1. Study: Religion is Good for Kids

Comment #34975 by InManhattan on April 25, 2007 at 7:47 pm

To understand this study, substitute "subservient to authority" for "better behaved and adjusted".

Some drugs can also put the user in a state of Nirvana, pure 'holiness' if ever there was one.

2. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31096 by InManhattan on April 11, 2007 at 12:53 am

"The free exercise clause prohibits government from restricting the free exercise of religion."

That's certain. But it does more inasmuch as it obviates a defense to 'illegality' that's premised on religious duty.

Possible state action: mental/physical abuse as inherent to or derivative of being forced to church against one's will. Other possibilities abound.

3. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31092 by InManhattan on April 11, 2007 at 12:17 am

"Elaborate please."

If the parent's defense is that his/her religion demands forcing the child to church against his will, Reynolds and progeny will undermine that defense (at least by analogy).

On the polygamy issue:
"So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances." Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166, 167 (I am assuming you have access to Lexis of Westlaw.)

"Barring some kind of abuse...."
By initiating an action, the child is already claiming abuse or something worse. If the claim is cognizable under the facts, the parent's religious duty defense will be useless. Broadly speaking, you are right that courts - even the great 9th - generally defer to parental interests.

"...makes their minor child go to church" isn't quite the same as "forc[ing]" the child.

4. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31082 by InManhattan on April 10, 2007 at 11:09 pm

"The First Amendment does not apply to what parents do with their children."

Actually, it does if the parent, as in this, case predicates his/her defense on religion. By your logic, the First Amendment will not apply on how many wives a Mormon can marry.

Battery is certainly available but it's not inconsistent with a First Amendment claim.

"Parents get to raise their minor children as they see fit."

You know that sentence is not true.

5. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31074 by InManhattan on April 10, 2007 at 10:11 pm

"Presently I'm in a discussion based on this video. My question is, does a parent have the legal right to force a child of lets say 14 years of age to go to church against the childs wishes. U.S. court precedence would be nice." Gene Goldring

Gene Goldring,

Under current interpretation of the US Constitution, a minor cannot be forced to attend religious service against his/her wish. Mandating religious practice for a minor violates her First Amendment rights (specifically, the second prong known as the Free Exercise Clause).

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) articulated a belief-action distinction, which its progeny adopted. As Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) explained, religious belief enjoys absolute protection from First Amendment scrutiny but - pay attention - religious action does not. There are many other cases I can cite but I think these two are enough. Can you think of an important rationale for the government's interest in limiting the scope of acceptable religious action? Hint: What if I robbed a bank and claimed the Holy Spirit directed me to do it? What if I sacrificed my child and claimed my god, "the great juju at the bottom of the sea", inspired me to do so?

Does this make sense? If not, I'd be willing to explain it again.

6. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31029 by InManhattan on April 10, 2007 at 5:24 pm

You think this is something? Wait until I tell my parents that I've become an atheist. My parents are extremely gentle. Yet, I bet you their reaction will be so explosive it will register at least 8.0 mag on the Richter scale. Hopefully, it won't trigger some derivative catastrophe. But, guess what? I can't wait to tell them. If you love your family and friends, you owe them the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The 'closet' thing has never made sense to me. I wear my atheism as a badge of honour. There is only one life. I refuse to spend a second of it in lies and cowardice. (I am not judging those whose circumstances require staying in the closet.)

I love NY! City of Infidels!

7. Religion useless to Dawkins

Comment #29566 by InManhattan on April 3, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Relax, ladies and gentlemen.

8. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29129 by InManhattan on April 1, 2007 at 7:21 pm

I welcome all opportunities to attack postmodernism. It's the worst 'intellectual' movement ever devised.

9. Richard Dawkins: Author of the Year!

Comment #28280 by InManhattan on March 28, 2007 at 3:41 pm

Congratulations, Prof. Dawkins!

10. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #25859 by InManhattan on March 15, 2007 at 1:35 pm

I am tempted to laugh.

11. When They Came for the Homosexuals...

Comment #25857 by InManhattan on March 15, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Does anybody here know an excellent artist around NY? I have an idea about this whole issue and would like to commission a work.

12. A 'Sad First' in the History of the Congress

Comment #25853 by InManhattan on March 15, 2007 at 1:15 pm

I think this is a good idea. Let's see how many politicians are actually suffering from the god delusion. If they are honest, we might be in for a surprise.

13. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #24977 by InManhattan on March 9, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Science is neither a moral system nor a political one. It is primarily a method. On the other hand, religion claims to be, and often is, an ontological, epistemological, moral and political system.

The fact that some scientists advocated eugenics is not the fault of science. To argue otherwise would imply confusion of 'facilitation' with 'prescription'. If science makes the atomic bomb possible, it does not thereby follow that science is responsible for Nagasaki and Hiroshima. A necessary condition for something is not always a sufficient condition for it. On the contrary, religion specifically - textually - advocates genocide, rape, slavery, misogynism, and other ills that shock evolved moral sensibilities. Ironically, it is the ambition and scope of religion's claims that tie it with this knot.

Consequently, the evils of scientists cannot be attributed to science per se, but the evils of religionists are those of religion (except in situations where the particular evil is unambiguously prohibited by the religion in question and where the religion's scripture or tradition does not advocate that evil somewhere in its corpus).

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf fails to understand these critical distinctions.

14. U.S. Mint goof creates 'Godless dollars'

Comment #24841 by InManhattan on March 8, 2007 at 8:25 pm

Sometimes, mistakes have a way of anticipating the future.