Populist Indeed!

[Maui]

This tags along with my earlier reply. Didn't know there was a 25,000 word limit on posts.

You also may find this interesting:

From ThinkProgress, an article by Jack Jenkins, Senior Religion reporter:

A federal district court in Oregon has declared Secular Humanism a religion, paving the way for the non-theistic community to obtain the same legal rights as groups such as Christianity.

On Thursday, October 30, Senior District Judge Ancer Haggerty issued a ruling on American Humanist Association v. United States, a case that was brought by the American Humanist Association (AHA) and Jason Holden, a federal prisoner. Holden pushed for the lawsuit because he wanted Humanism — which the AHA defines as “an ethical and life-affirming philosophy free of belief in any gods and other supernatural forces” — recognized as a religion so that his prison would allow for the creation of a Humanist study group. Haggerty sided with the plaintiffs in his decision, citing existing legal precedent and arguing that denying Humanists the same rights as groups such as Christianity would be highly suspect under the Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution, which declares that Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

“The court finds that Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes,” the ruling read.

The decision highlights the unusual position of the Humanist community, which has tried for years to obtain the same legal rights as more traditional religious groups while simultaneously rebuking the existence of a god or gods. But while some Humanists may chafe at being called a “religion,” others feel that the larger pursuit of equal rights trumps legal classifications.

“I really don’t care if Humanism is called a religion or not,” Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University and author of Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe, told ThinkProgress. “But if you’re going to give special rights to religions, then you have to give them to Humanism as well, and I think that’s what this case was about.”

Humanism has grown — at least in terms of organization — rapidly over the past few years, with members establishing official Humanist chaplaincies at Harvard University, American University, Columbia University, and Rutgers University. Atheists — one of the many titles for a diversity of nonreligious Americans, which includes Humanists — have also successfully fought for the right to offer invocations at government meetings: Kelly McCauley, a member of the North Alabama Freethought Association, opened a City Council meeting in Huntsville, Alabama in September with an invocation that did not mention God but extolled the virtues of “Wisdom, Courage, Justice, and Moderation.”

“Nonreligious people are just one of the large groups in American society today,” Epstein said. “Increasingly, we need to be recognized not just for our non-belief, but also as a community, and this decision affirms that.”

Despite these successes, the movement to obtain legal rights for Humanists has also encountered stiff resistance. Atheists and Humanists are disproportionately underrepresented in Congress, for instance, and the American Humanist Association is currently in a lengthy battle with the U.S. military to establish formal Humanist chaplains for nonreligious soldiers. In June, the U.S. Navy rejected the application of Jason Heap for a commission as a chaplain.

Update:
This post has been updated to describe the judge’s decision, which was a rejection of a motion to dismiss, with greater precision.

I'm not going to read all that. Torcaso did no such thing and I already addressed that dicta is not law.

The American Humanist Society v. United States case and a couple other cases deal with whether or not humanists (secular in this case) and other non-theistic beliefs should be discriminated against versus theistic beliefs. I understand the leap that some are making there, but it is a non-sequitur argument. Secular education is not religious education. Science is not religious education.

 

[MrFedEx]

I'm telling you guys coal is going to come back! Good or bad ( good for me if it does) but it's coming back. I have received several letters in the last couple months from mineral companies wanting to buy my mineral rights. It's already leased for oil and gas, the coal is what they're wanting.

The free market says otherwise. Here are some facts.
1. Natural gas is a cleaner, currently cheaper alternative.
2. China is increasingly using it's own low-grade coal sources.
3. The Chinese economy has slowed down.

Big Coal isn't coming back.

 

[It will be fine]

This tags along with my earlier reply. Didn't know there was a 25,000 word limit on posts.

You also may find this interesting:

From ThinkProgress, an article by Jack Jenkins, Senior Religion reporter:

A federal district court in Oregon has declared Secular Humanism a religion, paving the way for the non-theistic community to obtain the same legal rights as groups such as Christianity.

On Thursday, October 30, Senior District Judge Ancer Haggerty issued a ruling on American Humanist Association v. United States, a case that was brought by the American Humanist Association (AHA) and Jason Holden, a federal prisoner. Holden pushed for the lawsuit because he wanted Humanism — which the AHA defines as “an ethical and life-affirming philosophy free of belief in any gods and other supernatural forces” — recognized as a religion so that his prison would allow for the creation of a Humanist study group. Haggerty sided with the plaintiffs in his decision, citing existing legal precedent and arguing that denying Humanists the same rights as groups such as Christianity would be highly suspect under the Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution, which declares that Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

“The court finds that Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes,” the ruling read.

The decision highlights the unusual position of the Humanist community, which has tried for years to obtain the same legal rights as more traditional religious groups while simultaneously rebuking the existence of a god or gods. But while some Humanists may chafe at being called a “religion,” others feel that the larger pursuit of equal rights trumps legal classifications.

“I really don’t care if Humanism is called a religion or not,” Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University and author of Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe, told ThinkProgress. “But if you’re going to give special rights to religions, then you have to give them to Humanism as well, and I think that’s what this case was about.”

Humanism has grown — at least in terms of organization — rapidly over the past few years, with members establishing official Humanist chaplaincies at Harvard University, American University, Columbia University, and Rutgers University. Atheists — one of the many titles for a diversity of nonreligious Americans, which includes Humanists — have also successfully fought for the right to offer invocations at government meetings: Kelly McCauley, a member of the North Alabama Freethought Association, opened a City Council meeting in Huntsville, Alabama in September with an invocation that did not mention God but extolled the virtues of “Wisdom, Courage, Justice, and Moderation.”

“Nonreligious people are just one of the large groups in American society today,” Epstein said. “Increasingly, we need to be recognized not just for our non-belief, but also as a community, and this decision affirms that.”

Despite these successes, the movement to obtain legal rights for Humanists has also encountered stiff resistance. Atheists and Humanists are disproportionately underrepresented in Congress, for instance, and the American Humanist Association is currently in a lengthy battle with the U.S. military to establish formal Humanist chaplains for nonreligious soldiers. In June, the U.S. Navy rejected the application of Jason Heap for a commission as a chaplain.

Update:
This post has been updated to describe the judge’s decision, which was a rejection of a motion to dismiss, with greater precision.

If you can't make a decent argument in a few sentences you've lost the debate. No one will read your giant walls of text. Your argument is bad and you should feel bad for trying to make it.

 

[vantexan]

If you can't make a decent argument in a few sentences you've lost the debate. No one will read your giant walls of text. Your argument is bad and you should feel bad for trying to make it.

He should feel bad? LOL!!

 

[vantexan]

The free market says otherwise. Here are some facts.
1. Natural gas is a cleaner, currently cheaper alternative.
2. China is increasingly using it's own low-grade coal sources.
3. The Chinese economy has slowed down.

Big Coal isn't coming back.

Just a quick Google search shows that coal is also used in a number of industries like steel, paper, and cement. Liquefied and gas conversions of coal have used. And there will come a day when there won't be enough of other energy sources, although that looks distant now, but coal will fill that void if other alternatives can't. And in all honesty it's up to the industry to find buyers and shouldn't be up to the gov't to shut them down. If the industry is obsolete it will die on it's own.

 

[njdriver]

I'm not going to read all that. Torcaso did no such thing and I already addressed that dicta is not law.

I understand the leap that some are making there, but it is a non-sequitur argument. Secular education is not religious education. Science is not religious education.

Kind of hard to have any discourse if you choose NOT to read something because of its length. Notwithstanding, dicta may not be law in and of itself, but it possesses probative value, especially if future courts get involved.

Had you chosen to read through what I posted, at least the article from ThinkProgress, that case portends potential problems because in it the Judge issued his ruling and found the AHA to be a religion, based on the Establishment Clause, not the Free Exercise Clause.

While you may consider the matter non sequitur, be reminded previous rulings only found religious status for secular humanism under the Free Exercise Clause. Now we have a federal judge taking care of the OTHER argument that allowed The AHA to continue to teach its tenets.

Maui wrote;

"Secular education is not religious education. Science is not religious education."

Stop repeating yourself. Saying something over and over does not make it true. Secular education stops being so when it is ruled a religion, THEN it becomes religious education.

"The American Humanist Society v. United States case and a couple other cases deal with whether or not humanists (secular in this case) and other non-theistic beliefs should be discriminated against versus theistic beliefs."

Look, the concept is pretty straightforward. In this case a prisoner wanted to establish a humanist study group, but was not allowed because secular humanism was not on the prisons' approved religion list.

"Haggerty ruled that Holden’s constitutional rights were violated under the First and Fifth Amendments. In his ruling, he moved to recognize secular humanism as a religion for “Establishment Clause” purposes. Under the Establishment Clause, Haggerty’s rationale is that secular humanism must be able to enjoy the same liberties as other religious organizations because it is a constitutional principle that no religion shall be established above others as a state religion.

The American Humanist Association co-filed the case with Holden in the case American Humanist Association vs United States and declared the ruling a victory for secular groups to be afforded the same legal rights that are available to Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews and Muslims – all of whom were permitted to organize under the current federal prison system. Haggerty sided with the plaintiffs, citing legal precedent in the case Torcaso vs Watkins which cited Secular Humanism as a religion in the decision to prohibit state and federal governments from passing laws to have religious requirements in holding public office."

This falls into the law of unintended consequences as far as I'm concerned.

The AHA can't fight to be given the same privileges that other established religions enjoy, and once the legal victory is bestowed upon them by court ruling(s), to then claim that the teaching of any one of the same belief values found in their Manifestos is not a religion!

If the AHA wants to be recognized as a religion for any perceived Constitutional benefits, similar to other religions, they cannot then divorce themselves from any Constitutional limitations those same religious groups are under when it comes to public or state education.

 

[njdriver]

If you can't make a decent argument in a few sentences you've lost the debate. No one will read your giant walls of text. Your argument is bad and you should feel bad for trying to make it.

Actually I can, but there are certain times or certain issues that require more research and more dis positive proof to bolster my position. Decent arguments are like beauty; in the eye of the beholder, or in this case, reader.

I wasn't aware you appointed yourself as sole arbiter of a posts' or an arguments' quality. Did you have to go to school to have that position? Was there a degree issued in that course of study?

Us long-quoters would like to know.

 

[It will be fine]

Actually I can, but there are certain times or certain issues that require more research and more dis positive proof to bolster my position. Decent arguments are like beauty; in the eye of the beholder, or in this case, reader.

I wasn't aware you appointed yourself as sole arbiter of a posts' or an arguments' quality. Did you have to go to school to have that position? Was there a degree issued in that course of study?

Us long-quoters would like to know.

No one is reading your giant blocks of text. That means no one will engage in your argument. That means you've lost the debate. Understand?

 

[vantexan]

No one is reading your giant blocks of text. That means no one will engage in your argument. That means you've lost the debate. Understand?

I read his remarks and skimmed the rest, much of which was informative. I suspect you'd be ok with it if his posts supported your point of view.

 

[bacha29]

The way you guys are fighting and arguing over religion is precisely the reason why I left organized religion. I just hope that I'm not around when religion destroys this planet. But one fact still remains. When you're dead, you're dead for a long time and that fact is something nobody's religion can change.

 

[vantexan]

The way you guys are fighting and arguing over religion is precisely the reason why I left organized religion. I just hope that I'm not around when religion destroys this planet. But one fact still remains. When you're dead, you're dead for a long time and that fact is something nobody's religion can change.

We're discussing, not fighting. You're the one talking about religion destroying the planet.

 

[bacha29]

We're discussing, not fighting. You're the one talking about religion destroying the planet.

What you call discussing I call disgusting and clearly tensions between you "holier than thou's" are ratcheting up and that's when it gets dangerous.

 

[vantexan]

What you call discussing I call disgusting and clearly tensions between you "holier than thou's" are ratcheting up and that's when it gets dangerous.

Again you're the one name calling. People can be passionate about their beliefs no matter what side of the spectrum they fall on. But name calling is designed to shut down any views different from your own.

 

[Maui]

Maui wrote;

"Secular education is not religious education. Science is not religious education."

Stop repeating yourself. Saying something over and over does not make it true. Secular education stops being so when it is ruled a religion, THEN it becomes religious education.

I understand the need to equate secular humanism with a religious belief, both for adherents to achieve equality and for extremists to use that intepretation to jump a chasm to then claim non-sectarian education is in fact religious. It is a backdoor attempt to allow creation myths (not all of course) and it is nonsense.

A genuine secular education (and science) is silent on theistic belief. Those are matters of faith.

 

[It will be fine]

I read his remarks and skimmed the rest, much of which was informative. I suspect you'd be ok with it if his posts supported your point of view.

Nope. You admit you couldn't read the whole thing, probably because it's boring. I stand by my point that if you can't quickly make your point it's not worthwhile in a forum like this. His argument is absurd and not worth debating.

 

[bacha29]

Nope. You admit you couldn't read the whole thing, probably because it's boring. I stand by my point that if you can't quickly make your point it's not worthwhile in a forum like this. His argument is absurd and not worth debating.

Right NJD needs to stay on message. Remember the late David Brinkley could say more in 7 words than his TV show guests could say in an hour.

 

[MrFedEx]

Just a quick Google search shows that coal is also used in a number of industries like steel, paper, and cement. Liquefied and gas conversions of coal have used. And there will come a day when there won't be enough of other energy sources, although that looks distant now, but coal will fill that void if other alternatives can't. And in all honesty it's up to the industry to find buyers and shouldn't be up to the gov't to shut them down. If the industry is obsolete it will die on it's own.

Keep hoping, van. I'm currently in a very red state that does have a significant coal industry. However, most of the state looks like it hasn't been prosperous since Ike.

These people simply need to move. No industry will re-locate where they are, and I'm figuring most are on some form of government assistance. Run down homes and trailers with yards full of junk cars or building materials...everywhere. For every decent house, there are 4 dumps. I guess nobody knows how to operate a paintbrush, hammer, or drive their crap to the dump. Trump can't help being lazy, ignorant, or both. Neither can the Democrats.

Trump will be able to do nothing for these decent folks, except kill their healthcare and/or cut their assistance.

Relocating, getting some skills, and some motivation would go a long ways towards improving their lives.

Oh, and religion is huge here. I guess Jesus doesn't want them to figure things out.

 

[vantexan]

Nope. You admit you couldn't read the whole thing, probably because it's boring. I stand by my point that if you can't quickly make your point it's not worthwhile in a forum like this. His argument is absurd and not worth debating.

Why do you get to decide what is absurd? If someone posts an attack on religion that uses language that's obviously slanted and biased, not objective, why aren't you critical of that? The post you just called absurd is a scholarly treatise in comparison but apparently pushes your buttons. This is the gulf between the right and left, and more times than not the left in my experience reacts with emotion, not objectivity. The clearest example is the trashing of business districts and angry, often violent protests when the left doesn't get it's way.

 

[It will be fine]

Why do you get to decide what is absurd? If someone posts an attack on religion that uses language that's obviously slanted and biased, not objective, why aren't you critical of that? The post you just called absurd is a scholarly treatise in comparison but apparently pushes your buttons. This is the gulf between the right and left, and more times than not the left in my experience reacts with emotion, not objectivity. The clearest example is the trashing of business districts and angry, often violent protests when the left doesn't get it's way.

A scholarly treatise that you wouldn't read in full. Calling science a religion is absurd. Teaching children the scientific method to understand their world through observation and experimentation is fundamental. Teaching children to blindly believe in fairy tales is unnecessary. To equate the two world views as equally valid is absurd.

 

[vantexan]

A scholarly treatise that you wouldn't read in full. Calling science a religion is absurd. Teaching children the scientific method to understand their world through observation and experimentation is fundamental. Teaching children to blindly believe in fairy tales is unnecessary. To equate the two world views as equally valid is absurd.

Seems to me from what I read there's some contention that secular humanism is a religion, which leaders of that movement claimed. When they realized their tactics to quash Christian thought from the public sphere were going to be used against them, humanism suddenly became science. Sounds to me it's an issue worthy of debate.