Yeah? JB may not be a first rate constitutional scholar - nononsense is neither , but he asks a sound question: As a matter of interest, the same question pops up concerning the French experience a few years after 1776. In view of the 'bloody festivities' surrounding their constitution of 1789, indeed scholarly work concerned itself with some of these questions.
I am an open minded inquirer i am not posing. By your tone it seems like i offended you which was not my intent. Just because i disagree with you or don't understand your views yet doesn't mean that once i understand them i won't change my mind. I think i have a lot to learn from everyone. So when i hear something that doesn't make sense to me, my first assumption is not thta the other person is crazy but maybe i just don't really understand them. I'm just trying to understand your belief system. So is it true you don't believe in satan? You simply have disdain for people that worship him? My understanding of the way the constitution was written is that there are many things that the original authors did not anticipate. I guess i'm wondering why they didn't write in restrictions on which religions were protected if it was important to them. Maybe you can point me to the writings you're talking about that convince you they would have chosen to exclude satansim if it occurred to them. oh yeah, it would only be fair for me to answer your questions about my beliefs. I am not a wiccan, i have never participated in their ceremonies. I am not an atheist but i am not a christian either. To be honest I'm not sure what to believe because I haven't seen any clear evidence that makes sense to me. It does seem like the world is quite wonderful and it is hard to believe it is one big happy accident. So i am searching for truth as i make my way through life and that is why i ask questions.
I suspect this self loathing and hatred continues from morning, to noon, and night. To determine insufficient data, suggests that one has a criteria upon which sufficient data would generate a truth of God. This concept of sufficient data would be a generation and product of human mind, and stands without a proof that there even is such a thing as sufficient data that would yield a proof of God. As such, the atheist is bound to a belief system to yield his proof, a belief system that undergoes itself no proof or certainty of instrumentation or calibration. This application of logic derived from experiences with senses and intellect would produce nothing but a sufficient data requirement that would be a proof of intellectual and sensual based, which would limit God to be provable by limited senses and intellect...which goes entirely against the concept of God who is not limited. This most irrational and insistent childish demand for sufficient data of a limited nature when tacking the concept of an Unlimited God is held with full faith and dogmatic rigidity by the atheist. The atheist willfully practice the art of ignoring his own limitations when discussing God, placing himself in a position of authority in order to demand sufficient data for a proof of God. This consistent and repetitive application of ignorance and limitations when approaching the concept of something Unlimted is indeed curious, and suggests some childhood wounding that blinds the intellect and thought process to the type of expanded vision that is the potential of an open heart and mind.
Consistent observation of self loathing by the atheists is a most scientific process that yields a most scientific conclusion.
Your belief, which you practice religiously, is that the religion of others has no meaning for you. If it had no meaning, you wouldn't be so negative toward religion. This is not the same as saying religion has no meaning, for clearly it does for the majority of human beings. For you it has a most negative meaning, for others it has a most positive meaning. This type of negative meaning is clearly not ignoring or simply not accepting or religion of others or God, it is willful and well developed hatred and animosity of God and religion. Clearly the religion of others has a deep and intense meaning for you, likely emotionally as deep and intense as the religion of others has for them, as you puke your bile and bitterness against these beliefs of others perpetually. Such strong emotional reaction to the beliefs of others indicates anything but neutrality. Hate is just as strong an emotional attachment to something as love. So you have your religion, i.e. loathing of the religion of others and unending hateful judgment of the belief system of others. What a hateful belief system you have. Not tolerance of the beliefs of others, not wonder at the beliefs of others, not curiosity of the beliefs of others....but disdain for the beliefs of others. Spin it any way you want stu, but your hatred and loathing are palpable. Surely not the hallmark of a scientific nor objective detached mind to be filled with such emotional attachment and reactions.
..............yeah, yeah ...blahdy blah. Instead of shitting yourself yet again, tell us what happened to your third option? Perhaps you could explain how any of that other rubbish you've come out with has anything to do with theidea that not having belief is a belief...on the other hand, probably better for your own well being if you didn't. It's sounding more and more like you might be tipping over the edge.