Why "freedom of religion" is an inane and outdated concept

[WinterBorn]

If rightness is

You are, seriously, a sick and twisted human being.

Fail... my argument is clearly that if a person has no concept of a God or Higher Power than themselves, then they can't logically have a problem with those things if they feel it benefits them, they could only logically conclude that "might is right", much like any animal, and therefore effectively renounce their "humanism".

So I don't see how human rights are compatible with atheism myself, atheism is essentially "law of the jungle".

And that is absolute bullshit. People can have compassion for their fellow man, empathy with other humans without any God. They can want what is best for others and help others without the threat of eternal damnation.

If you cannot empathize with others or feel compassion for your fellow man without being told to do so by someone claiming to represent God, there is something wrong with you.

And your attempts to claim that atheists are the ones committing the rapes and murders is laughable. How many young people have been molested by clergy? Representatives of the very religions you think will save us have ruined more young lives than atheism has ever thought of.

And what is motive behind molestation?

Obviously the motive is physical, sensory gratification at expense of children, like that of an animal.

So the motive is clearly one of selfish and unrestrained materialism, whether dressed up in a "religious" veneer or not.

Being religious does not remove selfishness, sexual desires or materialism.

 

[WinterBorn]

You are, seriously, a sick and twisted human being.

Fail... my argument is clearly that if a person has no concept of a God or Higher Power than themselves, then they can't logically have a problem with those things if they feel it benefits them, they could only logically conclude that "might is right", much like any animal, and therefore effectively renounce their "humanism".

So I don't see how human rights are compatible with atheism myself, atheism is essentially "law of the jungle".

And that is absolute bullshit. People can have compassion for their fellow man, empathy with other humans without any God. They can want what is best for others and help others without the threat of eternal damnation.

If you cannot empathize with others or feel compassion for your fellow man without being told to do so by someone claiming to represent God, there is something wrong with you.

And your attempts to claim that atheists are the ones committing the rapes and murders is laughable. How many young people have been molested by clergy? Representatives of the very religions you think will save us have ruined more young lives than atheism has ever thought of.

I would argue that it is far more moral to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing, rather than doing the right thing for fear of what may or may not happen to you after you die.

If you deny a higher power then "rightness" can not mean anything fixed, it would be decided by individuals, or societies, not anything meaningful in and of itself.

To not harm others is not a flexible ideal. To not take the life of another except in self defense is not flexible ideal. To not force a woman to have sex when she doesn't want it is not a flexible ideal.

 

[Taz]

Hey unif, welcome aboard. You can have my backing for religious control of America if you can answer me this one question: how did Noah get kangaroos from Australia and back again after the Flood?

The "deluge" is merely a mythical account from the Hebrew Bible, and the specifics are unimportant to modern religion, so your question is rather silly, and I don't think anyone cares other than perhaps that Kent Hovind fellow.

Silly arguments about the nature of mythical ancient floods are irrelevent - my argument is simply that democracy in the modern sense doesn't work, and that those who identify as secular consistently prove themselves too immoral, degenerate, misogynist or otherwise to govern themselves, so they have no "right" to freedom of religion - much as a felon has no "right" to gun ownership.

So you want our country run by a book of myths? Um... no thanks.

 

[WinterBorn]

Removing any freedom we have is a bad idea.

 

[ding]

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.

And by irreligious you mean to say all people who behave in the manner you described, right? So just because one has an affiliation with a specific religion and behaves that way, he too would be considered irreligious, right? And in that case he was already exposed to the remedy but it didn't take. What I am trying to get at here is the practical aspect of what you are proposing. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

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.

See my above comments. Practically speaking you can't make someone behave virtuously.

 

[ding]

I firmly believe in the Separation of Church and State.

There really is no such language in our Constitution. In fact, the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment specifically states the opposite; that the Federal Government is prohibited from interfering with the established religions of the States. So clearly, the Constitution does allow for established state religions. And in fact, about half of the states had established religions at the time the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified.

 

[Penelope]

I firmly believe in the Separation of Church and State.

There really is no such language in our Constitution. In fact, the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment specifically states the opposite; that the Federal Government is prohibited from interfering with the established religions of the States. So clearly, the Constitution does allow for established state religions. And in fact, about half of the states had established religions at the time the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified.

And Jefferson said there is a wall between the Church and State, and no state made a state religion, but they have tried. There is no place for religion in the law.

 

[ding]

I firmly believe in the Separation of Church and State.

There really is no such language in our Constitution. In fact, the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment specifically states the opposite; that the Federal Government is prohibited from interfering with the established religions of the States. So clearly, the Constitution does allow for established state religions. And in fact, about half of the states had established religions at the time the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified.

And Jefferson said there is a wall between the Church and State, and no state made a state religion, but they have tried. There is no place for religion in the law.

For the federal government. Not for state government. Jefferson said, establishing state religions is reserved for the states.

Amendment I (Religion): Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Samuel Miller

"...This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U. S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority..."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

You had to start yet another sock account to troll? Go do something useful with your life

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Hard for me to tell whether you are just trolling- or you really are the Fascist you make yourself out to be.....

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.

So in your mind- anyone who doesn't believe in your fairy tales is just the same as a rapist......

Thank 'god' we have a Constitution to protect us all from Fascists like you.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Defeats the entire premise and purpose of our Constitution. So, no.

 

[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.

Hard for me to tell whether you are just trolling- or you really are the Fascist you make yourself out to be.....

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.

So in your mind- anyone who doesn't believe in your fairy tales is just the same as a rapist......

Thank 'god' we have a Constitution to protect us all from Fascists like you.

This troll that posted the OP is a typical religious hypocrite. He claims wants everyone to follow HIS religion, so we can have a moral and ethical world. And then he talks about cheating on his wife.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I think you missed the entire point of the First Amendment, and of the United States, and of religion in general.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Removing freedom of choice, free will, is not a religious concept.

A belief that someone forces you to profess is not a real belief.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are, seriously, a sick and twisted human being.

Fail... my argument is clearly that if a person has no concept of a God or Higher Power than themselves, then they can't logically have a problem with those things if they feel it benefits them, they could only logically conclude that "might is right", much like any animal, and therefore effectively renounce their "humanism".

So I don't see how human rights are compatible with atheism myself, atheism is essentially "law of the jungle".

And that is absolute bullshit. People can have compassion for their fellow man, empathy with other humans without any God. They can want what is best for others and help others without the threat of eternal damnation.

If you cannot empathize with others or feel compassion for your fellow man without being told to do so by someone claiming to represent God, there is something wrong with you.

And your attempts to claim that atheists are the ones committing the rapes and murders is laughable. How many young people have been molested by clergy? Representatives of the very religions you think will save us have ruined more young lives than atheism has ever thought of.

I would argue that it is far more moral to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing, rather than doing the right thing for fear of what may or may not happen to you after you die.

And I would argue that you're making life more difficult for no good reason, just so that you can feel superior.

 

[Taz]

You are, seriously, a sick and twisted human being.

Fail... my argument is clearly that if a person has no concept of a God or Higher Power than themselves, then they can't logically have a problem with those things if they feel it benefits them, they could only logically conclude that "might is right", much like any animal, and therefore effectively renounce their "humanism".

So I don't see how human rights are compatible with atheism myself, atheism is essentially "law of the jungle".

And that is absolute bullshit. People can have compassion for their fellow man, empathy with other humans without any God. They can want what is best for others and help others without the threat of eternal damnation.

If you cannot empathize with others or feel compassion for your fellow man without being told to do so by someone claiming to represent God, there is something wrong with you.

And your attempts to claim that atheists are the ones committing the rapes and murders is laughable. How many young people have been molested by clergy? Representatives of the very religions you think will save us have ruined more young lives than atheism has ever thought of.

I would argue that it is far more moral to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing, rather than doing the right thing for fear of what may or may not happen to you after you die.

And I would argue that you're making life more difficult for no good reason, just so that you can feel superior.

So you don't feel superior to me for believing in an invisible being from another dimension that nobody has ever seen?

 

[Taz]

Removing freedom of choice, free will, is not a religious concept.

A belief that someone forces you to profess is not a real belief.

You mean like god scaring people with hell into following a book?

 

[Muhammed]

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.

Why the fuck do you believe Moonies are better than anyone else?

Personally, I think you cult members are all brainwashed fools.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are, seriously, a sick and twisted human being.

Fail... my argument is clearly that if a person has no concept of a God or Higher Power than themselves, then they can't logically have a problem with those things if they feel it benefits them, they could only logically conclude that "might is right", much like any animal, and therefore effectively renounce their "humanism".

So I don't see how human rights are compatible with atheism myself, atheism is essentially "law of the jungle".

And that is absolute bullshit. People can have compassion for their fellow man, empathy with other humans without any God. They can want what is best for others and help others without the threat of eternal damnation.

If you cannot empathize with others or feel compassion for your fellow man without being told to do so by someone claiming to represent God, there is something wrong with you.

And your attempts to claim that atheists are the ones committing the rapes and murders is laughable. How many young people have been molested by clergy? Representatives of the very religions you think will save us have ruined more young lives than atheism has ever thought of.

I would argue that it is far more moral to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing, rather than doing the right thing for fear of what may or may not happen to you after you die.

And I would argue that you're making life more difficult for no good reason, just so that you can feel superior.

So you don't feel superior to me for believing in an invisible being from another dimension that nobody has ever seen?

No, Taz, I feel superior to you because I'm superior to you.

I also feel my beliefs are superior to your beliefs, but that's completely separate from me just being better than you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Removing freedom of choice, free will, is not a religious concept.

A belief that someone forces you to profess is not a real belief.

You mean like god scaring people with hell into following a book?

If you believe you are going to go to Hell, then that's your real belief. If you just say you believe it because the government tells you to say you do, then it's not a real belief.

Is that dumbed-down enough for you, or do I need to break out the Crayolas?