10
10
0
Constitution
Religion
Government
Christianity
Atheism
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
5
5
0
Please go to atheist.org for any questions. They have the same protections as religion. Although it is not a religion. I want to add my two cents about religion ( especially Christianity), but I am not into beginning a religious war here on RallyPoint. I will say being religious is not most moralistic than no religious folk.
(5)
(0)
5
4
1
You can listen to the Atheists prattle on only marginal informed or you could read what the supreme court ruled in the Church of the Holy Trinity vs the United States as a nice example of what they found and ruled.
The case was about an employment contract between the Church of the Holy Trinity and an Anglican Priest. I know it is long but it is worth the read.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/143/457/case.html
The case was about an employment contract between the Church of the Holy Trinity and an Anglican Priest. I know it is long but it is worth the read.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/143/457/case.html
(5)
(1)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Cpl Jeff N. - I actually love this example. Holy Trinity is taught in law schools, usually in the class dealing with statutory interpretation. It is held up as the first example of judicial activism, where the justices changed the clear, written law to fit what they believed that the law should say. It was the beginning of the "purposivism" movement in judicial interpretation of the law, and it is pointed out in those classes that those who are "textualists" or "strict constructionists" reject the principals of the Holy Trinity decision.
I'm just surprised that Jeff would cite an opinion that ignores the letter of the law, which Justice Brewer admitted in his opinion, stating "It must be conceded that the act of the corporation is within the letter of this section, for the relation of rector to his church is one of service, and implies labor on the one side with compensation on the other." Holy Trinity, 143 U.S. at 458.
Justice Scalia had pretty much ended the use of Holy Trinity as a precedent, until Chief Justice Roberts arrived and used the same principle (albeit without citing Holy Trinity) as the grounds to uphold Obamacare in King v. Burrell. There were numerous legal articles written on the return of Holy Trinity after the King decision, with good reason. It's a call for a return to judicial activism.
But, if that's what you really want...
I'm just surprised that Jeff would cite an opinion that ignores the letter of the law, which Justice Brewer admitted in his opinion, stating "It must be conceded that the act of the corporation is within the letter of this section, for the relation of rector to his church is one of service, and implies labor on the one side with compensation on the other." Holy Trinity, 143 U.S. at 458.
Justice Scalia had pretty much ended the use of Holy Trinity as a precedent, until Chief Justice Roberts arrived and used the same principle (albeit without citing Holy Trinity) as the grounds to uphold Obamacare in King v. Burrell. There were numerous legal articles written on the return of Holy Trinity after the King decision, with good reason. It's a call for a return to judicial activism.
But, if that's what you really want...
(1)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
I think in law school you call this case law. It is funny how it is activism when you don't like it but it is good case law when you do. I suspect you think Roe v Wade was a brilliant stroke of judicial application of the law too.
The point of posting this decision was not the validity of the decision itself but the research done as part of the case reviewing original documents and organic utterances and reaching the conclusion that his IS a Christian Nation. That didn't mean anyone was being forced or required to believe or accept the faith but the faith did play an instrumental role in the founding of the country. You probably knew that was why I posted it as we were talking about Christianity and Atheism not case law and how it is viewed in law school etc. That was just another classic smoke grenade from you when you have no argument.
For the record, this is just another strange post where Atheists seem to be looking for validation from Christianity. Why, I do not know. Can't you all just work on your insecurity and feelings of inadequacy in some sort of self help group for atheists?
The point of posting this decision was not the validity of the decision itself but the research done as part of the case reviewing original documents and organic utterances and reaching the conclusion that his IS a Christian Nation. That didn't mean anyone was being forced or required to believe or accept the faith but the faith did play an instrumental role in the founding of the country. You probably knew that was why I posted it as we were talking about Christianity and Atheism not case law and how it is viewed in law school etc. That was just another classic smoke grenade from you when you have no argument.
For the record, this is just another strange post where Atheists seem to be looking for validation from Christianity. Why, I do not know. Can't you all just work on your insecurity and feelings of inadequacy in some sort of self help group for atheists?
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
1stSgt Nelson Kerr - Can you explain how that is religious bigotry at all? It is a supreme court ruling that you don't like but probably haven't read. I know it is hard to read something so long and using the English language and all but give it a try Nelson, try to expand the mind a bit.
Was the meaningless down vote for Supreme Court or for me?
Was the meaningless down vote for Supreme Court or for me?
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Cpl Jeff N. - you don't have a clue what I think. Roe v. Wade was poorly written. Subsequent decisions have clarified it, however.
Second, when you cite a case, as you did, you're citing case law. It helps if you understand the points that were actually being made, instead of focusing on the dicta. Did you even notice that the opinion mentioned the Vidal v. Girard's Executor's case? Girard was an atheist, and left his huge estate in part to fund a college, but prohibited any clergymen from holding any office at the college. The Supreme Court upheld that prohibition. Other than that case, all of the cases cited were state law cases, Ruggles was a blasphemy prosecution in New York, Updegraph was a similar case in Pennsylvania. Both of those cases aren't any good anymore, since the Supreme Court ruled that blasphemy laws violated the First Amendment in Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952).
I didn't go into all of that earlier because I was amused at your attempt to cite law, ,and because it supported judicial activism over the plain text of the law. But since you brought up the issue, it was necessary to point out exactly what was said.
Third, you really must have an insecurity thing going, because you keep bringing it up. If you really need help, I'll be happy to point you to some secular counselors or programs.
Second, when you cite a case, as you did, you're citing case law. It helps if you understand the points that were actually being made, instead of focusing on the dicta. Did you even notice that the opinion mentioned the Vidal v. Girard's Executor's case? Girard was an atheist, and left his huge estate in part to fund a college, but prohibited any clergymen from holding any office at the college. The Supreme Court upheld that prohibition. Other than that case, all of the cases cited were state law cases, Ruggles was a blasphemy prosecution in New York, Updegraph was a similar case in Pennsylvania. Both of those cases aren't any good anymore, since the Supreme Court ruled that blasphemy laws violated the First Amendment in Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952).
I didn't go into all of that earlier because I was amused at your attempt to cite law, ,and because it supported judicial activism over the plain text of the law. But since you brought up the issue, it was necessary to point out exactly what was said.
Third, you really must have an insecurity thing going, because you keep bringing it up. If you really need help, I'll be happy to point you to some secular counselors or programs.
(1)
(0)
4
3
1
Throughout history most of the religious nations had or still have a state religion. We don't have a state religion because of the 1st amendment. If the founders wanted the United States to be a christian nation then they would not have adopted the 1st amendment guaranteeing that each person could worship or not worship as they saw fit. Because of this we are a secular nation that allows people to worship or not worship as they please. I would not want to emulate those nations that have state religions as it takes you away from democracy towards a form of autocracy.
A question I would ask is why does the U.S. need to be a Christian Nation or be founded as a Christian Nation? What does that particularly do to benefit us as a country?
A question I would ask is why does the U.S. need to be a Christian Nation or be founded as a Christian Nation? What does that particularly do to benefit us as a country?
(4)
(1)
SPC Michael Duricko, Ph.D
We don't have to be........BUT WE WANT TO BE, because God has Blessed us so generously all through history and those who do not want to live in a Christian Nation have every right to leave...........just as those of us who love it and want to stay, will stay. If you are an Atheist, you have a right to stay in our Christian Nation and worship bats, worms or no one, because you can in a Christian Nation, thank God + You can call it whatever you want, but the rest of us recognize it as a Christian Nation and always will and the benefits belong to the people and the people are the country.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google