Point of order: Part of the reason you think it's unfair is that you're not paying attention to what's going on.
Alright, y'ready?
And there you go. In (1) I answer Jeeves in a discussion about the ways in which we can apply religious freedom. In (4) Iceaura tries to make a point. Dusting Iceaura in (5), my point is made in (7), responding to Jeeves' declaration of his own talent:
But as long as we're on the subject of talent, or whatever, consider, please, at some point I do concede that nothing I have to say will help any atheist who doesn't see the need to put some effort and learning into their critique. And maybe that sounds arrogant, but I shouldn't actually have to say the word Torcaso. Maybe if he hadn't stepped outside the context of what he retorted to, he wouldn't have gaffed up so embarrassingly badly. But, hey, by the time we get that all straightened out, whatever we were talking about before has been successfully evaded, so maybe it's not so embarrassing.
Call that more fool me, as I figured pointing Jeeves back to the issue in its context was a better pathway than asking if I was supposed to believe he's Iceaura. And like I said, Write4U had an opportunity back then to address the point but chose not to; as noted, he had a different priority, which was a two-bit, rubber-glue vendetta retort. This is observable: (8)
Write4U interjects in response to Tiassa↗.
You might find it unfair to expect someone to have a clue what they're getting into, but it only comes up because
W4U wants in↑ on another discussion, when I told Iceaura, an American who generally knows his history, that I should not have to remind him of Torcaso.
We should make the point that W4U wanting that discussion is just another distraction: Note that despite having been present for the bit about
Torcaso, he's trying to have the wrong discussion, as such.
See also the post earlier in this thread in which I respond to both Write4U and Iceaura in separate sections. In
#435↑ above, it's pretty clear who I'm talking to when I say, "This coming from an atheist who didn't know
Torcaso?"
And now
look at what you've done↗ by deliberately deciding to take part in the troll job. Go ahead and think it unfair; would you prefer I spit disgust, or maybe just laugh?
And what does that have to do with anything? Oh, right, you're postulating a different context in order to support your complaint. Here's the difference:
Iceaura is an American who generally knows his history, but apparently didn't, thus mocking the evolution of how his society came to protect atheism as religious freedom. If I noted Roe on viability, and Iceaura disdained and mocked the point for the sake of trolling, I would similarly posit that I ought not need remind him of Roe.
That was the point: He chose that path and got called out. Here we are, ten days, another thread, and how many posts later, and, I'm sorry, just
what do you think is unfair to whom?
• • •
Just out of curiosity, did it occur to you, at any point in that, to actually look up what we are talking about?
Here's a
2015 summary↗ from one of our neighbors:
• "Finally, no, Torcaso v. Watkins never ruled that atheism is a religion. Far from it. What it found and reaffirmed was that a Government requirement or demand that one believes in God is unconstitutional. The reason for that is simple. You should read your First Amendment to understand why."
Ask yourself how it works. How do you protect atheism according to freedom of religion? After all, atheism isn't a religion. You protect it by counting it among religions as a religious stance or outlook: One has the right to have no religion, declare no religion, or refuse to declare any or no religion.
Torcaso is the beginning of a juristic transition arising from dissent in a school bus case (
Everson) that arrives, seven years later, in
Epperson, at the explicit declaration of freedom from religion:
Following Everson, although the Supreme Court has approved some state support for parochial schools, it has refused to tolerate any governmental preference for religious views over non-religious views. In Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) the court unanimously struck down a Maryland law requiring notaries public to affirm a belief in God. Justice Black again wrote the decision, stating, "We renew our conviction that we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion."
Justice Black left no ambiguity: "We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs."
One year later, in Engel v. Vitale (1962), the Court voted 6 to 1 to invalidate a New York law mandating a "non-denominational" prayer at the beginning of the school day. Again, Justice Black wrote the opinion: "It is an unfortunate fact of history that when some of the very groups which had most strenuously opposed the established Church of England found themselves sufficiently in control of colonial governments in this country to write their own prayers into law, they passed laws making their own religion the official religion of their respective colonies. Indeed, as late as the time of the Revolutionary War, there were established churches in at least eight of the thirteen former colonies and established religions in at least four of the other five. But the successful Revolution against English political domination was shortly followed by intense opposition to the practice of establishing religion by law .... By the time of the adoption of the Constitution, our history shows that there was a widespread awareness among many Americans of the dangers of a union of Church and State .... The history of governmentally established religion, both in England and in this country, showed that whenever government had allied itself with one particular form of religion, the inevitable result had been that it had incurred the hatred, disrespect and even contempt of those who held contrary beliefs."
In 1968 a unanimous Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional an Arkansas law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools. Epperson v. State of Arkansas (1968) makes absolutely clear that the First Amendment guarantees "freedom from religion" as well as "freedom of religion." Emphasizing that "The antecedents of today's decision . . . are fundamental to freedom," Justice Arthur Goldberg explained, "Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no religion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion."
(Andrews↱)
____________________
Notes:
Andrews, John. "Lieberman's support for government-backed religion: an attack on the letter and spirit of the Constitution". World Socialist Web Site. 28 September 2000. WSWS.org. 22 August 2018. http://bit.ly/2NcrmAB