Changes

:::There may be some truth to that.  Didn't the Supreme Court go astray when it regarded "atheism" and "Christianity" as just two religions among many instead of regarding Christianity and its holy book as the basis of the United States government? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 23:44, 26 August 2015 (EDT)

:::There may be some truth to that.  Didn't the Supreme Court go astray when it regarded "atheism" and "Christianity" as just two religions among many instead of regarding Christianity and its holy book as the basis of the United States government? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 23:44, 26 August 2015 (EDT)

::::Well, I see that people believe the Supreme Court ruled Secular Humanism as a religion in the Torcaso v. Watkins trial ''(I'm thinking that's what you're referring to?)''. (Opinion:) It seems that Humanism would more appropriately labeled a "philosophy" or a "way of life", but the SCOTUS shouldn't ever rule it to be a religion. In Torcaso v. Watkins, they granted Humanist organizations religious-based tax exemptions. ''In my own opinion'', that shouldn't be the case, because it denies logic; on the flip-side, I don't understand why religious-based organizations get tax exemptions or protections, anyway. I don't know what the most appropriate course of action is, but if we're going to tax organizations, then it seems they should all be taxed fairly - whether religious, political, philanthropic, educational, entertainment, social, etc. The only fair alternative is to not tax any of them.

::::Well, I see that people believe the Supreme Court ruled Secular Humanism as a religion in the Torcaso v. Watkins trial ''(I'm thinking that's what you're referring to?)''. (Opinion:) It seems that Humanism would more appropriately be labeled a "philosophy" or a "way of life", but the SCOTUS shouldn't ever rule it to be a religion. In Torcaso v. Watkins, they granted Humanist organizations religious-based tax exemptions. ''In my own opinion'', that shouldn't be the case, because it denies logic; on the flip-side, I don't understand why religious-based organizations get tax exemptions or protections, anyway. I don't know what the most appropriate course of action is, but if we're going to tax organizations, then it seems they should all be taxed fairly - whether religious, political, philanthropic, educational, entertainment, social, etc. The only fair alternative is to not tax any of them.

::::''In my own opinion (which is irrelevant), same-sex marriage may be Constitutional, but I don't see how ObamaCare is. It's not that I have any vendetta against the ACA, and I've seen it has helped many people, it's just that I don't see how it's considered Constitutional to enforce it. Being human, the SCOTUS is susceptible to mistakes, too, but America has a tendency to learn from our mistakes and rectify them.'' However, considering that Freemasonry is the basis of the US government (which is a pretty inclusive group), I can understand why the SCOTUS wouldn't have considered the Bible as the cornerstone. I've read some of the Freemason documents, and they don't take kindly to Atheists. However, even though all of the Founders were religious of some sort (whether Christians or Deists), establishing a secular nation was the only way to protect Theists of all sorts, as to avoid preferential treatment. It seems that even the Supreme Court Justices were ignorant of the meaning of the words; else, they deliberately ignored the meaning to protect people.

::::''In my own opinion (which is irrelevant), same-sex marriage may be Constitutional, but I don't see how ObamaCare is. It's not that I have any vendetta against the ACA, and I've seen it has helped many people, it's just that I don't see how it's considered Constitutional to enforce it. Being human, the SCOTUS is susceptible to mistakes, too, but America has a tendency to learn from our mistakes and rectify them.'' However, considering that Freemasonry is the basis of the US government (which is a pretty inclusive group), I can understand why the SCOTUS wouldn't have considered the Bible as the cornerstone. I've read some of the Freemason documents, and they don't take kindly to Atheists. However, even though all of the Founders were religious of some sort (whether Christians or Deists), establishing a secular nation was the only way to protect Theists of all sorts, as to avoid preferential treatment. It seems that even the Supreme Court Justices were ignorant of the meaning of the words; else, they deliberately ignored the meaning to protect people.

::::Still, is it wise to keep this perspective on this website? Andy thinks highly of himself, but this article (and other assertions on the site) seems kind of embarrassing. It's certainly their choice, whatever they decide, but I try to promote reason, even where people disagree with me. I hope this hasn't caused any ill feelings. [[User:Humanperson|Humanperson]] ([[User talk:Humanperson|talk]]) 00:41, 27 August 2015 (EDT)

::::Still, is it wise to keep this perspective on this website? Andy thinks highly of himself, but this article (and other assertions on the site) seems kind of embarrassing. It's certainly their choice, whatever they decide, but I try to promote reason, even where people disagree with me. I hope this hasn't caused any ill feelings. [[User:Humanperson|Humanperson]] ([[User talk:Humanperson|talk]]) 00:41, 27 August 2015 (EDT)