Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Freedom From Religion
Freedom of Religion (FR) also means Freedom From Religion (FFR). When at least one religion is permitted to enjoy privileges in the public sphere, there is defacto coercion and discrimination in political and economic spaces - something that no free society should tolerate. Therefore, the U.S. ought to strictly prohibit religious speech and practice in public spaces.
Why not just allow all religious speech and practice?
If more people actually understood what religion is, it would be debunk and ridiculed just like witchcraft, atrology and palm-reading.
Freedom of Religion (FR) also means Freedom From Religion (FFR). When at least one religion is permitted to enjoy privileges in the public sphere, there is defacto coercion and discrimination in political and economic spaces - something that no free society should tolerate.
Okay, makes sense so far...
Therefore, the U.S. ought to strictly prohibit religious speech and practice in public spaces.
Huh?
Why not just allow all religious speech and practice?
If more people actually understood what religion is, it would be debunk and ridiculed just like witchcraft, atrology and palm-reading.
Except that doesn't happen.
Huh?
To prevent religious coercion and privilege, freedom of religious exercise and expression must be applied privately. I'm willing to allow limited religious expression in public, such as wearing a crucifix, but there is a problem when the Republican party protects and pushes for legislation that privileges religious groups.
So maybe I should revise my statement. Religious speech and practice, in public, should be regulated, and better regulated than it is today. And, religious speech should be prohibited in political campaigns and public debates (like Rick Santorum).
What distinguishes dumb arguments based on religion from dumb arguments based on any other false presumption?
free society? except your suggesting that people would no longer be free to be openly religous. this reminds me of a few guys active in the 40's 
What distinguishes dumb arguments based on religion from dumb arguments based on any other false presumption?
Well, religious arguments are part of a class of arguments that rely on, at some point, empirically untestable arguments. If I tried to disprove transubstantiation by using scientific instruments to test if the wine, while it was used in ritual, turned in to blood, no Catholic would or or could be persuaded by the test results.
Which gets back to my point about religious expression and politics. Unlike the theory that aliens are living on the moon, religious arguments enjoy certain privileges from criticism that are easily abused.
free society? except your suggesting that people would no longer be free to be openly religous. this reminds me of a few guys active in the 40's
Regulating free religious expression in public is essential to be free to opt out of religion, without sacrificing the political, social and economic privileges enjoyed by adherents of a dominant religion.
ok so what benefit do u recieve from this?
Because I firmly believe that everyone has a right to believe what they want without being opressed by people like you.
Also if this was put into practise I can see a few nations who might find it incredibly insulting and thus at its worst case scenario insite holy war
The Great Eye wrote:What distinguishes dumb arguments based on religion from dumb arguments based on any other false presumption?
Well, religious arguments are part of a class of arguments that rely on, at some point, empirically untestable arguments. If I tried to disprove transubstantiation by using scientific instruments to test if the wine, while it was used in ritual, turned in to blood, no Catholic would or or could be persuaded by the test results.
Which gets back to my point about religious expression and politics. Unlike the theory that aliens are living on the moon, religious arguments enjoy certain privileges from criticism that are easily abused.
Again... how does that distinguish that from other dumb arguments with no root in religion? The fact that someone can look directly at evidence and deny it? Yeah, that's nothing special.
ok so what benefit do u recieve from this?
Because I firmly believe that everyone has a right to believe what they want without being opressed by people like you.
Also if this was put into practise I can see a few nations who might find it incredibly insulting and thus at its worst case scenario insite holy war
I believe religious people can believe what they want too. What can't be allowed is an environment where it's necessary for atheists to tolerate a hostile environment at their place of employment, for example, because refusing to participate in religious activities hosted by their employer will result in discrimination and probable hostility from their co-workers.
My aim is not to take away your right to free expression. It's to take away your undeserved religious privileges.
Again... how does that distinguish that from other dumb arguments with no root in religion? The fact that someone can look directly at evidence and deny it? Yeah, that's nothing special.
In the way you want, there isn't one.
The Great Eye wrote:Again... how does that distinguish that from other dumb arguments with no root in religion? The fact that someone can look directly at evidence and deny it? Yeah, that's nothing special.
In the way you want, there isn't one.
Okay, so now that we've got that out of the way... noting there is no unique distinction between religious-based bullshit arguments and non-religious bullshit arguments... what's to prevent anyone legislating to prohibit religious-based bullshit from extending to non-religious bullshit when the exact same justification for prohibiting one can be used to prohibit the other?
what hostility? the hostility that you are showing right now?
just because u are not religous doesnt give u the right to silence all religion because YOU dont want to hear about it.
Think of your arguement from both sides, Why should people of religous nature put up with your kind? you see you are being openly athiest, which btw if u never noticed is a group of people who band together because of god, whoops total religion :o.
Your points are completely invalid, u cannot ask for people to give up their beliefs especially when your arguement is your own beliefs.
Unless u can say something on your point that actually makes sense then your opinion needs ALOT more thought :p
Okay, so now that we've got that out of the way... noting there is no unique distinction between religious-based bullshit arguments and non-religious bullshit arguments... what's to prevent anyone legislating to prohibit religious-based bullshit from extending to non-religious bullshit when the exact same justification for prohibiting one can be used to prohibit the other?
Your connection between freedom from religion and freedom from non-religious bull shit isn't going to work. If it were, the freedom to exercise one's own religion would apply to freedom to exercise one's non-religious bull shit. Is society obligated to accommodate some nut who wants to exercise their bullshit justification for why they ought to disrupt a company's production so they can have sex at 1:30pm? No. We privilege a Muslim's untestable reason to pray 5 times a day with accommodation at work, but we don't for the 1:30 ers.
The Great Eye wrote:Okay, so now that we've got that out of the way... noting there is no unique distinction between religious-based bullshit arguments and non-religious bullshit arguments... what's to prevent anyone legislating to prohibit religious-based bullshit from extending to non-religious bullshit when the exact same justification for prohibiting one can be used to prohibit the other?
Your connection between freedom from religion and freedom from non-religious bull shit isn't going to work. If it were, the freedom to exercise one's own religion would apply to freedom to exercise one's non-religious bull shit. Is society obligated to accommodate some nut who wants to exercise their bullshit justification for why they ought to disrupt a company's production so they can have sex at 1:30pm? No. We privilege a Muslim's untestable reason to pray 5 times a day with accommodation at work, but we don't for the 1:30 ers.
Okay... wait... what's with the strawman argument? Your OP was clearly about prohibiting the religious expression entirely. In particular, my discussion was directed at your second post, which directly attacked religious argumentation in a political context. I thought that was pretty damn obvious. Stopping work to pray 5 times a day is completely unrelated to the political context argument, which my line of argumentation was clearly based upon.
what hostility? the hostility that you are showing right now?
just because u are not religous doesnt give u the right to silence all religion because YOU dont want to hear about it.Think of your arguement from both sides, Why should people of religous nature put up with your kind? you see you are being openly athiest, which btw if u never noticed is a group of people who band together because of god, whoops total religion
.
Your points are completely invalid, u cannot ask for people to give up their beliefs especially when your arguement is your own beliefs.
Unless u can say something on your point that actually makes sense then your opinion needs ALOT more thought
The reason why my points don't make sense to you is because you are interpreting what you want to hear. For example, I did not say that religions should be silenced or that religious people should be forced to give up their beliefs.
And, I am sure you would feel that society was making it mandatory to be Muslim if you lived in a Muslim country where Islam was casually expressed and exercised at work. That's how atheists feel in the U.S... that it's mandatory to be Christian, at least if you want to be treated as human and assessed on the basis of your merits.
Okay... wait... what's with the strawman argument? Your OP was clearly about prohibiting the religious expression entirely. In particular, my discussion was directed at your second post, which directly attacked religious argumentation in a political context. I thought that was pretty damn obvious. Stopping work to pray 5 times a day is completely unrelated to the political context argument, which my line of argumentation was clearly based upon.
Well, I wasn't thinking in my first post, so I revise it to "regulate religious expression in public spheres." I believe it is wrong for religious membership to be defacto mandatory to fairly participate in political and economic spaces. So to keep these spaces free from religious coercion, it is necessary to regulate religious expression in public spaces.
And, I am sure you would feel that society was making it mandatory to be Muslim if you lived in a Muslim country where Islam was casually expressed and exercised at work. That's how atheists feel in the U.S... that it's mandatory to be Christian, at least if you want to be treated as human and assessed on the basis of your merits.
Despite your dissembling, it's clear you actually intended what Alundra and Zarf inferred from your orginal post - you object to the open expression of religion.
*I'm sorry that was rude what I posted.
I meant to post this"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGNAZivnc2w
American schools don't give enough attention to the founding of the US
yeah they read a lot of French philosphers
They were also very aware that between 1580 and 1666 the United Kingdom had been wracked by alternate Catholic and Protestant rulers, each of which tried to repress Catholics or Protestants.
It became very clear that trying to destroy the losers was not only very very difficult, it was also very risky if they came back to win. The English had that very problem several times.
To save their own fat asses, when it came time to build a national government in the US, they decided not to regulate religion at all.
You can get 99/100 people willing to keep quiet about religion, and 1 guy yells out "Jesus saves", and where are you? You might as well have had 50 doing it.
I would do it this way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCUmINGae44
IA has always been a soft-ass.
this thread sadly shows that people as a whole arent ready to move away from the bedtime stories of god to a structured system based in reality. the difference between normal bs and religeous bs is that theres no way to persuade a religous nut they are wrong. no facts can deny thier fake truths. the fact that laws are designed around these nuts is insane and i hope someday people can move away from this practice.
and despite what bush would claim. we are not at war because god wants us to.
i do openly disagree with religeon. people should live in the real world and stop living in a fantasy
kumara is an interesting documentary that shows how willing people are to believe such nonsense
this thread sadly shows that people as a whole arent ready to move away from the bedtime stories of god to a structured system based in reality.
Been tried fella
The Christian Churches build upon the ignorance of men and strive to keep large portions of the people in ignorance because only in this way can the Christian Churches maintain their power. On the other hand, national Socialism is based on scientific foundations. Christianity's immutable principles, which were laid down almost two thousand years ago, have increasingly stiffened into life-alien dogmas. National Socialism, however, if it wants to fulfill its task further, must always guide itself according to the newest data of scientific researches. The Christian Churches have long been aware that exact scientific knowledge poses a threat to their existence. Therefore, by means of such pseudo-sciences as theology, they take great pains to suppress or falsify scientific research. Our National Socialist world view stands on a much higher level than the concepts of Christianity, which in their essentials were taken over from Judaism. For this reason, too, we can do without Christianity. -- Reichsleiter Martin Bormann
Does an afterlife scare most of you people? The reason I ask is yesterday an NBA player came out as being gay. Today he is on every channel and being held up as a hero for coming out telling everyone he is gay. This is being celebrated by most as its a person being allowed to be who he wants to be. But if I am a Christian - the sediment in this thread is I need to "keep it to myself".
I am curious on why when all aspects of individualism are encouraged while this aspect of an individuals belief system gets such a visceral reaction. If I am pro/anti gun I am encouraged to speak my mind, if I am pro/anti abortion I am encouraged to lobby for a side, if I am democrat or republican I am told its my civic duty to try plead my believes to other folks to get them to vote... but if I believe in God... I am to keep it to myself?
I believe there is a God, I have no problem conceding there is a higher power than human intelligence (need proof - just read a few threads in this forum )... I don't understand why that's a topic I would have to feel ashamed about or why that wouldn't be allowed to speak about in public.
"Therefore, the U.S. ought to strictly prohibit religious speech and practice in public spaces."
I think those who listen to Justin Beiber should be strictly prohibited from doing so in public places, people speak about the Kardashians, drugs use, terrorism, {insert any topic here}.... why does God offend/frighten to the point to where He must be banned like yelling "Bomb" on a plane?
@Yell,
1. The U.S. founders were flawed human beings who weren't omniscient or divinely gifted, and like humans, they often contradicted their own principles by shoving them under the rug, which later became enshrined in precedent.
2. While National Socialism isn't a religion per se, it was not scientific and it had a lot of the same faith-based qualities of religion.
@BeoWolfe,
Keep in mind that I later revised my statement to "regulate religious expression in public spaces," because I realized that I was too hasty in my conclusion.
No, an afterlife does not scare me. For me to accept a belief, it must satisfy the following conditions:
1. Logically consistent
2. Coherent with our best empirical knowledge
3. Empirically testable
4. Parsimonious
Since religious beliefs badly fail these conditions, I reject all religious beliefs. Of course, that doesn't mean you can't express your religious beliefs. What you can't do is coerce or pressure others to participate in religious activities in public establishments (business, education and government), discriminate against people based on their religion in public establishments, have the state benefit or contract with religious institutions, or allow such public establishments to host religious activities in public spaces.
Other objectionable things that need to be dealt with are:
1. Religious politicians and leaders who call Atheists or Muslims evil or un-American.
2. Government funding of religiously-inspired and unscientific policies such as abstinence only education.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Freedom From Religion
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.