Judge: West Virginia can't require incarcerated atheist to participate in religious programming
A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that the state corrections agency can’t force an incarcerated atheist and secular humanist to participate in religiously-affiliated programming to be eligible for parole.
The fact it’s had to go that far is psychotic. Country was founded on freedom of religion. What do the Christians do? “Oh this means freedom from other religions” and proceed to take systemically take everything over and force their religion down everyones throats. While at the same time claiming that the LGBTQ community is the ones doing the shoving.
Single most dangerous cult on the planet is Christianity.
yeah, it seems what they meant is freedom to be a christian without the pope and absolutely nothing else. no nonbelievers, no non-abrahamics, hell, not even any abrahamic believers who believe in other religions. protestant, mormon, or cringe catholic, take your pick or go to literal hell.
and the best part is when they use the excuse of religious freedom as a shield for their bigotry. like i’m sorry, if your holy book literally calls for gays to be stoned to death that’s a call to violence, it doesn’t deserve to be protected or tolerated.
No, what they meant was freedom to worship whatever religion you please.
It’s the people who have come since that have corrupted it. And recently too. If you go back to the 70s or 80s, religious tolerance was pretty common in both political parties. One of those just has happened to shift violently to the right, and I mean violently. In doing so they’ve weaponized their religion and are now twisting the words of the constitution.
I feel like this is inaccurate. What other religions were on hand in the late 1700s? The native religions, of course, but the white guys did not care about that.
Of course there was an emphasis on avoiding dependence on any one organized religion. That was one way of keeping power in the right hands.
And in the 1970s and 1980s, it depends where in the US, but in many places or was and is very common to be Christian. If there is an strong majority, there’s no need to explicitly weaponize because society itself is already pushing your agenda. But that doesn’t mean harm wasn’t caused.
I feel like this is inaccurate.
Your feelings don’t matter.
What other religions were on hand in the late 1700s?
Catholicism, Protestantism, Anglicanism, Congregationalism, Baptists, Presbyterians, Jewish, Muslim, etc. Educate yourself before making monumentally dumb statements.
Of course there was an emphasis on avoiding dependence on any one organized religion. That was one way of keeping power in the right hands.
Patently untrue. Church of England was steamrolling with power and the Holy Roman Empire still existed. Again, just because you are ignorant doesn’t change reality.
And in the 1970s and 1980s, it depends where in the US, but in many places or was and is very common to be Christian.
I don’t recall saying otherwise.
If there is an strong majority, there’s no need to explicitly weaponize because society itself is already pushing your agenda. But that doesn’t mean harm wasn’t caused.
Again, complete bullshit. Most Southern states are currently predominately Christian and they’re screaming at the top of their lungs that they’re the ones being religiously prosecuted.
Could you like, oh I dunno, shut the fuck up when you don’t know what you’re talking about? Kthx.
I hope you get up on the other side of the bed tomorrow. It sounds like you’re going through a rough time in life, but with luck perhaps it’s only a one day phenomenon.
Also, if you want to troll, try to do a better job than that. I got kind of bored reading it.
What a typical religious response. Have your nonsense called out for what it is, so you lash out at people without bothering to respond to the points made.
Thanks for proving me right.
MicroWave
Jase
b3nsn0w