The "Frank Wolf International Religious Freedom Act"
-
cham313 — 9 years ago(December 23, 2016 11:43 AM)
I think not. Establishing a watchdog commission to monitor and report on abuses of religious freedom around the world doesn't constitute imperialistic behavior, nor admission of such. I'm not defending other occasions where the U.S. has overstepped its legal boundaries, but that's another story.
An interesting thing about this amendment is how much bipartisan support it has. I find that somewhat encouraging. -
senseibushido — 9 years ago(December 22, 2016 09:15 PM)
The "non-theistic beliefs" part is probably going to ruffle some feathers.
Considering the very next part of that statement is "
as well as the right not to profess or practice any religion
," I'm going to assume that the only feathers that are getting ruffled are yours. -
senseibushido — 9 years ago(December 22, 2016 09:29 PM)
I'll never understand the hard-on people have for playing these "belief" word-games. Yes, atheists "believe" things. You can also find things that atheists may put their (colloquial) "faith" in. It doesn't make atheism a religion any more than "not going to the movies" is a hobby. Get over it.
-
senseibushido — 9 years ago(December 22, 2016 09:41 PM)
They're not my word games
But you're perfectly happy using them.
I totally support the right not to profess or practice any religion
But you just think the concept is laughable.
Haha. After all, if atheism is simply a "lack of belief," what is there to protect? -
CashIsSupreme — 9 years ago(December 22, 2016 09:43 PM)
You're dealing with a moronic lunatic. You'll never get anywhere except be dragged farther down the rabbit hole of insanity and stupidity.
"An aversion to homosexuality is called heterosexuality." - ErJen
-
Miscella — 9 years ago(December 22, 2016 09:52 PM)
Are you new here? Or maybe you've just missed the many times I've asserted that the whole 'lack of belief' thing is simply a semantic crock of crap designed to avoid a burden of proof that never existed in the first place.
And no, what's laughable is the irony of passing a bill to protect something that atheists generally deny. -
senseibushido — 9 years ago(December 22, 2016 10:04 PM)
a semantic crock of crap designed to avoid a burden of proof that never existed in the first place
Tell that to the morons who demand that atheists "prove God doesn't exist."
And no, what's laughable is the irony of passing a bill to protect something that atheists generally deny.
And what is that? Atheists don't generally deny the religious freedoms of others. Except when the guise of religious freedom is being used to justify religiously-motivated discrimination. -
senseibushido — 9 years ago(December 22, 2016 10:28 PM)
That's the non-existent burden of proof I was talking about.
You say that as if someone making the demand doesn't necessitate an explanation for why that demand isn't a good one to make.
The "non-theistic beliefs."
So we're back to you being unable to comprehend that "non-theistic beliefs" was also being contrasted with "the right not to profess or practice any religion."
And, for the record:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religion -
Miscella — 9 years ago(December 23, 2016 12:19 AM)
You say that as if someone making the demand doesn't necessitate an explanation for why that demand isn't a good one to make.
If someone says they believe God doesn't exist, why would you demand proof that God doesn't exist?
So we're back to you being unable to comprehend that "non-theistic beliefs" was also being contrasted with "the right not to profess or practice any religion."
No, we're back to you being unable to comprehend that atheists claim to have no "non-theistic beliefs." Is this where we start talking about "soft" and "hard" atheism while pretending that the point isn't being underscored? -
aaahmemories — 9 years ago(December 31, 2016 02:47 PM)
a bill to protect something that atheists generally deny
What exactly do you think we "deny?" Or are you unaware that "freedom of religion" includes "freedom FROM religion?" It's safe to say you're unaware that laws in seven American states expressly and specifically prohibit atheists from holding office. And before you claim I made this up:
https://thehumanist.com/news/national/unelectable-atheists-u-s-states-that-prohibit-godless-americans-from-holding-public-office
The Dumpster gives a whole new meaning to "red" states. -
Miscella — 9 years ago(December 23, 2016 12:29 AM)
Your reading comprehension is on par with Ada's.
The irony of this quote is killing me. I love it!
Which is why they don't pronounce it like that anymore.
Anymore? You mean like they did in the 18th and 19th centuries?
SuperDoof.