Why "freedom of religion" is an inane and outdated concept

[Penelope]

I firmly believe in the Separation of Church and State.

No you don't.

I certainty do.

 

[Penelope]

Congressional Church tried that and the Danbury Baptists had a fit.

 

[Defiant1]

I firmly believe in the Separation of Church and State.

No you don't.

I certainty do.

So you defend the baker for not baking the cake?

 

[Unification]

try not to share your ideas with the neighbors

I'm not particularily concerned with that, my argument is that our politicians and executives should work to establish state religion, given that democracy has proven itself a failed experiment, which the lesser members of society have proven themselves incapable of managing.

Allowing secularism is therefore the equivalent of allowing mob rule, or giving chimpanzees the illusion that they can govern themselves without aid of their rulers.

State religion are you insane?

I support pluralism, not one religion dominating the others, as that would be silly.

I argue however, that secularism or atheism deserves no "rights", since if one converts to the ideology of atheism, they demote themselves to the status of "animal" rather than human, and therefore lose their rights.

I see no reason why a person who believes that anything which an animal might do, such as rape, or murder children, should be trusted to be given any rights - and if one is a true atheist (such as de Sade), then this is what they believe even if they are ashamed to admit it publicly.

In other words, the state could sponsor all major religions, while banning only atheism and secularism - without prefering a single religion (Christianity, Islam, Mormon, Buddhist, etc) - it would merely be "establishing religion" rather than "establishing A religion"

 

[irosie91]

try not to share your ideas with the neighbors

I'm not particularily concerned with that, my argument is that our politicians and executives should work to establish state religion, given that democracy has proven itself a failed experiment, which the lesser members of society have proven themselves incapable of managing.

Allowing secularism is therefore the equivalent of allowing mob rule, or giving chimpanzees the illusion that they can govern themselves without aid of their rulers.

your idiot idea is THEOCRACY-------it has already been tried-----LOTS---
and fully discredited

Nay, I would have to argue differently - that all successful governments are either theocracies or quasi-theocracies.

America's founders, for example, were theocrats in everything but name, but merely caved to the secular 'rabble' which was popular during the era, and mistakenly included the "freedom of religion" clause in the 1st Amendment just to mollify them.

This was a mistake and should be corrected, much as their support of slavery of African's was a mistake.

try to cope-----bill of rights was added FUNCTIONATELY IMMEDIATELY to the constitution ------it was not a reaction to your IMAGINARY DEVELOPEMENTS

And so what? The Constitution can change, and there is no reason we can't remove or amend its "rights".

My argument essentially, is that Constitutional rights should exist only for the religious - I would stop at establishing a "single" religion, but I would argue that only those who acknowledge one God or higher power are deserving of rights, those who don't do not deserve those rights.

your argument is galvanized by the filth of Islamic imperialism

 

[Penelope]

I firmly believe in the Separation of Church and State.

No you don't.

I certainty do.

So you defend the baker for not baking the cake?

No if he has his doors open to the public and he advertised wedding cakes, then he should bake and decorate wedding cakes for all people, no matter what.

 

[irosie91]

try not to share your ideas with the neighbors

I'm not particularily concerned with that, my argument is that our politicians and executives should work to establish state religion, given that democracy has proven itself a failed experiment, which the lesser members of society have proven themselves incapable of managing.

Allowing secularism is therefore the equivalent of allowing mob rule, or giving chimpanzees the illusion that they can govern themselves without aid of their rulers.

State religion are you insane?

I support pluralism, not one religion dominating the others, as that would be silly.

I argue however, that secularism or atheism deserves no "rights", since if one converts to the ideology of atheism, they demote themselves to the status of "animal" rather than human, and therefore lose their rights.

I see no reason why a person who believes that anything which an animal might do, such as rape, or murder children, should be trusted to be given any rights - and if one is a true atheist (such as de Sade), then this is what they believe even if they are ashamed to admit it publicly.

In other words, the state could sponsor all major religions, while banning only atheism and secularism - without prefering a single religion (Christianity, Islam, Mormon, Buddhist, etc) - it would merely be "establishing religion" rather than "establishing A religion"

try again YOU ALREADY SAID "ONLY MONOTHEISTIC RELIGIONS"

 

[Defiant1]

I firmly believe in the Separation of Church and State.

No you don't.

I certainty do.

So you defend the baker for not baking the cake?

No if he has his doors open to the public and he advertised wedding cakes, then he should bake and decorate wedding cakes for all people, no matter what.

So the STATE can tell him how to practice his faith because he has a door?

 

[Unification]

I firmly believe in the Separation of Church and State.

No you don't.

I certainty do.

So you defend the baker for not baking the cake?

try not to share your ideas with the neighbors

I'm not particularily concerned with that, my argument is that our politicians and executives should work to establish state religion, given that democracy has proven itself a failed experiment, which the lesser members of society have proven themselves incapable of managing.

Allowing secularism is therefore the equivalent of allowing mob rule, or giving chimpanzees the illusion that they can govern themselves without aid of their rulers.

State religion are you insane?

I support pluralism, not one religion dominating the others, as that would be silly.

I argue however, that secularism or atheism deserves no "rights", since if one converts to the ideology of atheism, they demote themselves to the status of "animal" rather than human, and therefore lose their rights.

I see no reason why a person who believes that anything which an animal might do, such as rape, or murder children, should be trusted to be given any rights - and if one is a true atheist (such as de Sade), then this is what they believe even if they are ashamed to admit it publicly.

In other words, the state could sponsor all major religions, while banning only atheism and secularism - without prefering a single religion (Christianity, Islam, Mormon, Buddhist, etc) - it would merely be "establishing religion" rather than "establishing A religion"

try again YOU ALREADY SAID "ONLY MONOTHEISTIC RELIGIONS"

True, only monotheistic religions are legitimate and compatible with sciences - polytheistic religious are outdated and a less evolved form of religion, having more in common with atheism, so there is no reason society should allow them the illusion of being "equal".

The "gods" of polytheistic regions were merely "powerful mortals" with immoral habits and vices, making them more in common with atheistic materialism - as opposed to monotheistic religions in which God represents a perfect and transcendent ideal.

 

[irosie91]

[QUOTE="Defiant1,


try again YOU ALREADY SAID "ONLY MONOTHEISTIC RELIGIONS"

True, only monotheistic religions are legitimate and compatible with sciences - polytheistic religious are outdated and a less evolved form of religion, having more in common with atheism, so there is no reason society should allow them the illusion of being "equal".

The "gods" of polytheistic regions were merely "powerful mortals" with immoral habits and vices, making them more in common with atheistic materialism - as opposed to monotheistic religions in which God represents a perfect and transcendent ideal.[/QUOTE]


I am familiar with the program-------the ISLAMO NAZI "plan" for
ISLAM UBER ALLES -----in which those resistant are 'permitted'
subordinate status if they agree adhere to a MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION
acceptable as "legal" to the ISLAMIC RULERS. The genocidal filth is already in force in the SHARIAH SHIT hole----Indonesia

 

[Unification]

[QUOTE="Defiant1,


try again YOU ALREADY SAID "ONLY MONOTHEISTIC RELIGIONS"

True, only monotheistic religions are legitimate and compatible with sciences - polytheistic religious are outdated and a less evolved form of religion, having more in common with atheism, so there is no reason society should allow them the illusion of being "equal".

The "gods" of polytheistic regions were merely "powerful mortals" with immoral habits and vices, making them more in common with atheistic materialism - as opposed to monotheistic religions in which God represents a perfect and transcendent ideal.

I am familiar with the program-------the ISLAMO NAZI "plan" for
ISLAM UBER ALLES -----in which those resistant are 'permitted'
subordinate status if they agree adhere to a MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION
acceptable as "legal" to the ISLAMIC RULERS. The genocidal filth is already in force in the SHARIAH SHIT hole----Indonesia[/QUOTE]
Okay, that is not relevant - the argument here is not to commit genocide against deniers of religion - under this type of government I see no reason a person could not be "secular" in privacy of home, but there is no reason that they should be allowed to do so in public places without retribution from state.

 

[Billy_Bob]

try not to share your ideas with the neighbors

I'm not particularily concerned with that, my argument is that our politicians and executives should work to establish state religion, given that democracy has proven itself a failed experiment, which the lesser members of society have proven themselves incapable of managing.

Allowing secularism is therefore the equivalent of allowing mob rule, or giving chimpanzees the illusion that they can govern themselves without aid of their rulers.

your idiot idea is THEOCRACY-------it has already been tried-----LOTS---
and fully discredited

Mau Se Tung, Stalin, Hitler, and many others are historical proof..

 

[Billy_Bob]

there is no reason that they should be allowed to do so in public places without retribution from state.

This is the kind of crap Communists and wacko dictators do... WTF?

 

[PredFan]

I'd argue that the irreligious have proven themselves too devolved and degenerate to properly govern themselves without the guidance of, contrary to their deluded notions of "independence". Being given over less-evolved vices such as gluttony, sexual deviancy, porn addiction, and what not - the types of simplistic pleasures befitting of lesser evolved species they have more in common with than enlightened humans who are capable of creating and appreciating higher things such as arts, music, sciences, and spirituality - all which, of course are religious constructs and institutions.

Therefore it would be in the best interest of America and Europe's governments to administer religion to them and re-establish state religion in our schools, universities and media. America's "first Amendment" is something of an outdated holdover of a past area and can easily be amended or subverted; while America's founders were wise in many areas, they were foolish in others, such as in their decision to permit enslavement of Africans - I'd argue that their decision to grant freedom of religion, rather than establishing state religion was one of their foolies, and something which secularists have of course proven themselves incapable of handling responsibly.

As for how to implement this - the details vary. I'd argue that even giving secularists or atheists "human rights" at all is a luxury, but wouldn't see the need or effectiveness in actively arresting and imprisoning them for holding secular beliefs in the privacy of their own how. But ideally, publicly identifying as a "secularist" or "atheist" should be made socially acceptable in any civilized nation on par with publicly identifying as a pedophile, rapist, or Nazi, or otherwise, and this way they could passively be encouraged either to convert to religion or keep their deviant beliefs outside of civilized society.

No, freedom is never inane or outdated.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Another Left Wing Appeal to their absolute authority over life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness......

Not only NO but Hell No!

 

[Unification]

Another Left Wing Appeal to their absolute authority over life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness......

Not only NO but Hell No!

No, mar

there is no reason that they should be allowed to do so in public places without retribution from state.

This is the kind of crap Communists and wacko dictators do... WTF?

I'd argue that the irreligious have proven themselves too devolved and degenerate to properly govern themselves without the guidance of, contrary to their deluded notions of "independence". Being given over less-evolved vices such as gluttony, sexual deviancy, porn addiction, and what not - the types of simplistic pleasures befitting of lesser evolved species they have more in common with than enlightened humans who are capable of creating and appreciating higher things such as arts, music, sciences, and spirituality - all which, of course are religious constructs and institutions.

Therefore it would be in the best interest of America and Europe's governments to administer religion to them and re-establish state religion in our schools, universities and media. America's "first Amendment" is something of an outdated holdover of a past area and can easily be amended or subverted; while America's founders were wise in many areas, they were foolish in others, such as in their decision to permit enslavement of Africans - I'd argue that their decision to grant freedom of religion, rather than establishing state religion was one of their foolies, and something which secularists have of course proven themselves incapable of handling responsibly.

As for how to implement this - the details vary. I'd argue that even giving secularists or atheists "human rights" at all is a luxury, but wouldn't see the need or effectiveness in actively arresting and imprisoning them for holding secular beliefs in the privacy of their own how. But ideally, publicly identifying as a "secularist" or "atheist" should be made socially acceptable in any civilized nation on par with publicly identifying as a pedophile, rapist, or Nazi, or otherwise, and this way they could passively be encouraged either to convert to religion or keep their deviant beliefs outside of civilized society.

No, freedom is never inane or outdated.

Another Left Wing Appeal to their absolute authority over life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness......

Not only NO but Hell No!

My argument is only spiritual people are capable of pursuing happiness. Since spiritual people understand that happiness comes from pursuing Godliness, while lesser people falsely believe that it comes from materialism and immorality, which of course only leads to suffering and a miserable existence in life and lives to come.

Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness therefore must apply only to the genuinely religious and spiritual, not to the secular-minded.

 

[irosie91]

Another Left Wing Appeal to their absolute authority over life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness......

Not only NO but Hell No!

No, mar

there is no reason that they should be allowed to do so in public places without retribution from state.

This is the kind of crap Communists and wacko dictators do... WTF?

I'd argue that the irreligious have proven themselves too devolved and degenerate to properly govern themselves without the guidance of, contrary to their deluded notions of "independence". Being given over less-evolved vices such as gluttony, sexual deviancy, porn addiction, and what not - the types of simplistic pleasures befitting of lesser evolved species they have more in common with than enlightened humans who are capable of creating and appreciating higher things such as arts, music, sciences, and spirituality - all which, of course are religious constructs and institutions.

Therefore it would be in the best interest of America and Europe's governments to administer religion to them and re-establish state religion in our schools, universities and media. America's "first Amendment" is something of an outdated holdover of a past area and can easily be amended or subverted; while America's founders were wise in many areas, they were foolish in others, such as in their decision to permit enslavement of Africans - I'd argue that their decision to grant freedom of religion, rather than establishing state religion was one of their foolies, and something which secularists have of course proven themselves incapable of handling responsibly.

As for how to implement this - the details vary. I'd argue that even giving secularists or atheists "human rights" at all is a luxury, but wouldn't see the need or effectiveness in actively arresting and imprisoning them for holding secular beliefs in the privacy of their own how. But ideally, publicly identifying as a "secularist" or "atheist" should be made socially acceptable in any civilized nation on par with publicly identifying as a pedophile, rapist, or Nazi, or otherwise, and this way they could passively be encouraged either to convert to religion or keep their deviant beliefs outside of civilized society.

No, freedom is never inane or outdated.

Another Left Wing Appeal to their absolute authority over life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness......

Not only NO but Hell No!

My argument is only spiritual people are capable of pursuing happiness. Since spiritual people understand that happiness comes from pursuing Godliness, while lesser people falsely believe that it comes from materialism and immorality, which of course only leads to suffering and a miserable existence in life and lives to come.

Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness therefore must apply only to the genuinely religious and spiritual, not to the secular-minded.

go play with your fellow sophists

 

[Unification]

Another Left Wing Appeal to their absolute authority over life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness......

Not only NO but Hell No!

No, mar

there is no reason that they should be allowed to do so in public places without retribution from state.

This is the kind of crap Communists and wacko dictators do... WTF?

I'd argue that the irreligious have proven themselves too devolved and degenerate to properly govern themselves without the guidance of, contrary to their deluded notions of "independence". Being given over less-evolved vices such as gluttony, sexual deviancy, porn addiction, and what not - the types of simplistic pleasures befitting of lesser evolved species they have more in common with than enlightened humans who are capable of creating and appreciating higher things such as arts, music, sciences, and spirituality - all which, of course are religious constructs and institutions.

Therefore it would be in the best interest of America and Europe's governments to administer religion to them and re-establish state religion in our schools, universities and media. America's "first Amendment" is something of an outdated holdover of a past area and can easily be amended or subverted; while America's founders were wise in many areas, they were foolish in others, such as in their decision to permit enslavement of Africans - I'd argue that their decision to grant freedom of religion, rather than establishing state religion was one of their foolies, and something which secularists have of course proven themselves incapable of handling responsibly.

As for how to implement this - the details vary. I'd argue that even giving secularists or atheists "human rights" at all is a luxury, but wouldn't see the need or effectiveness in actively arresting and imprisoning them for holding secular beliefs in the privacy of their own how. But ideally, publicly identifying as a "secularist" or "atheist" should be made socially acceptable in any civilized nation on par with publicly identifying as a pedophile, rapist, or Nazi, or otherwise, and this way they could passively be encouraged either to convert to religion or keep their deviant beliefs outside of civilized society.

No, freedom is never inane or outdated.

Another Left Wing Appeal to their absolute authority over life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness......

Not only NO but Hell No!

My argument is only spiritual people are capable of pursuing happiness. Since spiritual people understand that happiness comes from pursuing Godliness, while lesser people falsely believe that it comes from materialism and immorality, which of course only leads to suffering and a miserable existence in life and lives to come.

Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness therefore must apply only to the genuinely religious and spiritual, not to the secular-minded.

go play with your fellow sophists

So what do you define Happiness to be?

If definition can mean anything any one wants, then it is a meaningless "right".

 

[irosie91]

Another Left Wing Appeal to their absolute authority over life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness......

Not only NO but Hell No!

No, mar

there is no reason that they should be allowed to do so in public places without retribution from state.

This is the kind of crap Communists and wacko dictators do... WTF?

I'd argue that the irreligious have proven themselves too devolved and degenerate to properly govern themselves without the guidance of, contrary to their deluded notions of "independence". Being given over less-evolved vices such as gluttony, sexual deviancy, porn addiction, and what not - the types of simplistic pleasures befitting of lesser evolved species they have more in common with than enlightened humans who are capable of creating and appreciating higher things such as arts, music, sciences, and spirituality - all which, of course are religious constructs and institutions.

Therefore it would be in the best interest of America and Europe's governments to administer religion to them and re-establish state religion in our schools, universities and media. America's "first Amendment" is something of an outdated holdover of a past area and can easily be amended or subverted; while America's founders were wise in many areas, they were foolish in others, such as in their decision to permit enslavement of Africans - I'd argue that their decision to grant freedom of religion, rather than establishing state religion was one of their foolies, and something which secularists have of course proven themselves incapable of handling responsibly.

As for how to implement this - the details vary. I'd argue that even giving secularists or atheists "human rights" at all is a luxury, but wouldn't see the need or effectiveness in actively arresting and imprisoning them for holding secular beliefs in the privacy of their own how. But ideally, publicly identifying as a "secularist" or "atheist" should be made socially acceptable in any civilized nation on par with publicly identifying as a pedophile, rapist, or Nazi, or otherwise, and this way they could passively be encouraged either to convert to religion or keep their deviant beliefs outside of civilized society.

No, freedom is never inane or outdated.

Another Left Wing Appeal to their absolute authority over life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness......

Not only NO but Hell No!

My argument is only spiritual people are capable of pursuing happiness. Since spiritual people understand that happiness comes from pursuing Godliness, while lesser people falsely believe that it comes from materialism and immorality, which of course only leads to suffering and a miserable existence in life and lives to come.

Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness therefore must apply only to the genuinely religious and spiritual, not to the secular-minded.

go play with your fellow sophists

So what do you define Happiness to be?

If definition can mean anything any one wants, then it is a meaningless "right".

I define happiness as a good dip with my low salt potato chips (NOT SALT FREE----lightly salted)

 

[WinterBorn]

I'd argue that the irreligious have proven themselves too devolved and degenerate to properly govern themselves without the guidance of, contrary to their deluded notions of "independence". Being given over less-evolved vices such as gluttony, sexual deviancy, porn addiction, and what not - the types of simplistic pleasures befitting of lesser evolved species they have more in common with than enlightened humans who are capable of creating and appreciating higher things such as arts, music, sciences, and spirituality - all which, of course are religious constructs and institutions.

Therefore it would be in the best interest of America and Europe's governments to administer religion to them and re-establish state religion in our schools, universities and media. America's "first Amendment" is something of an outdated holdover of a past area and can easily be amended or subverted; while America's founders were wise in many areas, they were foolish in others, such as in their decision to permit enslavement of Africans - I'd argue that their decision to grant freedom of religion, rather than establishing state religion was one of their foolies, and something which secularists have of course proven themselves incapable of handling responsibly.

As for how to implement this - the details vary. I'd argue that even giving secularists or atheists "human rights" at all is a luxury, but wouldn't see the need or effectiveness in actively arresting and imprisoning them for holding secular beliefs in the privacy of their own how. But ideally, publicly identifying as a "secularist" or "atheist" should be made socially acceptable in any civilized nation on par with publicly identifying as a pedophile, rapist, or Nazi, or otherwise, and this way they could passively be encouraged either to convert to religion or keep their deviant beliefs outside of civilized society.

No. Absolutely not. If you want to follow a religious belief, feel free to do so. But our gov't will NOT have a state religion. That is a blatant violation of the US Constitution.

AS for atheists being devolved, you are wrong. Most atheists are decent, moral, upstanding citizens. And they are that way without threats of eternal pain & suffering from mythological beings.

You have only to look at history to see what happens when religions gain absolute political power. Or look at the Middleeast. That is a prime example.