CDZ Should religions be banned instead of drugs?

[BuckToothMoron]

Atheists are so intolerant!

They have an awful human rights record in general. Think of Mussolini, Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Young Turks.

Tamil Tigers: Suicide Bombing Innovators

Right, ‘cause nobody has ever died in the name of religion or god, except for during The Crusades, and a few hundred other religious wars.

 

[JBvM]

Why we should ban religions instead of drugs : unpopularopinion

CMV: Religions Are More Dangerous than Drugs and Should be Dealt With Consistently : changemyview

The idea is that religions are more dangerous for societies than drugs.

People under influence of religions commit terrorism far more than drugs. I have never heard MDMA causing terrorism. I have heard people committing terrorism due to Islam.

Religions also cause corruption. Which is a harm to society. There are links where corruption in religious population is higher.

Yes. The article agrees that most religious people are peaceful.

So is most drug users.

Have you ever heard anyone under MDMA, LSD, or ganja harms anyone? Very rarely right?

So either legalize both or if we gonna ban one, ban religions.

The article mention a case where a politician is jailed for 2 years due to blaspheming against Islam. That person says that someone may be lying using religion. What he said is very reasonable because Indonesia is a very corrupt country. We also see that islamic countries tend to have higher corruption rate. So it's pretty obvious some people must have been using religions to persuade people to pick bad choices.

Other politicians spin his word. Basically they claimed that his word means he accuses the religion itself to lie or that the religious leaders are lying. He's in jail for 2 years.

Now, with laws protecting religions from freedom of speech, any religious leaders can tell people to vote only for their preferred candidate. They can pretend to get offended by those calling them lying. Then they can just rake in a lot of money through corruption.

Ever see drug users wanting to prohibit your freedom of speech?

So what should you ban?

I believe banning religion would be as hard as banning anything else - we'd have a black market as they have in China!

and how to deal with religious people gone wild, would be like how to deal with posters ignoring rules, because they can

A new forum has been added to the board with the intent of having civil debates or discussions on a wide variety of topics without the flames, name calling, trolling, hijacking, etc.

This forum will be heavily moderated to protect the integrity of the content within.

Warnings, infractions, and bannings will be enforced at the discretion of the moderators. A 3 strike rule will apply. After 3 warnings for failing to follow the guidelines posted below a members privileges will be PERMANENTLY revoked in this forum section. This is done to protect the integrity of this forum. Do NOT respond to a member who violates the guidelines with a like minded post; REPORT IT.


No Name Calling Or Putting Down Posters
No Trolling and/or Troll Threads
No Hijacking
No Personal Attacks
No Neg Repping

 

[grbb]

Um you realize in America you can't ban religion right?

Actually in US, you cannot ban Ganja either.

What happened is that there is a commerce clause law in constitution. The supreme court interpret that commerce clause law to mean that you cannot plant corn in your own yard to feed your own cows. Because that affect interstate commerce.

By that precedent, the federal laws then prohibits drugs.

Now, for banning religions. Can you do it? If you pull it out, you can. You can say religion is a product and preaching religion, even to yourself, is interstate commerce. I know it's bullshit. But that's the same bullshit that people use to ban MDMA, ganja, and xtc.

Without federal laws banning MDMA, ganja, and xtc, there is no way that substances can be banned for long.

Why? Because any states that tax it instead of banning it, will make tons of money through taxes.

There is virtually NO danger whatsoever with those drugs. The majority of users are casual users that are not a danger to themselves or others.

It's a no brainer.

If you want to ban muslim religions, you can just force people to eat pork and offer incense to Shiva, for example. Would I suggest that? Of course not. Just showing that you can.

That's how the rome ban Christianity. You just tell christians to offer incenses.

Oh fuck. I hope I do not encourage something even worse.

The purpose of this thread is to legalize drug, not to ban religions. I am using religions to see why religions are far more banworthy than drugs.

Keep in mind that atheists and spreading atheism is illegal in many muslim words.

Um what are you even talking about, for real?

United state is a government created by freedom in mind. For so many years government cannot ban alcohol. You need to amend your constitution to ban alcohol.

For that same reason, Federal government cannot ban ganja,xtc,mdma either. It would violate constitution.

However, interpretation of constitution changes.


https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-th...onstitutional-amendment-to-prohibit-marijuana

 

[grbb]

Why we should ban religions instead of drugs : unpopularopinion

CMV: Religions Are More Dangerous than Drugs and Should be Dealt With Consistently : changemyview

The idea is that religions are more dangerous for societies than drugs.

People under influence of religions commit terrorism far more than drugs. I have never heard MDMA causing terrorism. I have heard people committing terrorism due to Islam.

Religions also cause corruption. Which is a harm to society. There are links where corruption in religious population is higher.

Yes. The article agrees that most religious people are peaceful.

So is most drug users.

Have you ever heard anyone under MDMA, LSD, or ganja harms anyone? Very rarely right?

So either legalize both or if we gonna ban one, ban religions.

The article mention a case where a politician is jailed for 2 years due to blaspheming against Islam. That person says that someone may be lying using religion. What he said is very reasonable because Indonesia is a very corrupt country. We also see that islamic countries tend to have higher corruption rate. So it's pretty obvious some people must have been using religions to persuade people to pick bad choices.

Other politicians spin his word. Basically they claimed that his word means he accuses the religion itself to lie or that the religious leaders are lying. He's in jail for 2 years.

Now, with laws protecting religions from freedom of speech, any religious leaders can tell people to vote only for their preferred candidate. They can pretend to get offended by those calling them lying. Then they can just rake in a lot of money through corruption.

Ever see drug users wanting to prohibit your freedom of speech?

So what should you ban?

I believe banning religion would be as hard as banning anything else - we'd have a black market as they have in China!

and how to deal with religious people gone wild, would be like how to deal with posters ignoring rules, because they can

A new forum has been added to the board with the intent of having civil debates or discussions on a wide variety of topics without the flames, name calling, trolling, hijacking, etc.

This forum will be heavily moderated to protect the integrity of the content within.

Warnings, infractions, and bannings will be enforced at the discretion of the moderators. A 3 strike rule will apply. After 3 warnings for failing to follow the guidelines posted below a members privileges will be PERMANENTLY revoked in this forum section. This is done to protect the integrity of this forum. Do NOT respond to a member who violates the guidelines with a like minded post; REPORT IT.


No Name Calling Or Putting Down Posters
No Trolling and/or Troll Threads
No Hijacking
No Personal Attacks
No Neg Repping

I just wanna say I haven't found anything offensive here. Notice I have many muslim friends and I think the muslims are correct on some area (though wrong in so many others)

This debate is there to think about possibilities. Not to promote hatred against anyone.

 

[JBvM]

Why we should ban religions instead of drugs : unpopularopinion

CMV: Religions Are More Dangerous than Drugs and Should be Dealt With Consistently : changemyview

The idea is that religions are more dangerous for societies than drugs.

People under influence of religions commit terrorism far more than drugs. I have never heard MDMA causing terrorism. I have heard people committing terrorism due to Islam.

Religions also cause corruption. Which is a harm to society. There are links where corruption in religious population is higher.

Yes. The article agrees that most religious people are peaceful.

So is most drug users.

Have you ever heard anyone under MDMA, LSD, or ganja harms anyone? Very rarely right?

So either legalize both or if we gonna ban one, ban religions.

The article mention a case where a politician is jailed for 2 years due to blaspheming against Islam. That person says that someone may be lying using religion. What he said is very reasonable because Indonesia is a very corrupt country. We also see that islamic countries tend to have higher corruption rate. So it's pretty obvious some people must have been using religions to persuade people to pick bad choices.

Other politicians spin his word. Basically they claimed that his word means he accuses the religion itself to lie or that the religious leaders are lying. He's in jail for 2 years.

Now, with laws protecting religions from freedom of speech, any religious leaders can tell people to vote only for their preferred candidate. They can pretend to get offended by those calling them lying. Then they can just rake in a lot of money through corruption.

Ever see drug users wanting to prohibit your freedom of speech?

So what should you ban?

I believe banning religion would be as hard as banning anything else - we'd have a black market as they have in China!

and how to deal with religious people gone wild, would be like how to deal with posters ignoring rules, because they can

A new forum has been added to the board with the intent of having civil debates or discussions on a wide variety of topics without the flames, name calling, trolling, hijacking, etc.

This forum will be heavily moderated to protect the integrity of the content within.

Warnings, infractions, and bannings will be enforced at the discretion of the moderators. A 3 strike rule will apply. After 3 warnings for failing to follow the guidelines posted below a members privileges will be PERMANENTLY revoked in this forum section. This is done to protect the integrity of this forum. Do NOT respond to a member who violates the guidelines with a like minded post; REPORT IT.


No Name Calling Or Putting Down Posters
No Trolling and/or Troll Threads
No Hijacking
No Personal Attacks
No Neg Repping

I just wanna say I haven't found anything offensive here. Notice I have many muslim friends and I think the muslims are correct on some area (though wrong in so many others)

This debate is there to think about possibilities. Not to promote hatred against anyone.

Well take out the name calling in the list and what you have is flames, ________, trolling, hijacking, etc.

straws, sodas, other stuf.. but I addressed the topic:
I believe banning religion would be as hard as banning anything else - we'd have a black market as they have in China!

good luck. I hope this thread gets taken seriously and adds something, while remaining civil. Because civility does not rid a thread of
flames, ________, trolling, hijacking, etc.

and how to deal with religious people gone wild, would be like how to deal with posters ignoring rules, because they can

 

[Dogmaphobe]

We shouldn't ban them, we should simply develop the critical thinking skills necessary to avoid that revoltingly relativist pablum that they are all the same.

Some people commit horrible acts because they are not following their religion at all, while others commit horrible acts because they are.

 

[grbb]

Anyway this is the reason why Federal laws can regulate ganja

Which wouldn’t seem to give the Federal government the power to get involved with activity that didn’t involve buying or selling things across state lines. And it didn’t until …

In 1942, the Supreme Court decided Wickard v. Filburn and greatly expanded the Commerce Clause to cover anything that might impact interstate commerce. The court found that the Federal government could keep a farmer from growing wheat on his own land, to feed to his own pigs — because growing his own wheat meant that he didn’t have to buy wheat from someone else. And because the US is one big market, his declining to purchase wheat from his neighbor could theoretically impact the price of wheat in some other state.

In 2005, the Supreme Court used similar logic to uphold Federal drug laws in Gonzales v. Raich. They reasoned that possessing a drug (even a drug grown in ones own backyard) might inspire someone, somewhere, to sell drugs across state lines.

Justice Clarence Thomas disagreed with this interpretation of the Commerce Clause — and wrote in his dissent:

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

[...]

If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."

 

[Picaro]

All religions are not created equal. One is by far better than all the rest combined, and has vastly improved humanity, despite all the silly distorted rubbish put out bu the butt sex fetishists and sociopaths who think mindless self-indulgence is going to make for a 'free' society or something, despite the fact it never has and never will. See F.A. Hayek's great little book The Fatal Conceit; most educated atheists concede the overall positive effects of Christianity's influence over the centuries, far better than paganisms and the other assorted cults.

 

[Picaro]

You just have to laugh at how the potheads are always obsessing over their weed, worshiping it as if it's of world shaking importance to us all. Puts to rest the myth that it isn't addictive. And they want us to believe Xians are loony and stupid ... yeah right ...

 

[Thunderbird]

Atheists are so intolerant!

They have an awful human rights record in general. Think of Mussolini, Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Young Turks.

Tamil Tigers: Suicide Bombing Innovators

Right, ‘cause nobody has ever died in the name of religion or god, except for during The Crusades, and a few hundred other religious wars.

Regarding atheism: The Black Book of Communism — Stéphane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartošek, Jean-Louis Margolin, Mark Kramer | Harvard University Press

Atheist Myth: “No One Has Ever Killed in the Name of Atheism”

Regarding the Crusades: THE CRUSADES - Interview with Thomas Madden

 

[Thunderbird]

I would like to see Marijuana use legalized, but let's admit there will be costs.

It’s Time for a New Discussion of Marijuana’s Risks

 

[HenryBHough]

Were Pope Algore's First Universal Church of What-the-Fuck-this'Week" were on the list.....yeah, I think I could lean toward outlawing religion.

 

[Picaro]

Atheists are so intolerant!

They have an awful human rights record in general. Think of Mussolini, Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Young Turks.

Tamil Tigers: Suicide Bombing Innovators

Right, ‘cause nobody has ever died in the name of religion or god, except for during The Crusades, and a few hundred other religious wars.

Regarding atheism: The Black Book of Communism — Stéphane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartošek, Jean-Louis Margolin, Mark Kramer | Harvard University Press

Atheist Myth: “No One Has Ever Killed in the Name of Atheism”

Regarding the Crusades: THE CRUSADES - Interview with Thomas Madden

the morons love to snivel about the Crusades, one of the few times anybody dared to finally push back the scumbag Muslim butchers, as if Christians had no rights to self-defense while Muslims had some right to raid and murder for centuries or something. They actually try and spread some BS that it was morally equivalent to what the Islamo-butchers did for centuries and still do, which of course only highlights what a complete lack of moral sense and principles the critics of Christianity have. They have nothing to replace its social benefits with, just the usual pagan reversion to human sacrifices, police states, and mindless self-indulgence, typical sociopaths.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The Chinese are actually doing this. Muslims are being force fed pork for instance.

It is a very interesting concept, that people can be forced into certain beliefs and forced out of others. Why such a society would be utopia watched over by philosopher kings.

 

[Picaro]

The Chinese are actually doing this. Muslims are being force fed pork for instance.

It is a very interesting concept, that people can be forced into certain beliefs and forced out of others. Why such a society would be utopia watched over by philosopher kings.

The Red Chinese are terrified of Christians, for the same reasons Wall Street and corporations are. It would look bad to GE and Apple if they let such notions take hold on their perfect little Darwinian society and the Holy Grail of 'Globalism'. Muslims are just future terrorists, so they're a very different concern; Islam is a political ideology, not a religion.

 

[JoeMoma]

Why does it have to be a choice between the two? Ban them both, along with smoking (tobacco), plastic straws and big gulps.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Why does it have to be a choice between the two? Ban them both, along with smoking (tobacco), plastic straws and big gulps.

You are close but still have it backwards. Ban everything then develop a small number of opinions, beliefs and activities still allowable.

 

[Crepitus]

We shouldn't ban either one.

Everybody deserves the chance to go to hell in their own way.

 

[JoeMoma]

If I were in charge of all bans, I would ban bans!

 

[grbb]

All religions are not created equal. One is by far better than all the rest combined, and has vastly improved humanity, despite all the silly distorted rubbish put out bu the butt sex fetishists and sociopaths who think mindless self-indulgence is going to make for a 'free' society or something, despite the fact it never has and never will. See F.A. Hayek's great little book The Fatal Conceit; most educated atheists concede the overall positive effects of Christianity's influence over the centuries, far better than paganisms and the other assorted cults.

Well. I have no problem with Christianity now, especially Protestants. Most protestants are working hard and pretty close to libertarian anyway. I have the most problem with Islam. It's not even secular and too many followers are not.

However, your argument can also be used for drugs. Most drugs are dangerous. Hell, I wouldn't care if government ban Heroin or Krocodile. Those are really shit.

But MDMA? LSD? Meth? and Ganja? Those are soft drugs.

I think what I would propose is the following.

We got many countries in the world.

Say one country ban Ganja but allow Islam.

Another country ban Islam and allow ganja.

Which country you wanna live in?

At the end, I think it's not what's right or wrong. I want many small states to decide whatever they want to ban, and people can live in those states.

I think that would be the best arrangements.