU ARE SMITTEN.

GOD: 1; SATAN: 0</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;&gt;SMITE ME, YOU IMAGINARY SKY-THING</p>
<p>Tally, I hate to tell you this.  But even the most devout of your infidel brethren have already noted, YOU ARE SMITTEN.</p>
<p>GOD: 1; SATAN: 0</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tallwookie</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/11/29/the-mainstreaming-of-atheism-sunday-school-for-atheists/comment-page-12/#comment-899960</link>
		<dc:creator>tallwookie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2007 05:38:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=14826#comment-899960</guid>
		<description>God doesnt exist.  If he did, i would die, and wouldnt get to see any more MM rants or James Hill  owning Angel and Getting pwned in return by Others.

so, lets test it.

God, in the christian/muslim/etc sense, doesnt exist.

SMITE ME, YOU IMAGINARY SKY-THING</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>God doesnt exist.  If he did, i would die, and wouldnt get to see any more MM rants or James Hill  owning Angel and Getting pwned in return by Others.</p>
<p>so, lets test it.</p>
<p>God, in the christian/muslim/etc sense, doesnt exist.</p>
<p>SMITE ME, YOU IMAGINARY SKY-THING</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mister Mustard</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/11/29/the-mainstreaming-of-atheism-sunday-school-for-atheists/comment-page-12/#comment-899959</link>
		<dc:creator>Mister Mustard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2007 05:35:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=14826#comment-899959</guid>
		<description>Tommie, I&#039;m going to tell you this as a compadre, because I retain the belief that you are simpático.  Don&#039;t tell anyone that you know, though.

When people mean &quot;secular/ non-religious&quot;, they say &quot;secular/ non-religious&quot;.  When they are talking about the religious belief (ie, religion) that fervently believes there is no God, they say &quot;Atheist&quot;.

That&#039;s what The Universe says, means, and understands.  I hope that, as a saint, you can deal with that.

God bless.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tommie, I&#8217;m going to tell you this as a compadre, because I retain the belief that you are simpático.  Don&#8217;t tell anyone that you know, though.</p>
<p>When people mean &#8220;secular/ non-religious&#8221;, they say &#8220;secular/ non-religious&#8221;.  When they are talking about the religious belief (ie, religion) that fervently believes there is no God, they say &#8220;Atheist&#8221;.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s what The Universe says, means, and understands.  I hope that, as a saint, you can deal with that.</p>
<p>God bless.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/11/29/the-mainstreaming-of-atheism-sunday-school-for-atheists/comment-page-12/#comment-899950</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2007 05:26:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=14826#comment-899950</guid>
		<description>#232
Wow. Just wow. Is it possible that you still do not get it? Retarded monkeys would have got it by now.

Atheism is not a religion nor have the Courts said as such. They have said it is protected &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;AS IF&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt; it were a religion (even thought it is not). 

That&#039;s enough for me. I&#039;ve had my fill of trying to hammer a nail into concrete or argue with a flat-earther. If by 200+ posts you still do not get it, you may never get it. My only suggestion is that when you read on this blog or anywhere else the word &quot;atheist&quot; or &quot;atheism&quot;, understand that the rest of the universe is using what you call &quot;non-religious/secular&quot; and maybe, just maybe you will understand them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#232<br />
Wow. Just wow. Is it possible that you still do not get it? Retarded monkeys would have got it by now.</p>
<p>Atheism is not a religion nor have the Courts said as such. They have said it is protected <b><i>AS IF</i></b> it were a religion (even thought it is not). </p>
<p>That&#8217;s enough for me. I&#8217;ve had my fill of trying to hammer a nail into concrete or argue with a flat-earther. If by 200+ posts you still do not get it, you may never get it. My only suggestion is that when you read on this blog or anywhere else the word &#8220;atheist&#8221; or &#8220;atheism&#8221;, understand that the rest of the universe is using what you call &#8220;non-religious/secular&#8221; and maybe, just maybe you will understand them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mister Mustard</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/11/29/the-mainstreaming-of-atheism-sunday-school-for-atheists/comment-page-12/#comment-899332</link>
		<dc:creator>Mister Mustard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:45:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=14826#comment-899332</guid>
		<description>Woops.  Delete the first pasted instance of &quot;but the knitting example was YOURS. you used it as an example to show they wouldn’t have the right&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Woops.  Delete the first pasted instance of &#8220;but the knitting example was YOURS. you used it as an example to show they wouldn’t have the right&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mister Mustard</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/11/29/the-mainstreaming-of-atheism-sunday-school-for-atheists/comment-page-12/#comment-899330</link>
		<dc:creator>Mister Mustard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:42:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=14826#comment-899330</guid>
		<description>but the knitting example was YOURS. you used it as an example to show they wouldn’t have the rightOK.  One last ditch attempt at explaining the self-evident truth to True Believers.

&gt;&gt;but the knitting example was YOURS. 
&gt;&gt;you used it as an example to show 
&gt;&gt;they wouldn’t have the right

Sure it was mine.  And it showed exactly what I intended it to show:  That people who &quot;do&quot; or &quot;don&#039;t do&quot; any variety of things have no particular rights under the Constitution &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;UNLESS THOSE THINGS ARE RELIGIOUS&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;.  Then, those things are protected by the freedom of RELIGION.  Hence, the right of Atheist convicts to gather together, to hasten and chasten their non-beleifs be made known.  I&#039;m not sure what exactly it is you don&#039;t understand here (perhaps you got flummoxed by that silly &quot;not collecting stamps is a hobby faux analogy that was going around for a while).  The take-home message here is that you are free to practice whatever religion (not hobby or craft or cooking skill) you choose under the Constitution, be that religion Christianity, Judaism, Atheism, or Wicca.

Fissile One, I&#039;m not sure how much further I can go when you fail to recognize that your own bolding and italicization support my point of view.  To wit:

&gt;&gt;those [Atheist] beliefs 
      represent her religion.
&gt;&gt;[Atheism] was religious in nature
&gt;&gt;[Atheism is ] equivalent to a  
      “religion” 

In my book, anything that represents religion, is religious in nature, and is equivalent to a religion is a fucking religious belief.  Even Saint Thomas, who sought to argue Kaufman v. McNaughtry, agreed that the court classified Atheism as a religion; the just felt that their jurisprudence skills were not up to the task of fitting the Atheism peg into its appropriately-shaped hole.

I realize that you Atheists (particularly the proselytizing evangelists of that faith) are offended by the implication that your religious beliefs are, in fact religious beliefs; after all, how could you maintain that hip-and-happening, unconventional, free-thinking, non-conformist, slightly dangerous attitude if you admitted that you&#039;re no different from or &quot;equivalent to&quot;, if you prefer) the mindless sheeple who go to church every Sunday?  Your religious beliefs may be different from theirs, just as Judaism&#039;s beliefs are different from those of Christianity, but they are religious beliefs nonetheless.

And no amount of stamping your foot and pouting will ever change that.

Welcome to the world of the Believers, son!  Your religious beliefs may be different from my religious beliefs, but wtf.  We&#039;re all God&#039;s children, right?  And entitled to whatever religious beliefs we choose.  Ain&#039;t America grand?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>but the knitting example was YOURS. you used it as an example to show they wouldn’t have the rightOK.  One last ditch attempt at explaining the self-evident truth to True Believers.</p>
<p>&gt;&gt;but the knitting example was YOURS.<br />
&gt;&gt;you used it as an example to show<br />
&gt;&gt;they wouldn’t have the right</p>
<p>Sure it was mine.  And it showed exactly what I intended it to show:  That people who &#8220;do&#8221; or &#8220;don&#8217;t do&#8221; any variety of things have no particular rights under the Constitution <b><i>UNLESS THOSE THINGS ARE RELIGIOUS</i></b>.  Then, those things are protected by the freedom of RELIGION.  Hence, the right of Atheist convicts to gather together, to hasten and chasten their non-beleifs be made known.  I&#8217;m not sure what exactly it is you don&#8217;t understand here (perhaps you got flummoxed by that silly &#8220;not collecting stamps is a hobby faux analogy that was going around for a while).  The take-home message here is that you are free to practice whatever religion (not hobby or craft or cooking skill) you choose under the Constitution, be that religion Christianity, Judaism, Atheism, or Wicca.</p>
<p>Fissile One, I&#8217;m not sure how much further I can go when you fail to recognize that your own bolding and italicization support my point of view.  To wit:</p>
<p>&gt;&gt;those [Atheist] beliefs<br />
      represent her religion.<br />
&gt;&gt;[Atheism] was religious in nature<br />
&gt;&gt;[Atheism is ] equivalent to a<br />
      “religion” </p>
<p>In my book, anything that represents religion, is religious in nature, and is equivalent to a religion is a fucking religious belief.  Even Saint Thomas, who sought to argue Kaufman v. McNaughtry, agreed that the court classified Atheism as a religion; the just felt that their jurisprudence skills were not up to the task of fitting the Atheism peg into its appropriately-shaped hole.</p>
<p>I realize that you Atheists (particularly the proselytizing evangelists of that faith) are offended by the implication that your religious beliefs are, in fact religious beliefs; after all, how could you maintain that hip-and-happening, unconventional, free-thinking, non-conformist, slightly dangerous attitude if you admitted that you&#8217;re no different from or &#8220;equivalent to&#8221;, if you prefer) the mindless sheeple who go to church every Sunday?  Your religious beliefs may be different from theirs, just as Judaism&#8217;s beliefs are different from those of Christianity, but they are religious beliefs nonetheless.</p>
<p>And no amount of stamping your foot and pouting will ever change that.</p>
<p>Welcome to the world of the Believers, son!  Your religious beliefs may be different from my religious beliefs, but wtf.  We&#8217;re all God&#8217;s children, right?  And entitled to whatever religious beliefs we choose.  Ain&#8217;t America grand?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JimR</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/11/29/the-mainstreaming-of-atheism-sunday-school-for-atheists/comment-page-12/#comment-899198</link>
		<dc:creator>JimR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Dec 2007 17:44:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=14826#comment-899198</guid>
		<description>You know Mr. Fusion, you&#039;re very good when it comes to digging out the pertinent facts. The subtle differences in meaning are what defines each side of this argument, as you have highlighted. Well done. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You know Mr. Fusion, you&#8217;re very good when it comes to digging out the pertinent facts. The subtle differences in meaning are what defines each side of this argument, as you have highlighted. Well done. <img src='http://www.dvorak.org/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mr. Fusion</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/11/29/the-mainstreaming-of-atheism-sunday-school-for-atheists/comment-page-12/#comment-899191</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr. Fusion</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Dec 2007 17:31:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=14826#comment-899191</guid>
		<description>MM,

If you want to use Kaufman as a reference, it might be wise if you read the decision instead of just quoting others. All the following are quoted directly from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Kaufman v. McCaughtry . All references to other cases are included.

&lt;i&gt;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 &lt;b&gt;represent&lt;/b&gt; her religion. Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch. Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n.5 (7th Cir. 1994) (internal citation and quotation omitted);&lt;/i&gt;

*emphasis added

&lt;i&gt;The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as &lt;b&gt;equivalent to a “religion” &lt;/b&gt;for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky.,  125 S.Ct. 2722 (2005).&lt;/i&gt;

* emphasis added, italics in original

... &lt;i&gt;in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985):
... the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by
the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or &lt;b&gt;none at all&lt;/b&gt;.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;
 
* emphasis added

... &lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, it said that a state cannot “pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers ...&lt;/i&gt;

[Kaufman] &lt;i&gt;and the group that he wanted to start &lt;b&gt;was religious in nature&lt;/b&gt; even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.&lt;/i&gt;

*emphasis added

If you notice the trend, it kind of disputes your argument they said atheism is a religion. They said atheism must be treated equally to an established religion. Which is exactly what the First Amendment says.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>MM,</p>
<p>If you want to use Kaufman as a reference, it might be wise if you read the decision instead of just quoting others. All the following are quoted directly from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Kaufman v. McCaughtry . All references to other cases are included.</p>
<p><i>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 <b>represent</b> her religion. Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch. Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n.5 (7th Cir. 1994) (internal citation and quotation omitted);</i></p>
<p>*emphasis added</p>
<p><i>The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as <b>equivalent to a “religion” </b>for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky.,  125 S.Ct. 2722 (2005).</i></p>
<p>* emphasis added, italics in original</p>
<p>&#8230; <i>in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985):<br />
&#8230; the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by<br />
the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or <b>none at all</b>.</i><i></p>
<p>* emphasis added</p>
<p>&#8230; </i><i>in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, it said that a state cannot “pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers &#8230;</i></p>
<p>[Kaufman] <i>and the group that he wanted to start <b>was religious in nature</b> even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.</i></p>
<p>*emphasis added</p>
<p>If you notice the trend, it kind of disputes your argument they said atheism is a religion. They said atheism must be treated equally to an established religion. Which is exactly what the First Amendment says.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JimR</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/11/29/the-mainstreaming-of-atheism-sunday-school-for-atheists/comment-page-12/#comment-899116</link>
		<dc:creator>JimR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:15:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=14826#comment-899116</guid>
		<description>Excuuuse me MM, but the knitting example was YOURS. you used it as an example to show they wouldn&#039;t have the right. 

YOUR post #221 MM,&lt;i&gt; &quot;Non-knitters do not have the freedom to gather as a group to discuss their lack of fibercraft and related issues, and to share ideas, even though religious groups do. &lt;/i&gt;

I contested you on that point, and what gem do you come up with?

&lt;i&gt;&quot;Of course non-knitters would not be granted the right to gather and discuss their lack of skills and interest in fibercraft, Jamie.&quot;&lt;/i&gt;

Well that&#039;s rich, MM. But you are only fooling yourself and making a fool of yourself. Calling me names won&#039;t make your twisted logic any straighter. It&#039;s sad to see an otherwise intelligent person such as yourself sucked into the story so deeply that you can&#039;t reason anything that&#039;s justifiably contrary.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excuuuse me MM, but the knitting example was YOURS. you used it as an example to show they wouldn&#8217;t have the right. </p>
<p>YOUR post #221 MM,<i> &#8220;Non-knitters do not have the freedom to gather as a group to discuss their lack of fibercraft and related issues, and to share ideas, even though religious groups do. </i></p>
<p>I contested you on that point, and what gem do you come up with?</p>
<p><i>&#8220;Of course non-knitters would not be granted the right to gather and discuss their lack of skills and interest in fibercraft, Jamie.&#8221;</i></p>
<p>Well that&#8217;s rich, MM. But you are only fooling yourself and making a fool of yourself. Calling me names won&#8217;t make your twisted logic any straighter. It&#8217;s sad to see an otherwise intelligent person such as yourself sucked into the story so deeply that you can&#8217;t reason anything that&#8217;s justifiably contrary.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mister Mustard</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/11/29/the-mainstreaming-of-atheism-sunday-school-for-atheists/comment-page-12/#comment-899030</link>
		<dc:creator>Mister Mustard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:57:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=14826#comment-899030</guid>
		<description>&gt;&gt;How do you know that MM? They probably would 
&gt;&gt;get the freedom if they chose to fight for 
&gt;&gt;their rights as the atheist guy did.

This is where you reveal yourself as either a chain-jerker or a simpleton.

Of course non-knitters would not be granted the right to gather and discuss their lack of skills and interest in fibercraft, Jamie.

And do you know why? (I certainly hope you do).  Because knitting and non-knitting (and even the  group analogous to Atheists - those who firmply believe that knitting does not exist) have nothing to do with religion.  They are not a religion, they are not &quot;as&quot; or &quot;like&quot; a religion, their common beliefs have nothing to do with God and religiou; they are not entitled to freedoms that religions are entitled to (at least not on religious/ Constitutional grounds.

Christ is a religious construct.  The Antichrist is a religious construct.  Theism is a form of religion.  Atheism is a form of religion.

After 228 messages, I think I&#039;ve done my part for truth and justice.  I don&#039;t expect to be posting any more in this thread.  I just hope, for your sake, that you have been jerking my chain and that your logical and intellectual processes are not so degraded that you actually believe your &quot;not collecting stamps is a hobby&quot; line of argumentation.

God bless.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;&gt;How do you know that MM? They probably would<br />
&gt;&gt;get the freedom if they chose to fight for<br />
&gt;&gt;their rights as the atheist guy did.</p>
<p>This is where you reveal yourself as either a chain-jerker or a simpleton.</p>
<p>Of course non-knitters would not be granted the right to gather and discuss their lack of skills and interest in fibercraft, Jamie.</p>
<p>And do you know why? (I certainly hope you do).  Because knitting and non-knitting (and even the  group analogous to Atheists &#8211; those who firmply believe that knitting does not exist) have nothing to do with religion.  They are not a religion, they are not &#8220;as&#8221; or &#8220;like&#8221; a religion, their common beliefs have nothing to do with God and religiou; they are not entitled to freedoms that religions are entitled to (at least not on religious/ Constitutional grounds.</p>
<p>Christ is a religious construct.  The Antichrist is a religious construct.  Theism is a form of religion.  Atheism is a form of religion.</p>
<p>After 228 messages, I think I&#8217;ve done my part for truth and justice.  I don&#8217;t expect to be posting any more in this thread.  I just hope, for your sake, that you have been jerking my chain and that your logical and intellectual processes are not so degraded that you actually believe your &#8220;not collecting stamps is a hobby&#8221; line of argumentation.</p>
<p>God bless.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ECA</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/11/29/the-mainstreaming-of-atheism-sunday-school-for-atheists/comment-page-12/#comment-898717</link>
		<dc:creator>ECA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Dec 2007 07:36:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=14826#comment-898717</guid>
		<description>Basic Belief...

I know the truth, and you are ALL Screw&#039;d, and I AINT TELLING you WHY...

Advanced religion...

I know the truth, and IM TAKING you with me, NO MATTER WHAT...  i will water board you, I will Black mail you, I will be at your DOOR every day...To tell you MY&#039; truth, and until you SUBMIT, I will NEVER go away.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Basic Belief&#8230;</p>
<p>I know the truth, and you are ALL Screw&#8217;d, and I AINT TELLING you WHY&#8230;</p>
<p>Advanced religion&#8230;</p>
<p>I know the truth, and IM TAKING you with me, NO MATTER WHAT&#8230;  i will water board you, I will Black mail you, I will be at your DOOR every day&#8230;To tell you MY&#8217; truth, and until you SUBMIT, I will NEVER go away.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

