Us Courts Establish Government As The Official Religion Of United States.

Sorry I didn't know I needed to list every religion in the world, that might take awhile. I just gave one example.

What you have underlined is not my definition of a religion but the primary definition of a dictionary, I forget which one, but they are all mostly the same.
It seems you don't want to recognize common dictionaries whose purpose is to allow us to understand the common usage of words.

I asked you for a definition from a specific dictionary that supports your contention that the government is a religion. Do you have one?

Then you supply a quote from Study.com. which uses a very broad definition of religion. Very broad, I have never heard of Confucianism defined as a religion.
Anyone is free to define any word any way they want, so that would effectively end our discussion.
You define government as a religion and that is that.

So as I have stated before if YOU wish to define government as a religion, so be it, I can't argue with your definition except to say that it is ludicrous (no insult intended).

 

I am not really interested in pursuing this much further but I will clarify a few points.

You have chosen to define religion one way, I choose another. Neither are wrong but anytime you choose to define any word in a certain manner to support an argument or view, the definition must be in accordance with accepted standards via the premise of your argument. In other words the definition can not be designed to prove the premise.

You believe any belief to be a religion, I don't. As that is what you believe you are bound by your religious belief in that belief, I am not.
Your religion is that the government is a religion.

I don't believe any definition that allows everything to fit its definition, as that is not a definition at all.

Finally I don't have to prove anything, you are the one who started a thread which accuses the U.S. government of being religious, which is in direct conflict with the Constitution, which you will probably claim to be a religious document anyway.

Fine. I suggest you initiate court action against the government, wait that's the government....sooooo...just what are you going to do about this religious U.S. government?

Just another nutty right wing conspiracy theory that you can only support by using your definition which is designed to prove the premise.
You can take all the credit for it you want.

 

I'll try one more time.

There are different ways to explain the meaning of a word. One way is by the use of reportive definitions:

A second way is by use of stipualtive definitions:

So good so far, I believe. I am using the reportive definition of religion, you are using a stipulative definition.

I quoted you below to illustrate how you are applying a stipulative definition.

So I am not skewing anything, I am using a reportive definition, you are using a stipulative one. Nothing wrong so far. You are stipulating a definition of religion that you claim is a philosophical definition as opposed to the ordinary reportive meaning of the word.

But stipulative definitions can cause confusion.

You are using a stipulative definition of religion instead of the common reportive one to prove a controversial statement for which you have not offered any other proof.

 

So you didn't use a stipulative, dictionary, (lexical, reportive) definition, what kind did you use?

"Government is religion."

At this point I could post dictionary, lexical, reportive definitions of both religion and government, but you apparently have your own definitions of both which are not dictionary, lexical, reportive, or stipulative. There are others types of definitions, which one are you using for religion and government and are you offering examples, or proofs that your definitions bear merit?

 

Not really.

I reviewed #95, 111, 116, 117, and 121.
So?

Well here is the title of this thread, started by you:

You are correct it doesn't say government is religion.
It says "Us Courts Establish Government As The Official Religion Of United States".
Excuse me for paraphrasing.

So are you are saying that the U.S courts have established government as the official religion of the United States, but in fact government is not the official religion of the United States?

I take it that your pointing to post #95, 111, 116, 117, and 121; is your way of answering my question:

I am asking for the type of definition you are using, not the contents of the definition.

I'll check back later.

 

As you think I am going off topic, let's go back to your original post.

What exactly do you mean here, Congress is usurping religious freedom? That's how I read it. Please clarify if I'm wrong.

Please specify what laws how and what rights they suppress.

Please specify what laws assume jurisdiction over religious matters, and what recent laws the U.S government has made against blacks, women, and gays. I understand about the treatment of blacks and women in the original Constitution, please cite recent laws made against blacks, women, and gays that have not been addresses by the Amendments.

Now you do cite one example so let's look at your portrayal of it which I suppose is meant to illustrate the above quote, is that correct?

Are you saying that religious law has more authority than U.S. Constitutional law?

When Bowman and Cryer were refused service and told that they were an "abomination" by Aaron Klein, they filed a a consumer complaint with the Oregon Department of Justice.

When the ODJ sent the complaint to the Kleins, asking for a response, Aaron Klein posted the complaint to Facebook with the couple's name, address and a comment:

As a result Bowman and Cryer received death threats and were verbally attacked by conservative media and anti gay groups.The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Statistics found:

Note the precedent under the same law in which a Christian employee received almost three times the amount.

So I don't understand, please clarify, how this example show that the U.S Courts have established Government as the official Religion of the United States?
Especially in light of the fact that it was the Oregon State Bureau of Labor and Statistics not the Federal Government, the fact that the same law was used to uphold a Christian's right to not be discriminated against or harassed, and the fact that no mention is made of the Kliens' discriminating against a gay religion, whatever that is?

​

Are you saying that the u.s. government is a religion?

 

As you think I am going off topic, let's go back to your original post.

What exactly do you mean here, Congress is usurping religious freedom? That's how I read it. Please clarify if I'm wrong.

Please specify what laws how and what rights they suppress.

Please specify what laws assume jurisdiction over religious matters, and what recent laws the U.S government has made against blacks, women, and gays. I understand about the treatment of blacks and women in the original Constitution, please cite recent laws made against blacks, women, and gays that have not been addresses by the Amendments.

Now you do cite one example so let's look at your portrayal of it which I suppose is meant to illustrate the above quote, is that correct?

Are you saying that religious law has more authority than U.S. Constitutional law?

When Bowman and Cryer were refused service and told that they were an "abomination" by Aaron Klein, they filed a a consumer complaint with the Oregon Department of Justice.

When the ODJ sent the complaint to the Kleins, asking for a response, Aaron Klein posted the complaint to Facebook with the couple's name, address and a comment:

As a result Bowman and Cryer received death threats and were verbally attacked by conservative media and anti gay groups.The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Statistics found:

Note the precedent under the same law in which a Christian employee received almost three times the amount.

So I don't understand, please clarify, how this example show that the U.S Courts have established Government as the official Religion of the United States?
Especially in light of the fact that it was the Oregon State Bureau of Labor and Statistics not the Federal Government, the fact that the same law was used to uphold a Christian's right to not be discriminated against or harassed, and the fact that no mention is made of the Kliens' discriminating against a gay religion, whatever that is?

Please specify what laws assume jurisdiction over religious matters and what laws establish "The government through its agencies and courts clearly established itself as the national religion..." - Zzap

 

Moving on:

So is this the crux of your argument, just to clarify, the government is choosing one religion over another? Specifically what laws are you referring to? We see in the previuos example that the same law was used to stop discrimination against gays and against Christians. So you must have a different law(s) in mind.

So do you feel that the law was applied correctly in the case of the Christian, but incorrectly in the case of gays? Or are you against the law completely (659A.403 - 2)

And how exactly did they do this , please cite the complete laws that concern you. Is it only Oregon 659A.403?

 

Now we'll go on to your next example:

So again you say, "the government under its established religion". I do not except the premise. You have to convince me that your premise "the government under its established religion" is correct. Which is what you have been attempting to do.

She got in trouble for discriminating against other people in her public office.

I have no idea what that means. Are you saying we can discriminate against someone if it saves a life?

Here again you state that "the government has established itself as the new national religion of the united states". Then you go on to say that the government is "protecting one religion matching its own while simultaneously violating another religion opposed to its own" (your bold)
Please clarify by stating specific laws, court cases, and, precedents other than your two examples.

Okay.

Please clarify by stating recent specific laws, court cases, other than your two examples, precedent outside of the Amendments.

Please clarify by stating recent specific laws, court cases, other than your two examples, precedent outside of the Amendments.

Please clarify by stating recent specific laws, court cases, other than your two examples, precedent outside of the Amendments.

So again are saying that religious law has precedent over the U.S.and State Constitutions and the laws enacted by those elected governments?

Let's put on hold our discussion of whether the U.S. Government is a religion for the moment and by going back to your original post please answer my question:

Does religious law have precedent over the U.S.and State Constitutions and the laws enacted by those elected governments?​

 

You haven't answered my question,

Does religious law have precedent over the U.S.and State Constitutions and the laws enacted by those elected governments?

A simple yes or no will do.

Sorry, I don't understand this.

The Constitution is a living document that forms a national government designed to protect and promote the general welfare of the citizens of the United States of America.

So what's your point?

 

Below I reposted the questions I have asked you and that you haven't clearly answered. Some only require a simple yes or no, some are repeats that address specific things you have posted, and some ask for court cases, laws, etc.​

1. So are you are saying that the U.S courts have established government as the official religion of the United States, but in fact government is not the official religion of the United States?

2. I am asking for the type of definition you are using, not the contents of the definition in regards to religion and government.

3. Are you saying that the u.s. government is a religion?

4. What exactly do you mean here, Congress is usurping religious freedom? That's how I read it. Please clarify if I'm wrong.

5. Please specify what laws how and what rights the government suppresses.

6. Please specify what laws assume jurisdiction over religious matters, and what recent laws the U.S government has made against blacks, women, and gays. I understand about the treatment of blacks and women in the original Constitution, please cite recent laws made against blacks, women, and gays that have not been addressed by the Amendments.

7. Are you saying that religious law has more authority than U.S. Constitutional law?

8. So I don't understand, please clarify, how this example (Bowman and Cryer verses Klien) shows that the U.S Courts have established Government as the official Religion of the United States?
Especially in light of the fact that it was the Oregon State Bureau of Labor and Statistics not the Federal Government, the fact that the same law was used to uphold a Christian's right to not be discriminated against or harassed, and the fact that no mention is made of the Kliens' discriminating against a gay religion, whatever that is?

9. So is this the crux of your argument, just to clarify, the government is choosing one religion over another? Specifically what laws are you referring to? We see in the previous example that the same law was used to stop discrimination against gays and against Christians. So you must have a different law(s) in mind.

10. So do you feel that the law was applied correctly in the case of the Christian, but incorrectly in the case of gays? Or are you against the law completely (659A.403 - 2)

11. And how exactly did they do this, (establish themselves as the national religion) please cite the complete laws that concern you. Is it only Oregon 659A.403?

12. Are you saying we can discriminate against someone if it saves a life?

13. Here again you state that "the government has established itself as the new national religion of the united states". Then you go on to say that the government is "protecting one religion matching its own while simultaneously violating another religion opposed to its own" (your bold)
Please clarify by stating specific laws, court cases, and, precedents other than your two examples.

14. Please clarify by stating recent specific laws, (that violate Christians and Muslims) court cases, precedents, other than your two examples, outside of the Amendments.

15. Please clarify by stating recent specific laws, (that establish that government refuses to make accommodations for its own people) court cases, precedent, other than your two examples, outside of the Amendments.

16. Please clarify by stating recent specific laws, (showing that the government is in premeditated willful violation and breach of contract since it did not make provisions outside itself to adjudicate our religious matters), precedent and or court cases, other than your two examples outside of the Amendments.

17. So again are saying that religious law has precedent over the U.S.and State Constitutions and the laws enacted by those elected governments?