Freedom of Religion or Freedom from Religion? 32 replies

Please wait...

Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#21 13 years ago
Aeroflotte;3389224Did my whole post just fly over your head? It doesn't matter. I'm not religious. I don't care if God could refer to any deity, it's not equal for all beliefs.[/QUOTE] The only belief its not "equal" for is atheism. And since atheism = atheos (Defies the Gods), AKA, "opting out of religion". So if you do not believe in any God, just skip that part. According to your reasoning, churches shouldn't be put near large roads because that would force atheists to choose not to turn there.
And "allah" comes from the semetic language group, which is not limited to just Hebrew.
Did I say it was?
Again, I was using Allah as an example. I could have used a Hindu god, or some god of an African tribe.
But that's still a specific deity. If we said "one nation under Jesus", you might have an argument. But since we don't, you're just grasping straws. [QUOTE=Invader] First of all it makes no sense at all to contend that removal of religious symbols etc is an attack on religion, while at the same time stating that their presence does not amount to an attack on atheism. Which is it? If you say the presence of religious symbolism does not prevent anybody from holding their own beliefs, logically the same goes for lack of religious symbolism.

That argument makes no sense. First of all it makes no sense to contend that restriction of free speech is an attack on people's right to expression, while at the same time stating that free speech does not amount to an attack on other's beliefs. Which is it? Your reasoning is not a road I want our republic going down.

Complete separation of church and state is better for all concerned, not just non-believers. What people seem to forget is that both will influence each other, and neither government interference in religion or religious interference in government are desirable.

I see - so you think government interference is better? You clearly haven't thought this through. The government has to take down all religious symbols people put up, imprison people who publically express religious ideas... government interference!




Force Recon

Semper fidelis

50 XP

10th July 2004

0 Uploads

2,637 Posts

0 Threads

#22 13 years ago

secularists are irritating. you don't want to wear a cross/hijab/any religious symbol ,then don't.Just don't stop others from wearing them.and that is where I have problem with the secularists.and I live in a country where secularism and EU has a really strong hold...




Emperor Benedictine

You can't fire me, I quit

55 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,437 Posts

0 Threads

#23 13 years ago
Machiavelli's Apprentice;3390076That argument makes no sense. First of all it makes no sense to contend that restriction of free speech is an attack on people's right to expression, while at the same time stating that free speech does not amount to an attack on other's beliefs. Which is it?

That literally doesn't make sense, but I think my argument does. Let's use the pledge of allegiance as an example here...if the removal of the words "under God" amounts to an attack on religion, why does their presence not amount to an attack on atheism? I do not mean to suggest that the presence of religion altogether is an attack on the non-religious, only instances where religion is placed on a pedestal by a governing body.

I see - so you think government interference is better? You clearly haven't thought this through. The government has to take down all religious symbols people put up, imprison people who publically express religious ideas... government interference!

I don't remember making either of those outlandish suggestions...I do think it ought to stop blatantly promoting religious values in an official capacity, though.




Chemix2

Paladin: The Holy Knight

50 XP

16th March 2005

0 Uploads

3,789 Posts

0 Threads

#24 13 years ago

To attack is to be in an active state of attacking, Religous symbols have stood for decades if not centuries, and are now being torn down, people weren't offended when they were first put up, but they are now and demand their removal. Their continued standing is no more an attack than it is for someone to keep their mind the same while the other changes their mind on a subject.

If religous symbols in public like crosses, ten commandments, people praying, Bibles, etc. etc. offend you, get a life. Christians today can be freely offended and can't do anything about it whereas any other group being offended is a no no, cause for lawsuit, or otherwise a tradegy.




Emperor Benedictine

You can't fire me, I quit

55 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,437 Posts

0 Threads

#25 13 years ago
Chemix2;3390214To attack is to be in an active state of attacking

So when the words "under God" were added to the pledge of allegiance, you'd agree that was an attack on atheism?




Psychokenesis

I'm too cool to Post

136,505 XP

16th October 2003

0 Uploads

13,428 Posts

0 Threads

#26 13 years ago

gameplayerabm;3388156The question posed in the thread title is directed towards what is happening in the United States as well as across the world in many nations. Crosses are being removed from county seals (Los Angeles), the Pledge of Allegiance has been investigated as to whether or not it is unconstitutional in an odd paradox, and in general, any reference to religion is often suppressed. This is being done in an attempt to preserve freedom of religion.

The question I pose is whether we are moving towards freedom of religion or if we are actually moving to freedom from religion. Separation of the church and the state is necessary in any society to some degree, but the original idea of this separation was only intended to ensure that a church did not take full governmental control. This is desirable; I have no problems with this part.

But how does the removal of symbols and ideals honor this separation at all? How does it promote freedom of religion? Do these symbols honestly keep anyone else from believing what they want? Does the pledge, which is free to be said with or without words being left out by anyone, actually change anyone's mind forcefully?

Destroying these things across the world does not benefit a freedom of religion; instead, it just promotes (forced) freedom from religion.

While I can't disagree with what is happening little of what any government decides to do ist tempered. With this removal and future removal I see a pulling away from everything religous or spiritual. As a result this country will be the opposite of what it started out to be...a haven for religious freedom.

In time religion will become unpopluar...For the few that would continue to pescribe to god this of course would become persecution. On what level I'm not sure.

But I do see it coming and sooner that we'd like to think.




Safe-Keeper

Aw, c'mon Cyan, it's quality!

50 XP

29th September 2004

0 Uploads

1,225 Posts

0 Threads

#27 13 years ago
Crosses are being removed from county seals (Los Angeles), the Pledge of Allegiance has been investigated as to whether or not it is unconstitutional in an odd paradox, and in general, any reference to religion is often suppressed. This is being done in an attempt to preserve freedom of religion.

No, it's being done to enforce the separation of Church and State.

The question I pose is whether we are moving towards freedom of religion or if we are actually moving to freedom from religion.

The removal of commandments from courthouses, crosses from country seals, and so on is an effort to keep State and Church separate. If that counts as "freedom from religion" in your book is up to you. I'd label it "Freedom from State religion", myself.

Separation of the church and the state is necessary in any society to some degree [...]

Every society, particularly multi-ethnic ones such as the USA, needs to fully separate Religion and State. Superstition has no place in politics and decision-making.

But how does the removal of symbols and ideals honor this separation at all? How does it promote freedom of religion?

It doesn't nor is it meant to. It's intended to keep government secular, so that mythological superstition such as "God hates fags" doesn't interfere with laws, policies, doctrines, and so on. Said laws, policies, and doctrines should be based on sound logic, never the rantings of deluded people who lived thousands of years ago.

Do these symbols honestly keep anyone else from believing what they want? Does the pledge, which is free to be said with or without words being left out by anyone, actually change anyone's mind forcefully?

Maybe not, maybe yes. Either way, though, they promote one religion over another. It needs to go.

The pledge of allegience? Don't say "under god" if you don't like it. There's no reason to change.

It estabilishes religion, it puts one belief over all other beliefs, and it's - to be frank - nonsensical. The USA is not founded on Christian principles. It's not (supposed to be) ruled by religious people. And there's no evidence whatsoever but purported "miracles" and forged "shrouds" to prove the existance of a god by the name of God in the first place. You might as well say "one nation under the celestial china tea-pot".

Crosses? It's just a symbol. You don't have to read into it any further than that.

So you don't think that when they added the Cross to, say, the city seal, they had Christianity in mind? I don't buy that.

There's no such thing as "just a symbol". Every symbol, by definition, represents something.

I'm tired of all those oversensitive dicks who are using excuses to hide a person's faith.

Hiding faith? I thought you said the cross was "just a symbol"? Hm? Hm;)?

The hypocricy in all of that is, they only use a strict interpretation of the Constitution when it benefits them, but when the tables are turned, they whine.

If you read my posts, for one, you'll see that the argument that state religion violates the Constitution is but one of the many arguments I put forth.

And to be honest, I don't believe there is a single amendment in the US Constitution that I dislike (the closest thing I get to disliking an amendment is my disapproval of the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd amendment). If there was, though, of course I'd want that amendment changed. I can say so, I believe, without being hypocritical. Saying that the Constitution should be followed and that it should be capable of change are two different things.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but most of these different threads on religion covered different specific topics. Religion's a pretty general catergory, y'know.

Smartass:D.

The reason I think this is stupid is that it's going out of the way to change something so trivial, and in many cases, even historical.

Historical? Many of these elements were added latelly, such as the "Under God" statement, which was added by McCarthy in the fifties after a campaign by the Catholic Knights of Columbus. Hardly historical at all.

If you know something I don't, though, please elaborate.

But its true not al athiests want this, only a small minority that are active at it. I know MANY athiests that say the word GOD, in the pledge and dont care if it was there or not. the hardcore athiests do care though. if the word god was taken out of the pledge, Id be so pissed.. the majority of the people want it, the minority of active athiests shouldnt over come us.

But whether or not a majority wants something is not all that determines whether it's favourable or not. It's a valid point, of course, but this is just as much, I think, a discussion on whether or not the majority should be in favour of it in the first place.

And "hard-core atheists"? Do you mean the anti-theists?

Last, but not least, a question to those who want to keep "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance: Why do you want to keep it? The best argument I hear is "it's not that important", "it's traditional", or "I don't care, so neither should you?". Neither of which are particularly good arguments. SO: What good does "Under God" do? Why do you want it to stay and promote Abrahamic myths, in blatant violation of Separation of Church and State? What does it accomplish? What do we gain from having it there?




Quetron

USA

50 XP

28th August 2006

0 Uploads

1,155 Posts

0 Threads

#28 13 years ago
Chemix2;3390214To attack is to be in an active state of attacking, Religous symbols have stood for decades if not centuries, and are now being torn down, people weren't offended when they were first put up, but they are now and demand their removal. Their continued standing is no more an attack than it is for someone to keep their mind the same while the other changes their mind on a subject. If religous symbols in public like crosses, ten commandments, people praying, Bibles, etc. etc. offend you, get a life. Christians today can be freely offended and can't do anything about it whereas any other group being offended is a no no, cause for lawsuit, or otherwise a tradegy.

Ahh, thank you for doing my typing, absolutly correct. its like (all the sudden it's bad) even though a picture of jesus was hanging on a wall for 30 years. I figure being christian, that other people STILL try to change ideas and or wich church, etc etc. So why all these liberal types think they are the only ones who may be confronted is just lame beyond lame. Live and let live, true freedom, but oh no, now they are making LAWS for what to cook french fries in.Laws to build and guide and form and safe, and and, to me thats makes the phone tapping crap a minor thing. But a law to FORCE you to not smoke cigarettes, DOES affect peoples loosing our freedoms. Unlike people put those crosses up way back when, WANTED to do it, because we (were) free. I say teach creation, and darwin, we had both in the christian elemtary schools I went to.But in reality nowdays, they have taken our freedom away, and chop off creationism, fair? you say?, not even close. Stop all these anti relgous crap, and the problem will dissappear.




AlDaja

SFC III Troubleshooter.

50 XP

5th September 2006

0 Uploads

11,263 Posts

0 Threads

#29 13 years ago
Quetron;3390480Ahh, thank you for doing my typing, absolutly correct. its like (all the sudden it's bad) even though a picture of jesus was hanging on a wall for 30 years. I figure being christian, that other people STILL try to change ideas and or wich church, etc etc. So why all these liberal types think they are the only ones who may be confronted is just lame beyond lame. Live and let live, true freedom, but oh no, now they are making LAWS for what to cook french fries in.Laws to build and guide and form and safe, and and, to me thats makes the phone tapping crap a minor thing. But a law to FORCE you to not smoke cigarettes, DOES affect peoples loosing our freedoms. Unlike people put those crosses up way back when, WANTED to do it, because we (were) free. I say yeach creation, and darwin, we had both in the christian elemtary schools I went to.But in reality nowdays, they have taken our freedom away, and chop off creationism, fair? you say?, not even close. Stop all these anti relgous crap, and the problem will dissappear.

Religious symbolism is threatening to twisted elements within the far-left. They use the guise of freedom from religion but in truth, its freedom from moral prosecution. Religion is the last vestige of moral value for society. Think about it, once people no longer care about religion or moral values they represent, it lays the way for perverse aspects to solidify within society…Sodom and Gomorra ring any bells.




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#30 13 years ago
No, it's being done to enforce the separation of Church and State.

Separation of Church and State is not in the constitution. Pop Quiz: Do you know where it IS written? Answer: One of the Jefferson's personal letters. Not law - just an opinion.

It estabilishes religion, it puts one belief over all other beliefs,

How so? And to be quite frank with you, there it is not possible to build a nation without putting "one belief above all others". -You must follow the Laws. But what if you're an anarchist? -You can't murder. But in some cultures, murder is okay. Isn't that violating their beliefs?

The word "God" is in the declaration of Independence. Oh no! Its unconstitutional!

That'll help Johnny's grades - if he is told to study the Declaration of Independence he can just say "No, its against my belief system".

and it's - to be frank - nonsensical. The USA is not founded on Christian principles.

Most of the founding fathers were Christians and held Christian values, and applied a lot of them in the law. Yes, they tolerate other beliefs - but that doesn't make them atheists.

It's not (supposed to be) ruled by religious people.

Your hypocrisy shows itself once again. One moment you claim that all beliefs should be treated equally, and then you turn around and say that only atheists should be allowed to hold political office.

And there's no evidence whatsoever but purported "miracles" and forged "shrouds" to prove the existance of a god by the name of God in the first place. You might as well say "one nation under the celestial china tea-pot".

Just because your prejudice renders you incapable of understanding other belief systems doesn't make them any less valid.