The Supreme Court Fight is On. The Divide Worsens

Of course not. I don’t associate with militant anything

Atheism fundamentally cannot discriminate based on religious beliefs because a core structure does not exist. No scriptures or holy text or agreed upon ‘heres how you act’ bullshit that religions have.

The very definition of an atheist doesn’t allow them to have a religious basis

It was a poor choice of words and I agree with the whole struggling identity thing.
The perception of the left when the images infused and become associated ANTIFA goons and Lena Dunham, it leaves those in the middle with a feeling that they don’t want to be associated with that.
Then the right has Trump. Which centrists also do not want to associate with either. Where do centrists go?
It’s a confusing time to be in the middle…
I know nobody more down the middle than you… How do you feel?
Not who to vote for per se, but identity has become so central what identity do you find appealing?

They can hate and detest the beliefs of others can they not?

Sure they can. It doesn’t mean that hatred is rooted in a religious backing (one that would actually mirror the scenario of refusing service on religious grounds).

The hypothetical did not get into the roots.

Why do you waste so much time on meaningless shit?
My point is that discrimination can come in many forms… Your counter is that atheists cannot descriminate?
That’s one raw, exposed nerve you have…

Three things. 1) The pendulum swings both ways; 2) Trump’s presidency itself has probably created the greatest possibility of a middle third party in over a century. I could see a possibility of Trump ending up running as an independent next time, but we also have a situation where there could be an alliance between centrist in each party forming a coalition; 3) The conservative nature of the U.S. government (conservative in the sense that it is difficult to make radical changes without support across the board, and that the house of representatives is completely re-elected every 2 years.

However, I have a fear that the electoral system, combined with Republicans owning state legislatures may end up producing a majority congress with a significantly minority of the vote. When that happens, I think people will be emboldened to actual revolution. If we get a house that is say 55% republican on the basis of 45% of the voters support, it would create some new tensions IMO.

The Trump presidency has certainly shook up the system, which from 30,000 and hindsight, may prove to have been a much needed shake up.

As to whether it will break you say, your guess is as a good as mine.

You made a comment to me after I said something to not you?

My comment was specifically about allowing one to discriminate based on ones religion if the religion allows for it.

You then said

Which isn’t accurate.

SCOTUS allowed for the rejection of work based on religious grounds. Atheists, by definition, have no religious grounds.

My point (as I very clearly put it) is that atheists cannot discriminate based on religious grounds.

Lol :wink:

They can discriminate based on atheistic grounds.

What are atheist grounds? Serious question

Well, if an atheist father tells his daughter “I don’t want you to date that Christian boy, what with his sky fairy beliefs.” Is he discriminating based upon religious or atheistic grounds? Don’t really care, just curious.

1 Like

I’m not sure if I’d call this religious grounds, but maybe? Maybe like anti religious grounds.

But as atheism does not preach/expect/whatever discrimination of anyone or anything, it can’t be on atheistic grounds. I’d also normally say it’s not religious grounds as his religion isn’t telling him to discriminate, but I’m not sure what else I’d call it.

Maybe anti religious grounds, but I wouldn’t really feel strongly enough about it to defend it. I’d just say the dad is being a dick.

1 Like

Could an athiest possibly be a conscientious objector if they believed that a war was being motivated on religious grounds, or if the U.S. attacked an atheistic nation citing that nations atheism?

Perhaps he’s just trying to avoid conversion in a foxhole? Eh?

Well sure. A religion isn’t a requirement to have a conscience? But his views in that matter wouldn’t be dictated by his atheism. Atheism doesn’t preach anything to dictate.

Apologies. I was at a bad wedding. It’s rude to get on your phone at a wedding

Congrats!

Edit: Wait, to be clear, I was talking about the theoretical atheist Mert was asking about. And I was playing with the saying, if anybody was wondering. I realize atheists can fight in wars without converting!

1 Like

Full disclosure, I took it as a jab. Rereading my apologies

Edit: just such a shitty wedding lol

1 Like

No apologies required. I thought that might be the case after rereading, heh. Just wanted to make sure you realized I wasn’t directing that at you (or anyone here). Gosh, the last wedding I went to was the same. And I couldn’t stand the bride, anyways. Sucks that it was mine.

Just joking!

1 Like

No it hasn’t. Only interpreted differently.

Bigotrt comes in degrees with degrees of toleration?