I see you are unwilling to quote the full text, and it is obvious why. Ducking argumentation doesn't make your insults about ignorance look goo, btw.

But ok, explain to me the religions atheism and theism.

Ok, so atheism and theism are religions...

...but atheists can't make arguments for contraception like religious people can.

Can be understood in some contexts as religions

... in the same context as above.

Do you deny this reality?

You're not actually arguing anything, which is the hilarious part. You can make as many analogies as you want, but the reality is clear.

I never claimed that theism can be seen as a religion. I don't know whether it can be, but it certainly hasn't yet.

Ok, I will try and summarize: Atheism can be understood in some contexts as religion. Therefore your quote that "atheists can't make arguments against contraception like religious people can" is "reality".

I am, however, "wrong", "ignorant" and "not using my brain properly" if I say that atheism is not religion, but atheists can be religious.

This coincides with my statement; that atheism is not a religion, but that atheists can be religious. It does not coincide with the statement that atheism is religion.

Where did I reject the claim that atheists can be religious?

No. It says that atheism is a religion in specific contexts. In the other thread, I even quoted case law that explicitly says "atheism is [this person's] religion."

You didn't, you rejected "atheism is not a religion, atheists can be religious". Well, rejected is a stretch I guess. You have called me "ignorant" and stated that I am "not using my brain properly.

Anyways, I actually read the relevant supreme court verdicts (supreme court verdicts being thankfully brief after all, so this is not a big thing to do). They do explicitly recognize that atheism can be a religion, still the wording is quite clear that it does so merely in specific regard to the first amendment and it also recognizes that nonreligion must be offered equal treatment (in specific regard to an atheist who calls himself nonreligious).

So basically: The supreme court has ruled atheism as religion just as strongly as it has ruled it nonreligion in regards to the first amendment and subsequently the establishment clause. It seems an awful lot like the supreme court, when verdicts are read as a whole, agree with me. But hey, I'm just "ignorant" and "not engaging my brain properly".

Vintage Aaron.

I dont' think your argument holds. They recognized "nonreligious" as a religion - as they recognized athiesm as a religion - which is different thing from saying that "athiesm is a nonreligion". The point here is that it doesn't matter what you call yourself, athiests, nonreligious, agnostic, christian, muslim, you get the establishment clause protections. It doesn't try to rule on any philosophical differences between different terms, doesn't claim one term should apply for another, it merely is granting legal protections to anything vaguely in this domain.

I don't think "(if??) atheism is not a religion, athiests can be religious" is a sentence that makes any sense in this legal context. I don't know what you are trying to say by it (as I said in the other thread). And I'm not convinced I see where Aaron has rejected this thing I don't understand.

Where did I reject that statement?

That, I did do. And apparently, you deserved it.

Right. So what the heck are you babbling about in the sentences after this?

This makes no sense. It doesn't look like a legal argument or a conclusion from a legal argument, and more like the babbling of someone who is ignorant and not engaging his brain properly. I read this as "If we ignore the actual argumentation in the verdict, then it agrees with me."

Let me quote back the start of this part of the conversation

As far as I can tell, you've accused me of an "implicit premise" but you have provided no backing to explain how this premise is used in my argumentation.

I've also affirmed (as I always have in this conversation) that atheism is a religion insofar as the law is concerned. At least I've gotten you that far, but beyond that... who knows what you're thinking...

Being right?

Being the kind of person who has never considered doing this:

Nah. I've considered it and done it many, many times. But what you can't see can't inform your opinions in any realistic way. So I don't blame you for your error.

My goodness, your relentless insults on this forum are you...holding back?

I'd use the word "selective." And "relentless" is an adjective probably closer-tied to the availability heuristic than any careful data analysis. Just like your analysis of my pseudo-interactions with Mightyboosh.

I have to admit, I didn't anticipate the "the enormous number of insults I spew are actually me being selective and editing out insults many, many times" angle. Impressive. Well thank the lord we don't have to see the unedited version.

We know it's on three

Would Davis consider that a same sex couple were Christian-married after they have obtained a secular marriage license from the state? No, of course she wouldn't, a secular marriage license is not a Christian marriage, something I believe Davis fully holds to be true. But this undermines her whole position. When she signs her name, she confirms that couples meet the legal requirements to receive said license from the state, and this is all that she is actually doing. This is in no way endorsement of what she herself would consider to be 'Christian marriage', and she would surely testify to this herself. The whole thing is really nutty.

I thought that an interesting piece of this story as that Davis is a Democrat.

I wonder if the people who support Davis from a legal standpoint understand that they are supporting the legal right of clerk in a similar situation to refuse to sign marriage documents based on his nonreligion (since nonreligion is also protected under the first amendment now).

That's the problem with abusing principles to get to a specific conclusion. Principles are general, specific conclusions are not.

This argument doesn't really work.

* It's far from clear whether Davis holds that there are two categories of marriage.
* The idea that her signature merely confirms that the couples meet legal requirements doesn't automatically follow. It makes your argument simple if it's true, but it's not. The moral culpability tied to identity is deeper than that. For example, if a death warrant cannot be executed without the signature of the governor, then there's a reasonable sense in which the governor, upon signing the warrant, bears moral culpability for the execution of the death warrant. It's not just paperwork. It's paperwork that leads to moral outcomes.

You can make a similar argument about chain of command in any hierarchical structure. If you morally object to something, but someone higher up the chain told you to do it, does it automatically shield you from moral culpability if you follow the command? You're just following orders, right?

Legally, a non-religious objection is not the same as a religious objection. I don't know why you would think this is the case unless you really didn't understand the original ruling that you think you're citing.

I seem to recall that this is the case. Its either in her job description, her swearing-in oath, or maybe on the document itself, that her signature simply means the couple meets the legal requirements. As far as I know, nobody in the Davis camp has denied this. I think her position has been "the signature means something more to me"