This seems like a good opportunity to point out what I consider to be a misconception: that atheists and agnostics need to be in conflict with each other somehow. ..thing about definitions.. you have yours. everyone else has theirs. And it's generally pretty pointless to argue about definitions.I think you'll find that this "popular" definition of religion is not literally accurate.<?i>see above.my point *here* was that the Supreme Court has ruled Atheim a "religion" for the sake protection under the 1st Am. and any laws that pertain to religious discrimination... so from a practical pov, you don't want to be "non-religious" if you want to be atheist...>>>>>>>>>>>> I maintain that this is not necessary. Religious discrimination, it seems to me, may be discrimination AGAINST a religion, or discrimination BY a religion. If I were fired on the grounds of not being a Christian, that would clearly be religious discrimination regardless of whether I had a substitute religion in place of Christianity. And, the first amendment prohibits the government from either advancing or hindering religion equally, so it would seem my beliefs don't need to be called a religion to get protection FROM religion. not the way i remember the case-law.but ,hey, it's been years since i took the bar examand it's Your Board.cheers,jp
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. M