NationStates Jolt Archive

Let me start by saying that it isn’t my intention to start a fight. I’m hoping to have a logical, rational, intellectual argument. Yes, this is an extreme viewpoint, but that's the fun of having it!

Proposition

I propose that all branches and divisions of the Judaic, Christian and Islamic faiths be immediately shut down, their clergypersons defrocked, places of worship torn down, and any and all sacred texts (in print or electronic media) be either destroyed or placed under heavy restrictions.

After the first set of provisions is finished, I would also propose that the collected assets of each religion be liquidated and the money derived from the process be donated to deserving, secular charities.

Finally, I would propose that all official governing documents – the Constitution, etc – be rewritten without religious influence, and that all government officials currently serving in offices to which they are elected must either be confirmed atheists or hold religious beliefs that do not rely on the existence of any god before they are allowed to serve another term or be elected to a different office, with similar restrictions set in place for those who wish to run for office in the future.

Arguments

I make these propositions because western religion, throughout history and endemic to society today, is a source of warfare and death. More people have died in the name of “god” than anyone or anything else. With the possible exception of World War One, every war that has been started since nearly the beginning of recorded history has been over religion. And while I give each respective faith a lot of respect for the good that they have done for humanity – and still do today, despite the state of our world – I say that the problems it causes far outweigh the positive things they can do.

With the exception of some modern theocracies – most notably in the Middle East and Asia, though for how long is anyone’s guess – every theocracy in the world has failed. If “god” cannot run a country – since many rules of most modern societies in the western world have been based on Judeo-Christian morality – then it should not be expected that “he” is qualified to run the lives of billions.

My final argument against western religions is that they impede the flow of science and rationality. The strength of religion lies in the suppression of knowledge, a creed which Christianity and Islam, perhaps more than Judaism (although that may be researcher bias, since I don’t know very much about Jewish societal customs, pressures, etc) has followed since their respective inceptions. Faith and the requisite magic of it only exist so long as science cannot reproduce miracles or resurrect the dead (the latter not being too far off, but that’s a different thread entirely), and with each successive “defrocking,” if you will, of a given religious phenomena*, the church power base grows weaker, thus leading to more fevered proselytizing. (*The Stigmata, for instance, is psychologically driven, a mind-over-matter phenomena that, while not yet fully understood, is certainly explainable and acceptable. But even thirty years ago, before the rise of modern psychology, the Stigmata was still seen as a holy event.)

So, in essence, a unilateral ban on all western religions, based on their repeated failings, is what I'm hoping for. (Or at least an intelligent debate about it.)

How's this for an answer to such a repeated argument?

No.

How's this for an answer to such a repeated argument?

No.

Why?

(And where has this been repeated?)

Why?

(And where has this been repeated?)
While I think that the majority of atheists might be ok with that, I get the strong feeling, that maybe some of the others might not approve of this idea.

Why?

(And where has this been repeated?)
Eh, every once in a while on this board.

And because your talking about abolishing a faith. You can't abolish a faith. That's saying "You can't believe in God. So stop believing in him. Stop it. Stop it dammit!"

And your saying that God does not exist. You cannot either prove or disprove God.

So there. No.


EDIT: And I mean, you really thing 6 billion people will go "okay!" and stop believing in God because the government said to? You think the government itself will stop believing in God?


You want to punish innocent people for the extremism of others?

EDIT2: And what right is it of anyone to tell people to stop believing in their religon? What right is it of anyone to destroy places of worship?

EDIT3: The HELL? What right does anyone have to ban the Bible and the Quran, if you don't believe in God, then they are simply books to you and nothing more. Why do you want to ban books, eh?

Eh, every once in a while on this board.

And because your talking about abolishing a faith. You can't abolish a faith. That's saying "You can't believe in God. So stop believing in him. Stop it. Stop it dammit!"

And your saying that God does not exist. You cannot either prove or disprove God.

So there. No.


EDIT: And I mean, you really thing 6 billion people will go "okay!" and stop believing in God because the government said to? You think the government itself will stop believing in God?


You want to punish innocent people for the extremism of others?

Gah, sorry for the big quote...

Anyway, if you actually read the thread, I didn't say anything about the faithful. (Which I should have specifically mentioned, so I apologize.) I'm saying that the establishment of religion should be banned. I have absolutely no problems with faith, I just don't want people unlike me leading me.

(It ain't 6 billion, either, no matter how much they wish it was, so please don't insult my intelligence with that.)

Finally, how is this a punishment? I'm letting you keep your faith, I'm just taking away the multi-million dollar churches and other assorted nonsense.

RE: EDIT2: It is my right, as a hedonist.

RE: EDIT3: Why should banning books matter, when it appears that you don't even read in the first place? You're one of the reasons why I want this to happen. You people immediately attack someone else when they put forward that you might be wrong. Just disgusting.

Gah, sorry for the big quote...

Anyway, if you actually read the thread, I didn't say anything about the faithful. (Which I should have specifically mentioned, so I apologize.) I'm saying that the establishment of religion should be banned. I have absolutely no problems with faith, I just don't want people unlike me leading me.

(It ain't 6 billion, either, no matter how much they wish it was, so please don't insult my intelligence with that.)

Finally, how is this a punishment? I'm letting you keep your faith, I'm just taking away the multi-million dollar churches and other assorted nonsense.
The establishment of religon eh? Your argument is against the establishment of religon? What BINDS these people together? You want to destroy that?

Whatever. I swear, some people...they think everything is so simple and we're all just idiots running around believing some imaginary goofball. So they come up with some bullshit idea to destroy organized religon thinking it will solve all their problems.

Kinda like how we wanted to destroy communism. Yep. Went real well.

Thinking that if they destroy organized religon, people will suddenly become "enlightened."

Yep. Whatever.

EDIT: And now he accuses me of lies. I read his damned thread. What else does he want me to do? Interpert it in a way best suited for him?

I think he's angry that I don't agree with him. Awwwwwwwwww....:D

The establishment of religon eh? Your argument is against the establishment of religon? What BINDS these people together? You want to destroy that?

That's exactly it. What BINDS you together makes you weak, emotionally and mentally. If you bothered to go it alone, you might be surprised.

Whatever. I swear, some people...they think everything is so simple and we're all just idiots running around believing some imaginary goofball. So they come up with some bullshit idea to destroy organized religon thinking it will solve all their problems.

You're debating with a lapsed Catholic. I think I'm pretty well aware of how complex the system of religion is. That's why it would be so easy to destroy.

Kinda like how we wanted to destroy communism. Yep. Went real well.

Thinking that if they destroy organized religon, people will suddenly become "enlightened."

Yep. Whatever.

Once again, I say that I don't have any problems with the faithful. Just what they're putting their faith in.

RE: EDIT: Maybe if it didn't take you three seperate edits to make that final point, I'd be more inclined to believe that you read the thread initially. And when did I call you a liar? (Not angry with you, just having fun. :p)

You're one of the reasons why I want this to happen.
I’m hoping to have a logical, rational, intellectual argument.

I laughed.

That's exactly it. What BINDS you together makes you weak, emotionally and mentally. If you bothered to go it alone, you might be surprised.Eh, I'm going it alone. I feel no difference from when I went with it with every other Muslim.



You're debating with a lapsed Catholic. I think I'm pretty well aware of how complex the system of religion is. That's why it would be so easy to destroy.You'd think that


Once again, I say that I don't have any problems with the faithful. Just what they're putting their faith in.
.....Your saying you have a problem with what they believe in, just not that they are believing anything at all? That makes no sense.

That's exactly it. What BINDS you together makes you weak, emotionally and mentally. If you bothered to go it alone, you might be surprised.



You're debating with a lapsed Catholic. I think I'm pretty well aware of how complex the system of religion is. That's why it would be so easy to destroy.



Once again, I say that I don't have any problems with the faithful. Just what they're putting their faith in.
I think you have too high an opinion of people in general. Religion wouldn't work without the 'establishment of religion', as you put it, around it.

I make these propositions because western religion, throughout history and endemic to society today, is a source of warfare and death. More people have died in the name of “god” than anyone or anything else. With the possible exception of World War One, every war that has been started since nearly the beginning of recorded history has been over religion

No, not true. Many more wars have been fought over territoral ambition and resorce control. I've heard several people say "religion is bad, it starts wars" but religion itself doesn't do that, people who twist religions to fight wars do that.

...Your saying you have a problem with what they believe in, just not that they are believing anything at all? That makes no sense.

For the last time, I have no problem with PEOPLE who have FAITH. I have problems with what FAITH requires of PEOPLE - blind acceptance. Let me phrase a different way: I love the sinner, but hate the sin.

You Atheist Son Of A Bitch! Your The Reason Thats There War In This World Causing Relogions To Fight Agaisnt Each Other!

That approach has been tried a numbr of times before, an it never worked.
Take a close look at the French Revolution...

Also, my impression is that most wars weren't fought about religion at all, but for far more profane motives. Reliogion served as a beautiful justification for slaughtering other. You can't rightfully say "I'll kill my neighbour because I want his land/cattle/women/industries/resources/oil/whatever", because that would be a really questionable motive, wouldn't it? But if you say "I'll kill my neighbour if he doesn't convert to my form of belief/won't accept that Western democracy is the only acceptable form of goverment and stop violating human rights/free all his slaves" that sounds a lot better and puts you in a high position, right?

You can't blame "religion" for the failings of humans. It's humans that twist and misinterpret religion. It's humans that start wars, not religion. Also, if you look throughout history, you don't NEED religion to start wars...all you need are humans and (usually) greed.

So, by your logic, I propose that we, as a race, just kill ourselves. No more humans = no more wars. Problem solved.

:headbang:

No, not true. Many more wars have been fought over territoral ambition and resorce control. I've heard several people say "religion is bad, it starts wars" but religion itself doesn't do that, people who twist religions to fight wars do that.

Territorial ambition and resource control, up until the later 18th century, were products of religion. (And are to this day, although in admittedly smaller doses.)

"Convert The Heathens! (And Take Their Land!)" - You can't tell me this isn't (or wasn't) one of the most heavily-used rallying cries for the past 4,000 years.

I have problems with what FAITH requires of PEOPLE - blind acceptance.

You obviously dont understand faith enough then. While you can have blind acceptence as a faith, it ultimately wont do you much good. Most people have a highly developed faith that comes from study and understanding. If you cant see that you dont know enough about the faith communities.

Not even World War 2 was fought over religon.

Hitler didn't hate the Jewish belief. He hated those that believed it. A lot because of the anti-Jewish propaganda floating around as a reason Germany lost WW1.

He then decided to ban all religon and ended up treating himself as a God of Germany.

Then there was the whole massive territory-gaining war in which Germany basically invaded too much of Europe and allied with Japan and Italy and etc. etc.

Territorial ambition and resource control, up until the later 18th century, were products of religion. (And are to this day, although in admittedly smaller doses.)

"Convert The Heathens! (And Take Their Land!)" - You can't tell me this isn't (or wasn't) one of the most heavily-used rallying cries for the past 4,000 years.
'religion' is not a living thing. people interpret religion according to their views/wants/needs. Don't blame religion, because if people were to follow it closely, there would be no wars (ever heard of 'you shall not kill'?)

Territorial ambition and resource control, up until the later 18th century, were products of religion. (And are to this day, although in admittedly smaller doses.)

"Convert The Heathens! (And Take Their Land!)" - You can't tell me this isn't (or wasn't) one of the most heavily-used rallying cries for the past 4,000 years.
Why the hell would they want to convert random people for crying out loud?

It's the other way around.

Territorial ambition and resource control, up until the later 18th century, were products of religion. (And are to this day, although in admittedly smaller doses.)

"Convert The Heathens! (And Take Their Land!)" - You can't tell me this isn't (or wasn't) one of the most heavily-used rallying cries for the past 4,000 years.

Yes, there were religous wars over territory, but to claim every single war up till the 18th century was motivated by religion is absurd. Many wars were motivated purely by teritioral expansionism and need/desire for resorces. In some cases religon was used as an excuse, but little more than that. If you cant see that then your even more stupid than your first post indicates.

You obviously dont understand faith enough then. While you can have blind acceptence as a faith, it ultimately wont do you much good. Most people have a highly developed faith that comes from study and understanding. If you cant see that you dont know enough about the faith communities.
I believe that while there might be some people who actually do have a highly developed faith, the majority just kind of follows the crowd.

I make these propositions because western religion, throughout history and endemic to society today, is a source of warfare and death. More people have died in the name of “god” than anyone or anything else. With the possible exception of World War One, every war that has been started since nearly the beginning of recorded history has been over religion.

Patently false. Wars are started over power, not religion. Every single war that has been waged in the name of god, as you put it, would have occured just the same without religion. Man does not need religion to fight wars; it is just a convienent excuse.

You can't blame "religion" for the failings of humans. It's humans that twist and misinterpret religion. It's humans that start wars, not religion. Also, if you look throughout history, you don't NEED religion to start wars...all you need are humans and (usually) greed.

So, by your logic, I propose that we, as a race, just kill ourselves. No more humans = no more wars. Problem solved.

:headbang:

I'm not blaming religion for anything - humanity does deserve the blame. I think people are too immature to handle something as huge as religion/faith, and when people can't control something it tends to spiral out of hand.

Yes, humans start wars. But wars are turned over to the province of religion when they need more steam, becoming worse in the process.

And personally, I agree with that last line. No more humans = no more problems, period. :D

I believe that while there might be some people who actually do have a highly developed faith, the majority just kind of follows the crowd.

Then quite clearly, you dont understand the faith community, or indeed what faith is. Faith is something you have to develop yourself, and develop it through study. You cant just rely on "the crowd". Tell me, do you actually have any experiances of faith?

ive only ever suffered at the hands of the unfaithful, not saying im this or that, but on the whole those without religion are ussually those without morals/ principles.

(oh yeah and most wars are politics, religion is the guise, can u see a monk with an m16?)

how DARE you refer to judaic faiths as 'western religions?' these are semitic and arabic in origin, they have nothing to do with europe! and here i'm assuming that by 'the west' you do mean europe, although who knows...

the ONLY truly european religion is paganism.

Then quite clearly, you dont understand the faith community, or indeed what faith is. Faith is something you have to develop yourself, and develop it through study. You cant just rely on "the crowd". Tell me, do you actually have any experiances of faith?
Maybe it's just the community I grew up in. People went to church because... that's what everyone did and what everyone had been doing for as long as they could remember. It was a tiny little village, and Mass was more of a social gathering than a religious ceremony. There were several 'religious' youth organizations where no one (as far as I could tell) was very religious, but they had been religious organizations from the very start, and thus nothing was changed. To me it was just one big lie, people had gradually lost faith, but since no single person 'dared' to tell the others they all just pretended to still believe.
Ok, so it's overly simplified, but this is the way I percieved it growing up.

Let me start by saying that it isn’t my intention to start a fight. I’m hoping to have a logical, rational, intellectual argument.

Nice try. Won't happen.


I make these propositions because western religion, throughout history and endemic to society today, is a source of warfare and death. More people have died in the name of “god” than anyone or anything else. With the possible exception of World War One, every war that has been started since nearly the beginning of recorded history has been over religion.

Let's see... working backward, as far as I can recall.

1. Gulf War II: Get Rid O'Saddam/Take More Oil/Whatnot
2. Gult War: Kick Iraq out of Kuwait
3. Vietnam: Conquer the Evil Commie North Vietnameese
4. Korea: Keep the Evil Commies out!
5. WWII: Unresolved problems from WWI and Hitler's big Dream
6. WWI: Interlocking Alliances mean when one country offs another's ArchDuke, we all go shooting
7. Spanish-American: Remember the Maine? Well, we'll take some stuff anyway
8. Civil War: Either States Rights, Slavery, or all of the above, depending
9. Mexican: Because we got tired of Santa Ana
10. 1812: Was there a reason for this one? Yeah, too close to the Revolutionary War, the British didn't respect the Americans, et al, ad nauseum...
11. Revoultionary War: This is the one that gets America started.

I could list more, and that's just off the top of my head. The point is, its very easy to disprove your notion that "With the possible exception of World War One, every war that has been started since nearly the beginning of recorded history has been over religion." I'd submit that most wars, indeed all wars are started by people who've forgotten the central point of Christianity and Islam, thou shalt not kill.

Your arguement is clearly flamebait.

Yes, there were religous wars over territory, but to claim every single war up till the 18th century was motivated by religion is absurd. Many wars were motivated purely by teritioral expansionism and need/desire for resorces. In some cases religon was used as an excuse, but little more than that. If you cant see that then your even more stupid than your first post indicates.

Did I say that they were motivated by religion? No. "Products" of religion is what I said. Calling them so indicates that they were the result of - as you said - a convenient excuse.

Did I say that they were motivated by religion? No. "Products" of religion is what I said. Calling them so indicates that they were the result of - as you said - a convenient excuse.

So instead of dealling with the root cause you deal with the excuse. Really intellegent...

Why the hell would they want to convert random people for crying out loud?

It's the other way around.

I didn't want to have to say this (since, as you earlier indicated, it negates what I said in my original post), but what color is the sky in your world?

Haven't you ever heard of a "Missionary?"

A missionary is different from a Crusader, as you cited in your earlier example/

It is not banning the faith. As I understand the original poster, the proposition is banning the religions. Nobody will punish you if one will continue to believe in god or santa claus.
Banning all western religions is extreme but meanwhile acceptable. Religions as organizations have supported and initiated majority of wars, hate, and unspeaken cruelty in the world. That is why they should be banned. As well as other things original poster mentioned.

Take for example Spanish invasion in Central America: it was fully supported and initiated, by Christianity. Thousands of natives killed, enslaved, tortured, their culture destroyed in name of 'right' god. Many greedy and violent people committed these crimes without any faith, but excusing themselves as Christians. Such practice should not be allowed in any society.

Nowadays, it is the same thing just in more civilized ways: Christianity strongly suggest limiting human rights and choices (like abortion, etc.) in the name of its god - I also read news, that Christian Church has suggested Spanish civil servants to not register legal (gay) marriages.

Basing modern society on cruel prejudiced organization laws as background of civilized society has not and will not be successful.

So instead of dealling with the root cause you deal with the excuse. Really intellegent...

The root cause is something inherent in human nature. Greed, anger, rage, wrath, whatever you want to call it, all are influenced and made stronger by the addition of religion.

Unless you'd like to solve that sort of problem at the genetic level, I think that the removal of any outside influence that can cause things like suicide bombers to be household news would be a good thing.

Let's see... working backward, as far as I can recall.

1. Gulf War II:
...

I could list more, and that's just off the top of my head.

Your war analysis is highly biased from American point of view.

Why don't we evenly distribute all the resources and land in the world, so no one can fight about that? Considering territory and resources are significantly more valuable than religious beliefs in this day and age, that seems like a far more intelligent and even more unreasonable way to do things.

Suicide bombers are not only, or even primarily religiously motivated. The religion could and oftentimes is replaced by heavy nationalism, or simply frustration at being poor, uneducated, and occupied or otherwise oppressed by another foreign body, be it Israel, the United States, or so on.

Elimination of religion would just mean we'd have to blame it on new things.

Wait if everyone was forced to be Atheist wouldnt that be like some sort of religion???

Your war analysis is highly biased from American point of view.

His point though was that not all wars have been over religion. He was able to come up with several from just one nation's past that were not caused by religion.

Your concept is admirable, but you stop too soon, was it not the more ancient concept of church-as-state that fostered the suicide tactics of WWII japan?

Personally, I feel:
the universe had to have come from somewhere
the universe is here for a reason.

of course, this line of thinking does makes the Platypus question somewhat tougher.

Personally, I feel:
the universe had to have come from somewhere
the universe is here for a reason.

of course, this line of thinking does makes the Platypus question somewhat tougher.

That's nice. But to feel that, do you need organization, that supports wars and harm science progress (which quite possibly could later provide more explanations on these questions)?

I agree, except for a few minor changes.

We should ban all religions here in the USA and remove all places of worship, with the exception of the Catholic/Christian faith. Then we would have our country practicing the faith it was founded on.

And we should amend the US Constitution so that all it's citezens have a clear undertanding of the laws of our land, that were founded and have always been based on Christianity and the Ten Commandments.

What do you know? We are both extremists! We should get along just fine.

Glory be to GOD allmighty! Have a nice day and GOD bless!

Wait ... west of what?

Anyway ... I really only have one question:

Under who's authority would this proposition be carried out?

Then we would have our country practicing the faith it was founded on.


There's always one, isn't there? :rolleyes:

hint: this country wasn't founded on any faith.

Most wars in history have been fought under the excuse of religion, not because of religion. There's a difference. If people were following their religious beliefs as strictly as they liked everyone to think, there wouldn't have been any wars at all -- most religions I know of, certainly Christianity and Islam, generally discourage such behaviour.

While I think that the majority of atheists might be ok with that, I get the strong feeling, that maybe some of the others might not approve of this idea.

That's a fascinating assumption. As an atheist, I have no desire to outlaw religions and force people to believe what I believe. In fact there are likely far more religious people who would like to force people to join their religion -- which is, incidentally, one of the things atheists dislike the most about various religious institutions. And people like Arnburg, for example.

You do get some real bollocks written on this forum don't you?! :oD

The fundamental thing to consider and understand is that anyone of faith (myself being a Holy Roman) who is perceived as being a supporter of war/ nasty things has (to coin a phrase used in Stephen King's Gunslinger series, though in a different context!) "Forgotten the face of their Father".

When I go to Mass on a Sunday the priest doesn't tell me that killing people, etc is great - kind of the opposite really.

When I travel to Lourdes (at Easter with a handicapped children's group, HCPT - even Americans have cottoned onto this one - your organisation is called the ASCPG, look them up! - plus in the Summer with a group of around 170 young people), I see incredible things, all done in the name of religion. This could range from a 15 year old spending and hour talking to a disabled person they've never met before to a group of us having a few beers in the evening and forming unbreakable friendships (beer is good at that kind of thing eh?!).

Am I simplifying the issue?

Maybe.

But then I know how amazing my faith and my religion can be (aren't I a lucky bastard!) :o)

As long as you're banning things which cannot possibly realistically be banned, why not simply ban wars and bigotry? Destroying organized religion for the sake of ending the support structure for the stupid things that certain religious people do is like throwing out a whole army of babies with the bathwater. There's nothing intrinsically bad (and many things intrinsically good) about the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic faiths - if we're going to toss out everything that people can misinterpret to serve their own agendas, we'd have to destroy every book ever written, ban philosophy, disallow all spreading of information, outlaw the media, prohibit education, and probably all go live in caves as hermits. And, frankly, there just aren't enough caves for everyone, so I think we'd better accept the fact that people will always be capable of using whatever assets they have to promote their own interests.

Under who's authority would this proposition be carried out?

Govenment. It is its purpose, to work for best of society, isn't it.

Govenment. It is its purpose, to work for best of society, isn't it.

So the government should interfere in our private lives that much? Yikes.

Incidently, if you allow Government the power to eradicate religion, then therefore, you must recognise that there is no division between Church and State.

When I travel to Lourdes (at Easter with a handicapped children's group, HCPT - even Americans have cottoned onto this one - your organisation is called the ASCPG, look them up! - plus in the Summer with a group of around 170 young people), I see incredible things, all done in the name of religion. This could range from a 15 year old spending and hour talking to a disabled person they've never met before to a group of us having a few beers in the evening and forming unbreakable friendships (beer is good at that kind of thing eh?!).

Am I simplifying the issue?



Do you need religion for that. Many people do good and great things, because people in general are good. People feel better helping others. That's nice.

Why there is religion needed. Religion, which is not good at all. Wouldn't it be better when people would be helping others in name of humanity/society/general good, not in name of religion which has supported wars and cruelty, limiting civil rights etc.

Do you need religion for that. Many people do good and great things, because people in general are good. People feel better helping others. That's nice.

Why there is religion needed. Religion, which is not good at all. Wouldn't it be better when people would be helping others in name of humanity/society/general good, not in name of religion which has supported wars and cruelty, limiting civil rights etc.


But what I'm describing is done BECAUSE of religion, in the NAME of religion.

Of course you're right, many people do lovely things and don't NEED to do this under the umbrella of a faith, but this example has been driven BY faith.

Interestingly enough, one of my mates is actually an atheist but now leads his own group to Lourdes each Easter. It shows it's a place for people of all faiths and none - he recognises how much good is done there, and simply wants to be a part of it.

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone in the whole world were good people who went around doing lovely things for each other?

I don't think it'll happen in my life-time however... !!!

So the government should interfere in our private lives that much? Yikes.

Is banning certain organizations interference in personal lives? People can believe/have faith in whatever they wish. On the other hand, IMHO government should not allow organizations that are harmful to society.


Incidently, if you allow Government the power to eradicate religion, then therefore, you must recognise that there is no division between Church and State.

Indeed. There is not division, if society eventually recognizes that church is not neccessary part of society.

But what I'm describing is done BECAUSE of religion, in the NAME of religion.

Of course you're right, many people do lovely things and don't NEED to do this under the umbrella of a faith, but this example has been driven BY faith.


I understood that. And my question is: Is the faith neccessary to do good things. As I understand - no, it is not neccessary.


Wouldn't it be nice if everyone in the whole world were good people who went around doing lovely things for each other?

I don't think it'll happen in my life-time however... !!!


Exactly. I fully agree with you. I also hope that in my life-time world will go closer to ideal stage, for example, diminishing number and size of wars and banning religions would be good start.

I understood that. And my question is: Is the faith neccessary to do good things. As I understand - no, it is not neccessary.




Exactly. I fully agree with you. I also hope that in my life-time world will go closer to ideal stage, for example, diminishing number and size of wars and banning religions would be good start.

I REALLY don't think banning religions would be a good start - I know of so many people (myself included) that get an incredible amount from their faith.

Unless you HAVE faith it's surely hard to appreciate just what it can add to your life!

hint: this country wasn't founded on any faith.[/QUOTE]

Go read about James Madison, the architect of the US Constitution. Then you might have a better understanding. Humanism has taken over in the public school system! I am 46, and I assure you that what I was taught in school does not even closely resemble that of students of present day society.

Go read about James Madison, the architect of the US Constitution. Then you might have a better understanding. Humanism has taken over in the public school system! I am 46, and I assure you that what I was taught in school does not even closely resemble that of students of present day society.

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -- James Madison

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." -- James Madison

Want some more?

The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being.

Yes, it is true that what you were taught in school is probably different than what I was taught in school and what my children will be taught. That's because knowledge increases, it is dynamic, new discoveries are made.

We like to call it "progress".

To go back to the original point... I think I agree somewhat with the original poster. I agree that the huge religious organisations that have risen up SHOULD be abolished - but only because of the fact that a lot of people who are supposed to be religious leaders or whatnot propogate views that not everyone who believes in such a religion agrees with. I take the Pope as my example.

I agree with the original poster in that faith is not a bad thing - however the established organisations nowadays seek to influence the way people practice their faith and I ersonally think that's wrong. People should be allowed to worship whatever god they believe in, in whatever way they like (as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights, so no grabbing people for sacrifices in the name of beliefs) without fear of repurcussions from the head of their religions. Should a religion really have a leader?

The reason I agree is the United States. It was originally set up as a country where people would be able to practice their own faiths without repurcussions, because of the persecution faced in Europe. Nowadays, the actual arguement many politicians will make against gay marriage is that it is against religion! A supposedly secular state and political system has been taken over by religion in a way that is NOT a fair political system.

In the UK, which is supposedly a country with a religion, we really don't have any of these sorts of problems.

Anyway, that's my 2p

When did Islam become a Western religion?

*snip*

These aren't "Western" religions. Western religions are stuff like Greek and Roman gods.

All of the world's major religions come from ASIA - THE EAST!

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I CAN'T HELP IT IF WE'RE MORE SPIRITUAL!

The old USSR tried to ban Christianity and when the Commies lost power, the Church came back stronger than ever. Banning does not work.

Let me start by saying that it isn’t my intention to start a fight. I’m hoping to have a logical, rational, intellectual argument. Yes, this is an extreme viewpoint, but that's the fun of having it!

Proposition

I propose that all branches and divisions of the Judaic, Christian and Islamic faiths be immediately shut down, their clergypersons defrocked, places of worship torn down, and any and all sacred texts (in print or electronic media) be either destroyed or placed under heavy restrictions.

Over your dead body...



After the first set of provisions is finished, I would also propose that the collected assets of each religion be liquidated and the money derived from the process be donated to deserving, secular charities.

No...


Finally, I would propose that all official governing documents – the Constitution, etc – be rewritten without religious influence, and that all government officials currently serving in offices to which they are elected must either be confirmed atheists or hold religious beliefs that do not rely on the existence of any god before they are allowed to serve another term or be elected to a different office, with similar restrictions set in place for those who wish to run for office in the future.

I propose we deport you....


Arguments

I make these propositions because western religion, throughout history and endemic to society today, is a source of warfare and death. More people have died in the name of “god” than anyone or anything else. With the possible exception of World War One, every war that has been started since nearly the beginning of recorded history has been over religion. And while I give each respective faith a lot of respect for the good that they have done for humanity – and still do today, despite the state of our world – I say that the problems it causes far outweigh the positive things they can do.

A fucking lie.

The Revolutionary War, was not over religion.

The war of 1812, was not over religion.

The Civil War, was not over religion.

The Spanish-American war, was not over religion.

World War 1, and 2, were not over religion.

Neither the Korean nor Vietanmese Wars were over religion.


With the exception of some modern theocracies – most notably in the Middle East and Asia, though for how long is anyone’s guess – every theocracy in the world has failed. If “god” cannot run a country – since many rules of most modern societies in the western world have been based on Judeo-Christian morality – then it should not be expected that “he” is qualified to run the lives of billions.

Not even an argument, nor grounded in fact.


My final argument against western religions is that they impede the flow of science and rationality. The strength of religion lies in the suppression of knowledge, a creed which Christianity and Islam, perhaps more than Judaism (although that may be researcher bias, since I don’t know very much about Jewish societal customs, pressures, etc) has followed since their respective inceptions. Faith and the requisite magic of it only exist so long as science cannot reproduce miracles or resurrect the dead (the latter not being too far off, but that’s a different thread entirely), and with each successive “defrocking,” if you will, of a given religious phenomena*, the church power base grows weaker, thus leading to more fevered proselytizing. (*The Stigmata, for instance, is psychologically driven, a mind-over-matter phenomena that, while not yet fully understood, is certainly explainable and acceptable. But even thirty years ago, before the rise of modern psychology, the Stigmata was still seen as a holy event.)

Also completely untrue.


So, in essence, a unilateral ban on all western religions, based on their repeated failings, is what I'm hoping for. (Or at least an intelligent debate about it.)

You need intelligence first; which you lack.

This nation is founded upon religious liberty. Something you're incapable of appearantly. You need to leave the United States, because it is founded upon a basic ideal you lack.

Gah, sorry for the big quote...

Anyway, if you actually read the thread, I didn't say anything about the faithful. (Which I should have specifically mentioned, so I apologize.) I'm saying that the establishment of religion should be banned. I have absolutely no problems with faith, I just don't want people unlike me leading me.

Violation of the Constitution, and of the basic premise of Liberty in the first place.


Finally, how is this a punishment? I'm letting you keep your faith, I'm just taking away the multi-million dollar churches and other assorted nonsense.

Churches are established on the faith of their congregations (individual liberties). You cannot ban one without banning the other. It shows how fucking incompitent you are.


RE: EDIT2: It is my right, as a hedonist.

You don't have the right to ban the rights of others....


RE: EDIT3: Why should banning books matter, when it appears that you don't even read in the first place? You're one of the reasons why I want this to happen. You people immediately attack someone else when they put forward that you might be wrong. Just disgusting.

You're the one who attacked, you idiot.

Let me start by saying that it isn’t my intention to start a fight. I’m hoping to have a logical, rational, intellectual argument. Yes, this is an extreme viewpoint, but that's the fun of having it!
I feel tempted to comment on your IQ, but I'll refrain.
In case you really can't understand why people go off on you, here's something similar to what you propose:
I, the legendary numbskull, propose everyone converts to Christianity and starts to live by it's creeds. No, it's ok if you don't believe in it, but the government should shoot you if you don't pretend to.

Proposition

I propose that all branches and divisions of the Judaic, Christian and Islamic faiths be immediately shut down, their clergypersons defrocked, places of worship torn down, and any and all sacred texts (in print or electronic media) be either destroyed or placed under heavy restrictions.

After the first set of provisions is finished, I would also propose that the collected assets of each religion be liquidated and the money derived from the process be donated to deserving, secular charities.
Sure... Let's demolish and deny our cultural inheritance. Let's take people's money and spend it on something they didn't mean to spend it on. Hey let's appropriate public pension funds while we're at it. I don't feel like paying for fags the rest of my life, so it's only fair we take the pension funds and by fags for me.
Now we're at it, why don't we burn all western art associated with religion? And!!! We mustn't forget to burn all the history books! They're all about christian culture, and that's THE big no-no!

Finally, I would propose that all official governing documents – the Constitution, etc – be rewritten without religious influence, and that all government officials currently serving in offices to which they are elected must either be confirmed atheists or hold religious beliefs that do not rely on the existence of any god before they are allowed to serve another term or be elected to a different office, with similar restrictions set in place for those who wish to run for office in the future.

Yea. We really do need to abolish western culture. Roots are way overrated. Besides, outlawing and destroying any memory of it will stop all those annoying people who cry wolf when we're repeating old atrocities.
I also think it's a bloody great idea to limit access to government to people who have a specific personal persuasion. Skrew education, responsibility and ability. We'll do much better with a minority who doesn't have shit in common with 90% of the people.
And democracy - representative or otherwise - is overrated. Why let people appoint the leaders they agree with?! People are just pathetic little sheep. If they disagree, let's just shoot 'em and be done with it.

Arguments

I make these propositions because western religion, throughout history and endemic to society today, is a source of warfare and death. More people have died in the name of “god” than anyone or anything else. With the possible exception of World War One, every war that has been started since nearly the beginning of recorded history has been over religion. And while I give each respective faith a lot of respect for the good that they have done for humanity – and still do today, despite the state of our world – I say that the problems it causes far outweigh the positive things they can do.
This arguement is so flawed I don't even know where to start. PErhaps you should have read those history books before you burned them. Nothing about what you just said is true. Nothing.

With the exception of some modern theocracies – most notably in the Middle East and Asia, though for how long is anyone’s guess – every theocracy in the world has failed. If “god” cannot run a country – since many rules of most modern societies in the western world have been based on Judeo-Christian morality – then it should not be expected that “he” is qualified to run the lives of billions.
If a religion that have been developed continously over 2000 years by people fromm all over the world and all walks of life isn't good enough to base an oppressive regime on, what makes you think your perverse fascist form of atheism is?
See you're an atheist, that's why I know you don't believe god (or anything divine) is responsible for the fall of theocracies. Most likely you believe - in spite of yourself - that oppressive totalitarian regimes are doomed to fail because everyone hates living in them. So not only is this completely opposed to what you yourself propose, it's also nothing but an unfounded attack on religious people - trying to make them look more stupid and horrible than yourself.
It amazes me you fail. It's normally very easy to say something really bad about a culture or religion without making oneself look like a fool.

My final argument against western religions is that they impede the flow of science and rationality. The strength of religion lies in the suppression of knowledge, a creed which Christianity and Islam, perhaps more than Judaism (although that may be researcher bias, since I don’t know very much about Jewish societal customs, pressures, etc) has followed since their respective inceptions. Faith and the requisite magic of it only exist so long as science cannot reproduce miracles or resurrect the dead (the latter not being too far off, but that’s a different thread entirely), and with each successive “defrocking,” if you will, of a given religious phenomena*, the church power base grows weaker, thus leading to more fevered proselytizing. (*The Stigmata, for instance, is psychologically driven, a mind-over-matter phenomena that, while not yet fully understood, is certainly explainable and acceptable. But even thirty years ago, before the rise of modern psychology, the Stigmata was still seen as a holy event.)

So, in essence, a unilateral ban on all western religions, based on their repeated failings, is what I'm hoping for. (Or at least an intelligent debate about it.)
In case you don't know this, war is the mother of invention & science. It's a cause/effect thing. Science and invention win's wars. If you want fastpaces sceintific progress, and if religion is warfare, then you should promote theocracy.
I realize you're either ill-equipped mentally, or just wanted to take a swing at religion, but what you're saying is - again again - wrong. This isn't the dark ages. Sure the (now dead) pope asked Stephen Hawking to stop his research because he felt an explanation for the Big Bang would kill the faoundation for Christianity. Guess what how big an influence it's had on mr. Hawking? None at all.
No religion in today's world can supress information or science. This isn't the darkages. Likewise, scientists can't do like the churches did, and kill people for refusing to believe what they discover.

Let me make it perfectly clear : This guy doesn't speak for Atheists. There will always be fundamentalists. In Christianity, Islam and Atheism. Rest assured this lunatic only speaks for himself. The vast majority of atheists are humanists. Not fascists like this guy.

<SNIP>

Let me make it perfectly clear : This guy doesn't speak for Atheists. There will always be fundamentalists. In Christianity, Islam and Atheism. Rest assured this lunatic only speaks for himself. The vast majority of atheists are humanists. Not fascists like this guy.

I fully concur. If Atheism required lunacy like that i certainly wouldnt be an atheist.

Let me make it perfectly clear : This guy doesn't speak for Atheists. There will always be fundamentalists. In Christianity, Islam and Atheism. Rest assured this lunatic only speaks for himself. The vast majority of atheists are humanists. Not fascists like this guy.

True. Although I see no point in believing anything there is also no point in trying to force other peolpe thinking same way. They will "see the light" or then not but it is not our point to interfere if they do not interfere our faith or lack of it.

Lol. America.. Land of the Free.

If a Muslim Theocratic country allows practice freedom of religion.. Damn.. shameful. :p

Ok so ban the existance of faith based instutions that commit criminal acts or advocate criminal acts. I think its much simpler to just ban the existance of any organisation that advocates or commits criminal activity, faith based or not.

(I find it amusing that I went from "idiot" to "fascist"/"lunatic" overnight, although it doesn't altogether surprise me.)

I'll be mature about this and thank everyone that has presented a respectful dissenting opinion, as well as those who shot holes in my argument. (Of course, that just means that the next time I rewrite my manifesto, those areas will be tightened up or eliminated entirely.)

I hate to tell you, but one can't tell people what they beleave.

Is banning certain organizations interference in personal lives? People can believe/have faith in whatever they wish. On the other hand, IMHO government should not allow organizations that are harmful to society.and who decides which organizations are 'Harmful?'


Indeed. There is not division, if society eventually recognizes that church is not neccessary part of society.and on the other hand, if society recognizes the need for a church and if you put this to vote, find that the Christian Church is found to be not only intergral to Society but the only one wanted (by popular vote), then what? would you allow the Christian Church to dictate law then?

some how I don't think so.

This is absurd.





Now, banning all thiest religions ..... :eek:





:p :D

Govenment. It is its purpose, to work for best of society, isn't it.

You also presume that the destruction of organised religion is for the best of society.

This is just... ignorant.

Since when does "all Western religions" = "Judaic, Christian, and Islamic faiths"?

World War II wasn't about the Jewish religion, it was about the ethnicity. How were either of the Gulf Wars related to religion? Making a statement so broad is just dumb in an argument anyway.

A lot of those Middle Eastern theocracies you say are succeeding are Islamic.

And lastly... never gonna happen.

But the most important point here is the first. The West produced plenty of other religions!

I hate to tell you, but one can't tell people what they
beleave.

'Faith' and 'religion' are both very different things.

Over your dead body...




No...



I propose we deport you....



Not even an argument, nor grounded in fact.


This nation is founded upon religious liberty. Something you're incapable of appearantly. You need to leave the United States, because it is founded upon a basic ideal you lack.

First of all, I have to say, those are some VERY compelling arguments. I mean 'No...'? How could you beat that? What can I say? You presented your argument in a convincing manner, and gave clear facts to back it up. That was OBVIOUSLY worth posting. [/sarcasm]

Secondly, the United States was not founded upon religious liberty. In fact it doesn't even mention relgion, God, Jesus, etc. The only such mention is "The Year of our Lord" which is hardly enough to consider the document founded upon religious liberty. To say it was founded on liberty, period... that's correct. But it's not just about religion. The founding fathers kept it a strictly secular document.

I REALLY don't think banning religions would be a good start - I know of so many people (myself included) that get an incredible amount from their faith.

Unless you HAVE faith it's surely hard to appreciate just what it can add to your life!

Yet again, faith is NOT religion.

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -- James Madison

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." -- James Madison

Want some more?

The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being.

Yes, it is true that what you were taught in school is probably different than what I was taught in school and what my children will be taught. That's because knowledge increases, it is dynamic, new discoveries are made.

We like to call it "progress".


Oh. Zing.

how DARE you refer to judaic faiths as 'western religions?' these are semitic and arabic in origin, they have nothing to do with europe! and here i'm assuming that by 'the west' you do mean europe, although who knows...

the ONLY truly european religion is paganism.

I don't think he was implying that they were founded in the west. That would just be ignorant. He was suggesting that the western branches be shut down.

Nice try. Won't happen.



Let's see... working backward, as far as I can recall.

1. Gulf War II: Get Rid O'Saddam/Take More Oil/Whatnot
2. Gult War: Kick Iraq out of Kuwait
3. Vietnam: Conquer the Evil Commie North Vietnameese
4. Korea: Keep the Evil Commies out!
5. WWII: Unresolved problems from WWI and Hitler's big Dream
6. WWI: Interlocking Alliances mean when one country offs another's ArchDuke, we all go shooting
7. Spanish-American: Remember the Maine? Well, we'll take some stuff anyway
8. Civil War: Either States Rights, Slavery, or all of the above, depending
9. Mexican: Because we got tired of Santa Ana
10. 1812: Was there a reason for this one? Yeah, too close to the Revolutionary War, the British didn't respect the Americans, et al, ad nauseum...
11. Revoultionary War: This is the one that gets America started.

I could list more, and that's just off the top of my head. The point is, its very easy to disprove your notion that "With the possible exception of World War One, every war that has been started since nearly the beginning of recorded history has been over religion." I'd submit that most wars, indeed all wars are started by people who've forgotten the central point of Christianity and Islam, thou shalt not kill.

Your arguement is clearly flamebait.

Actually, 1812 was caused by greed. And as somebody else said, that's a very pro-american view you've got there.

Sorry for the massive post! :p

That proposal would start World War III, not a war of nations but religions...Nations of same religion would unite to reach a common goal that is the presorvation of their faith and they would fight for their God.

Oh. Zing.


Heh ... glad someone noticed. I do, now and then, get in the odd upper-cut.

(I find it amusing that I went from "idiot" to "fascist"/"lunatic" overnight, although it doesn't altogether surprise me.)

I'll be mature about this and thank everyone that has presented a respectful dissenting opinion, as well as those who shot holes in my argument. (Of course, that just means that the next time I rewrite my manifesto, those areas will be tightened up or eliminated entirely.)
Basically you're proposing to make either an untra fascist & very oppressive state, where a minute minority rules the vast majority with an iron fist... Or you're a lunatic that makes no sense at all. It's the only two conclusions I can draw based on your posts. And my personal opinion of fascists is that they are lunatics.

I'm very sorry you feel you have to justify your need to take a shit on people by using atheism as a smokescreen. You put atheists in a very bad light when you do so. I have no problem with you being offended by my former post. I doubt your sinceríty. I can't believe any rational person would write what you did, unless it was intended as a provokation against religious people. That's why you piss me off.

You Atheist Son Of A Bitch! Your The Reason Thats There War In This World Causing Relogions To Fight Agaisnt Each Other!

KNOCK IT OFF.

I propose that all branches and divisions of the Judaic, Christian and Islamic faiths be immediately shut down, their clergypersons defrocked, places of worship torn down, and any and all sacred texts (in print or electronic media) be either destroyed or placed under heavy restrictions.

After the first set of provisions is finished, I would also propose that the collected assets of each religion be liquidated and the money derived from the process be donated to deserving, secular charities.

Finally, I would propose that all official governing documents – the Constitution, etc – be rewritten without religious influence, and that all government officials currently serving in offices to which they are elected must either be confirmed atheists or hold religious beliefs that do not rely on the existence of any god before they are allowed to serve another term or be elected to a different office, with similar restrictions set in place for those who wish to run for office in the future.
you're being to lean on them. i would give my suggestions, but i have the strange feeling that i would be forumbanned if i was to tell some ways to torture people again, heheh.

NO

Why? It directly interferes with a persons freedom of belief and freedom of conscience. I believe that no beliefs, no matter how silly should be banned.

[snip]

I don't believe Western religion, or any religion, for that matter, should be banned. I do, however, believe that religious practices in public places with mixed company which impose a specific religion on others should be illegal. As far as I'm concerned, a person can do whatever they want in their own homes, or with other voluntary participates, as long as it doesn't harm anything or anyone else.

Yet another one of these threads. That will never happen, so don't even say something as stupid as that. That idea is just as bad as the attempted spread of Christianity to everywhere and everyone.

Just think, you say that banning these religions would end war, but it would actually begin another, larger than WWII war. Though many have been started because of these religions, Christianity in fact is a big one, war is in human nature. There is no changing that. People will fight until the end of time, I'm sure of it. There will never be world peace, and religion has nothing to do with that.

Also, don't discriminate. If you ban one, you must ban all. None of the other religions are any different than any of the others. Think about what you say next time. There are some things that are just better off not said.

Ever think that just because the Fundies are the most vocal, that that doesn't mean they're the majority? I think the vast majority of Christians have read the Bible, and made their own decisions on their faith. Most of them realize all Jesus said we Christians(Not non-Christians) had to do was "Love the Lord your God with all your Heart and Mind and Soul." and "Love your Neighbor as yourself.". Basically, love God and treat EVERYONE as equals. I know just a very small amount who do just listen to whatever they're told about religion. They're the Fundies who believe "EVERYONE HAS TO BELIVE IN GOD OR THEY'RE GOING TO HELL!" an "Love your straight, white, conservative, Christian Neighbor as yourself, AND SCREW EVERYONE ELSE, THEY'RE GOING TO HELL!".

Also, I'm tired of Catholics being put forth as being the ONLY Christians. It seems to me most people think that every Christian beleives what the Catholics do. We don't. I'm a Christian that believes we should have same sex marraiges, have birth control, and has plenty of Athiest friends. "But the Catholic Church says that's wrong!" you say? I'M NOT CATHOLIC! I go to a Lutheran church(Great food! It's what Lutherans are known for), but I consider myself a Christian, not a Lutheran Christian. Most of the people in my Church would agree with me.


In conclusion, not every Christian is a Catholic, and most Christians are not whacko fundy nut-jobs. Just a few who are very vocal.

Also, I'm tired of Catholics being put forth as being the ONLY Christians. It seems to me most people think that every Christian beleives what the Catholics do.

Finally!!!!! Thank you!!! I'm not alone in that feeling!!! I'm actually Lutheran too. Thank you!

Finally!!!!! Thank you!!! I'm not alone in that feeling!!! I'm actually Lutheran too. Thank you!

I agree with both of you, and I'm Catholic. Don't worry, we don't all think that way! :)

I agree with both of you, and I'm Catholic. Don't worry, we don't all think that way! :)

That's a relief. I live in an area with fundamentalists. It's good to hear a few conservative (not political) remarks every now and again.

<Snip>
Don't worry mate. Most people know the difference between a believer and a raving loon. Untill I saw this thread, I didn't think there were any atheist loons, but live and learn. I hope everyone knows normal atheists aren't like the thread starter.


- Yea. I really can't distance myself enough from that guy. I'm gonna have to convert to something if he keeps it up. :mad:

Is that you, Uncle Joe?

While I think that the majority of atheists might be ok with that, I get the strong feeling, that maybe some of the others might not approve of this idea.

Most athiests understand the importance of free exercise of religion and find this proposal sickening.

Gah, sorry for the big quote...

Anyway, if you actually read the thread, I didn't say anything about the faithful. (Which I should have specifically mentioned, so I apologize.) I'm saying that the establishment of religion should be banned. I have absolutely no problems with faith, I just don't want people unlike me leading me.

Banning churches is not banning the establishment of religion. To the contrary, it is your proposal that violates the separation of church and state.

Banning churches is violating the free exercise clause.

I have absolutely no problems with faith, I just don't want people unlike me leading me.

Then don't follow. :p

Finally, how is this a punishment? I'm letting you keep your faith, I'm just taking away the multi-million dollar churches and other assorted nonsense.

:rolleyes:

*alterantive reality*
gee, Mr. Sevastra, we're not punishing you. We're just taking away your home and your family. It's just a litle reorganization. We're giving everything to the rabbits. Why are you complaining?

RE: EDIT3: Why should banning books matter, when it appears that you don't even read in the first place? You're one of the reasons why I want this to happen. You people immediately attack someone else when they put forward that you might be wrong. Just disgusting.

Pot, meet Kettle.

It is not banning the faith. As I understand the original poster, the proposition is banning the religions. Nobody will punish you if one will continue to believe in god or santa claus.

You have no understanding of organized religion. What if your faith requires worshiping together? You have banned the practices of the faith.

Banning all western religions is extreme but meanwhile acceptable.

No. Separation of church and state is the answer. You would breach the wall that has been carefully built over centuries.

I am an athiest. My closest afinity is with Eastern religions - Buddhism and Taoism. But that anyone would support this idea is sickening.

Religions as organizations have supported and initiated majority of wars, hate, and unspeaken cruelty in the world. That is why they should be banned. As well as other things original poster mentioned.

An attempt to ban organized religion inevitably would cause violence, hate, and unspeakable cruelty. That is why it is improper.

Religion has caused wars, hate, and unspeakable cruelty. So have many other things. Religion has also opposed and helped end all three.

Take for example Spanish invasion in Central America: it was fully supported and initiated, by Christianity. Thousands of natives killed, enslaved, tortured, their culture destroyed in name of 'right' god. Many greedy and violent people committed these crimes without any faith, but excusing themselves as Christians. Such practice should not be allowed in any society.

Um. "Fully supported and initiated by Christianity" is not accurate. Nor is Christianity a monolith.

For a reasonably accurate alternative viewpoint, you might -- among other things -- watch the move The Mission (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091530/).

Nowadays, it is the same thing just in more civilized ways: Christianity strongly suggest limiting human rights and choices (like abortion, etc.) in the name of its god - I also read news, that Christian Church has suggested Spanish civil servants to not register legal (gay) marriages.

Again, Christians are not controlled by a central hive mind.

Some Christians are anti-choice. Some Christians are stauncly pro-choice. Some Christians are anti-same-sex-marriage. Some support the rights of all genders.

Think Mario Coumo, Hillary Clinton, Jane Fonda, and Senator Kennedy. Among, millions and millions and millions of others.

Basing modern society on cruel prejudiced organization laws as background of civilized society has not and will not be successful.

Very true.

But: read that sentence of yours over and over and over until you understand it.

Sevastra, please join 'em.

How about we tear down your house, deport your family, and eat your dog?

:rolleyes:

You're a hypocrite.

Let me start by saying that it isn’t my intention to start a fight. I’m hoping to have a logical, rational, intellectual argument. Yes, this is an extreme viewpoint, but that's the fun of having it!

Proposition

I propose that all branches and divisions of the Judaic, Christian and Islamic faiths be immediately shut down, their clergypersons defrocked, places of worship torn down, and any and all sacred texts (in print or electronic media) be either destroyed or placed under heavy restrictions.

After the first set of provisions is finished, I would also propose that the collected assets of each religion be liquidated and the money derived from the process be donated to deserving, secular charities.

Finally, I would propose that all official governing documents – the Constitution, etc – be rewritten without religious influence, and that all government officials currently serving in offices to which they are elected must either be confirmed atheists or hold religious beliefs that do not rely on the existence of any god before they are allowed to serve another term or be elected to a different office, with similar restrictions set in place for those who wish to run for office in the future.

Arguments

I make these propositions because western religion, throughout history and endemic to society today, is a source of warfare and death. More people have died in the name of “god” than anyone or anything else. With the possible exception of World War One, every war that has been started since nearly the beginning of recorded history has been over religion. And while I give each respective faith a lot of respect for the good that they have done for humanity – and still do today, despite the state of our world – I say that the problems it causes far outweigh the positive things they can do.

With the exception of some modern theocracies – most notably in the Middle East and Asia, though for how long is anyone’s guess – every theocracy in the world has failed. If “god” cannot run a country – since many rules of most modern societies in the western world have been based on Judeo-Christian morality – then it should not be expected that “he” is qualified to run the lives of billions.

My final argument against western religions is that they impede the flow of science and rationality. The strength of religion lies in the suppression of knowledge, a creed which Christianity and Islam, perhaps more than Judaism (although that may be researcher bias, since I don’t know very much about Jewish societal customs, pressures, etc) has followed since their respective inceptions. Faith and the requisite magic of it only exist so long as science cannot reproduce miracles or resurrect the dead (the latter not being too far off, but that’s a different thread entirely), and with each successive “defrocking,” if you will, of a given religious phenomena*, the church power base grows weaker, thus leading to more fevered proselytizing. (*The Stigmata, for instance, is psychologically driven, a mind-over-matter phenomena that, while not yet fully understood, is certainly explainable and acceptable. But even thirty years ago, before the rise of modern psychology, the Stigmata was still seen as a holy event.)

So, in essence, a unilateral ban on all western religions, based on their repeated failings, is what I'm hoping for. (Or at least an intelligent debate about it.)

My rebuttal:
Shut up.

"I make these propositions because western religion, throughout history and endemic to society today, is a source of warfare and death. More people have died in the name of “god” than anyone or anything else."

you know a lot of christians today go to places like russia and africa and other countries to teach others and die. its called being a marter. every mishionary knows that there is a chance they will die. in some countries just being a citison there and believing gets you killed. i have a friend whos parients died in africa while being a missionary. the government disagreed and so shot them when they stood strong in their faith. i have friends in guam right now that are ministering while running an orphanage. you want to stop these people? they do incredably good things. you dont get it there is a higher power and to do what you are talking of would mean that a lot of people would get killed for sharing their faith... and not giving up their Bible. people like me!!!! i am sorry people have been so blunt with you but you need to understand.
seperating church and state is imposibal. things that when invented or put togather were combined in one are imposible to seperate. people keep trying and will but wont sucseed. i fear the day the world faces judgement. the USA was founded by religous people with religous idias. there are a lot of people out there that say they are christians (or other religions im sorry i only really know mine) but are not. they dont live it and so they turn people who are questioning away fron God by saying they are. i know my brother was told by a girl at school once that he was the reason she believed God could not be real. he did not live it now he has changed b/c someone pointed it out in a way that cought his attention. i pray that you dont have to have a lafe altering event to make you believe. i did i got a disease. but hey i beat it this spring!!

So the government should interfere in our private lives that much? Yikes.
Is banning certain organizations interference in personal lives? People can believe/have faith in whatever they wish. On the other hand, IMHO government should not allow organizations that are harmful to society.

Incidently, if you allow Government the power to eradicate religion, then therefore, you must recognise that there is no division between Church and State.
Indeed. There is not division, if society eventually recognizes that church is not neccessary part of society.

You and Sevastra remind me of one my favorite passages from a play, "A Man For All Seasons" by Robert Bolt:
The hero, Sir Thomas More, a devout Catholic and leading citizen, has refused to bless the annulment of the king's first marriage. King Henry, hoping to get even has sent a spy to More's household. Recognizing him for what he is, More's daughter cries: "He's a spy. Arrest him, Father."

More answers: "There's no law against that." But his son-in-law interjects: "There is God's law." More replies: "Then God can arrest him."

Meanwhile, More's daughter is getting more and more exasperated as it becomes clear that the spy will be allowed to escape. "While you talk, he's gone," she complains.

"And go he should if he were the Devil himself," says More, "until he broke the law."

Sarcastically, his son-in-law inquires: "So now you'd give the Devil the benefit of law?"

"What would you do?" More asks him. "Cut down a great road through the law to get at the Devil?"

"Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that," his son-in-law replies.

"Oh?" More said, "and when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws -- man's laws, not God's -- and if you cut the down do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"

At a minimum, you would eliminate:
Freedom of conscience
Free exercise of religion (Amendment I of the US Constitution)
Freedom of association (same)
Freedom of expression (same)
Separation of Church and State/Establishment Clause (same)
Property rights/takings clause (Amendments IV and V)
Article VI, Clause 3 of the US Constitution - no religious Test
Equal protection under the law - (Amendment XIV)


You would destroy the foundations of free society and utterly destroy the framework of the US Constitution.

(My bias here is American, but your proposal is equally repugnant to any Western nation and should be equally repugnant to everyone everywhere.)

Originally Posted by Sevastra
Let me start by saying that it isn’t my intention to start a fight. I’m hoping to have a logical, rational, intellectual argument. Yes, this is an extreme viewpoint, but that's the fun of having it!

Proposition

I propose that all branches and divisions of the Judaic, Christian and Islamic faiths be immediately shut down, their clergypersons defrocked, places of worship torn down, and any and all sacred texts (in print or electronic media) be either destroyed or placed under heavy restrictions.

I won't let you shut down my church, but we will shoot anyone that is foolish enough to try. Hehe...

Leaders of all religions, we are running out of ammo. We must escape this planet and make our way to the Moon. There we shall build our churches, and continue preaching!


Originally Posted by Sevastra
After the first set of provisions is finished, I would also propose that the collected assets of each religion be liquidated and the money derived from the process be donated to deserving, secular charities.

How about we collect the assets of each secular charity be liquidated and the money derived from the process be donated to deserving, religious charities.

I perfer my idea.

Glory be to Satan allmighty! Have a horrible day and Hail Satan!

~Satanic Reverend Medivh, aka the Satanic Priest of NS~

Let me make it perfectly clear : This guy doesn't speak for Atheists. There will always be fundamentalists. In Christianity, Islam and Atheism. Rest assured this lunatic only speaks for himself. The vast majority of atheists are humanists. Not fascists like this guy.

I'd like to point out that while I mentioned Atheists in my original post, I've never claimed to be an Atheist, since I'm not one. You are very right, in fact, that most Atheists are humanists.

I am a Hedonist. If the propositions in my original post were ever carried out, it would give me a great deal of pleasure; my original reason for writing them, in fact.

Calling me an Atheist gives Atheists a bad name. :D

How about we tear down your house, deport your family, and eat your dog?

:rolleyes:

You're a hypocrite.

Am I? In the best of all possible worlds, that would be okay with me, as long as it gave you pleasure. And, if it truly did bring you pleasure, I would be honor-bound not to stop you. (Though, to be truthful, it would likely bring me a similar amount of pleasure to kill you over those things, which, in this perfect world, would also be okay. :p )

I propose that all branches and divisions of the Judaic, Christian and Islamic faiths be immediately shut down, their clergypersons defrocked, places of worship torn down, and any and all sacred texts (in print or electronic media) be either destroyed or placed under heavy restrictions.


over

my

dead

body

over

my

dead

body

When you get around to dying, let me know. :)

When you get around to dying, let me know. :)


Care to respond to some of the many substantive critiques of your proposal? Or are you just trolling?

over

my

dead

body

Well said :D

Sevastra, it's never going to happen, you can try all you like but it won't work

I'm letting you keep your faith, I'm just taking away the multi-million dollar churches and other assorted nonsense.

Ah gee, thanks! You'd be such a nice master persecuting people of faith, yet "letting" us practice in the privacy of our own homes. I'm glad you have such a great notion of what freedom is. Don't you believe for a second that you'd just force many, many Christians underground like in China? Persecution only strengthens Christianity, you know. If you want to diminish the effects of Christianity in America or whatever country you're from, you'd be wise to let things run on course because what many of you call "fundamentalism" is losing its grasp quickly on America because everybody's comfortable and well-off. When things are good, why should people hold on to such a restrictive faith when they have the luxuries and comforts of the world in their hands?

I make these propositions because western religion, throughout history and endemic to society today, is a source of warfare and death. More people have died in the name of “god” than anyone or anything else. With the possible exception of World War One, every war that has been started since nearly the beginning of recorded history has been over religion.
Except for WWII, Chinese civil war, American Civil War, Napoleonic wars, Vietnam, Korea, Portugese Colony wars, and more then I care to go on about.

Aethiests have a nice ability to gloss over all the genocides that have taken place in their name over the 20th century.

Also I notice you only wanted to ban "western" religion, making you a bigot on top of everything else.

snip
No ... we don't punish people for beliefs only for actions
A lot of us don't find it just for god to judge by faith and we should not either.

i was going to comment on this topic, but i actually decided not too because even if everyone on this forum agreed, it would still not make a difference

(My bias here is American, but your proposal is equally repugnant to any Western nation and should be equally repugnant to everyone everywhere.)
Agreed, I'm all for an authoritarian government, but for reasons like this is just revolting.

Intresting...I always thought that atheists that promote atheist things are not true atheists.

Why?

A true atheist wouldnt bother with arguements about a God because he knows there is not one and he/she dosent really care what other people waste their time doing.

There are two forms of this group.

A true Atheist : that doesnt worship a god and goes about his life doing his own thing ignoring what the masses do.

And Atheism: A religion of non-religion.


And honestly the orginal post was bias as hell. You act like removing these religions would do anything in the killing factor. Japan and China didnt need religion to go at it a couple of times killing tens of millions over the years what makes you think it wouldnt happen to the newly atheist nations at well.

Also I notice you only wanted to ban "western" religion, making you a bigot on top of everything else.

Yeah i noticed that too but assuming someone else had already pointed it out, i didn't bother

what makes you think it wouldnt happen to the newly atheist nations at well.
I believe a man named Iosef Vissarionovich seems to have answered any loose ends on that.

Just as a question Cat Tribe... what religion are you? cause last thread i talked to you i do0n't think you liked what i was saying but now we agree :confused: ( i like things better this way)

Just as a question Cat Tribe... what religion are you? cause last thread i talked to you i do0n't think you liked what i was saying but now we agree :confused: ( i like things better this way)

I'm an strong athiest. Although I have some leanings toward Zen Buddhism and Taoism.

I believe very strongly in freedom of religion, separation of Church and State, etc. Thus, I find Sevastra's proposal sickening.

Freedom of religion is not about my religion or your religion. It is about freedom for everyone's religion.

EDIT: Although disagreements can be fun, I always like agreeing with someone -- especially when we have previously disagreed. :)

I'm an strong athiest. Although I have some leanings toward Zen Buddhism and Taoism.

I believe very strongly in freedom of religion, separation of Church and State, etc. Thus, I find Sevastra's proposal sickening.

Freedom of religion is not about my religion or your religion. It is about freedom for everyone's religion.

EDIT: Although disagreements can be fun, I always like agreeing with someone -- especially when we have previously disagreed. :)
Why dont people get that sometimes they think because we oppose them forcing their beliefs on us that we wont protect their right to not have other beliefs forced upon them

Care to respond to some of the many substantive critiques of your proposal? Or are you just trolling?

I already have. Response #69 on page 5. You'll also notice, if you read that, that I go out of my way to be polite and THANK the people who've disagreed. I could have just as easily called you all idiots and facists, as many have, but I didn't. My posting past this point is merely for fun. There isn't anything to debate when the other side has an excellent point.

EDIT: Sweet! I didn't expect to be called a bigot! (I suppose the fact that I don't like redheads makes me a bigot, too.)

I support the dissolution of western religions because they focus on the outside influence of a god. Buddhism, for example, has no god and turns meditation and thought inward, on the improvement of oneself. I have a great deal of respect for Buddhism - Theravada Buddhism, anyway - and most other schools of eastern thought that focus inward for growth, not outward.

I already have. Response #69 on page 5. You'll also notice, if you read that, that I go out of my way to be polite and THANK the people who've disagreed. I could have just as easily called you all idiots and facists, as many have, but I didn't. My posting past this point is merely for fun. There isn't anything to debate when the other side has an excellent point.

I learned something. How about you? Or are you just trolling? :)

That was your substantive response? :confused: :rolleyes:

So, are you admitting you were wrong? Good.

Simply posting something highly controversial and mucking off when shown wrong and then returning later to make fun of few who still object is very trollish.

Surely you have alternatives to responding to the nearly 50 posts since post #69 other than flaming or making fun?

If what you learned was not how to "tighten" your argument, but rather to respect freedom of religion, then great. If not, you have a long way to go.

That was your substantive response? :confused: :rolleyes:

Caught me before I edited that one out....

So, are you admitting you were wrong? Good.

Christ on a pogo stick....I said ya'll had excellent points, not that you were right, and not that I was wrong. My argument had holes (I'd call them gaping at this point) that ya'll were kind enough to point out.

Simply posting something highly controversial and mucking off when shown wrong and then returning later to make fun of few who still object is very trollish.

:rolleyes: My bad. I posted it an hour before I went to bed last night and was out all morning, so I didn't get to see the huge number of posts. (Also, this is only the second forum I've actively posted on, so I'm not 100% sure of all the little intricasies and idiosyncrasies of this board yet.)

Surely you have alternatives to responding to the nearly 50 posts since post #69 other than flaming or making fun?

Nope. I've gotten everything I need out of this thread.

If what you learned was not how to "tighten" your argument, but rather to respect freedom of religion, then great. If not, you have a long way to go.

:D Sorry to break it to ya', but fixing up my manifesto was pretty much all I got out of this or wanted to get out of it. My original post isn't really an accurate representation of how much I truly hate organized religion.

Of course - as I've said many times in this thread - I don't "hate the sinner," I just "hate the sin," which is ironically one of the best ways I can describe it. I hate the churchs that want to (for example) take away or deny human rights (abortion, gay marriage, etc), but I do not hate the congregations of those churches.

Not even in my original post did I say anything against the faithful. What few friends of faith I have, I cherish, because they provide an alternate viewpoint and fun debates.

If that's what you meant by respecting freedom of religion, I already do.

If not, tough. :D

EDIT: Sweet! I didn't expect to be called a bigot! (I suppose the fact that I don't like redheads makes me a bigot, too.)

I support the dissolution of western religions because they focus on the outside influence of a god. Buddhism, for example, has no god and turns meditation and thought inward, on the improvement of oneself. I have a great deal of respect for Buddhism - Theravada Buddhism, anyway - and most other schools of eastern thought that focus inward for growth, not outward.

Where did I call you a bigot? Although if the shoe fits ....

:D Sorry to break it to ya', but fixing up my manifesto was pretty much all I got out of this or wanted to get out of it. My original post isn't really an accurate representation of how much I truly hate organized religion.

Of course - as I've said many times in this thread - I don't "hate the sinner," I just "hate the sin," which is ironically one of the best ways I can describe it. I hate the churchs that want to (for example) take away or deny human rights (abortion, gay marriage, etc), but I do not hate the congregations of those churches.

Not even in my original post did I say anything against the faithful. What few friends of faith I have, I cherish, because they provide an alternate viewpoint and fun debates.

If that's what you meant by respecting freedom of religion, I already do.

If not, tough. :D

Sorry to break it to you, but forbidding people from practicing their religion and banning churches is not respecting religion. And it is attacking the faithful.

Parrotting the Christian saying doesn't really help you much with those of us who aren't Christian, either. :rolleyes:

Ok so ban the existance of faith based instutions that commit criminal acts or advocate criminal acts. I think its much simpler to just ban the existance of any organisation that advocates or commits criminal activity, faith based or not.

I hate the churchs that want to (for example) take away or deny human rights (abortion, gay marriage, etc), but I do not hate the congregations of those churches.

Several points here

1. Neither abortion nor marriage are human rights.

2. Churchs are not buildings with opinions. Churchs are groups of people with similar beliefs. If you hating the activity of Chruchs your hating the activity of people.

Several points here

1. Neither abortion nor marriage are human rights.

Um, yes, yes, they are.

SCOTUS recognized marriage as one of the "basic civil rights of man" as far back as 1888.

Abortion was recognized as a right in 1973.

Of course, they have always been rights. But, given that they have been legally recognized as constitutional rights, one for a century and a quarter and one for a quarter-century in the US, I'd say the burden is on you to show they are not human rights.

Freedom of religion is also a basic human right, however. One that Sevastra would ironically deny -- as well as several other human rights I outlined earlier.

2. Churchs are not buildings with opinions. Churchs are groups of people with similar beliefs. If you hating the activity of Chruchs your hating the activity of people.

Exactically!

Of course, they have always been rights. But, given that they have been legally recognized as constitutional rights, one for a century and a quarter and one for a quarter-century in the US, I'd say the burden is on you to show they are not human rights.


Neither are included in the UN charter of Human rights. Neither are nessecary for human existance.

Neither are included in the UN charter of Human rights. Neither are nessecary for human existance.

Those are the two criteria for human rights?

Although they may not be expressly stated in the UN Charter of Human Rights, whether they are protected thereby is different question.

Nothing not necessary for existence is a right? Reminds me of: 'No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.'

So you'd pretty much go with Hobbes and surrender all rights other than survival?

EDIT: Actually, you are flat wrong about marriage (and I shouldn't have agreed until I checked):

Article 16. (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Ok so ban the existance of faith based instutions that commit criminal acts or advocate criminal acts. I think its much simpler to just ban the existance of any organisation that advocates or commits criminal activity, faith based or not.

Exactly. As far as I understand government are trying to ban organizations that advocate criminal activity (like organizations supporting extreme nationalism, racism, etc.). Why not include also organizations which declare that their followers are better than others, because followers have 'right' religion?!


(Or did I miss the point where Christianity stopped calling believers of other religions 'infidels' or something close to that)

Exactly. As far as I understand government are trying to ban organizations that advocate criminal activity (like organizations supporting extreme nationalism, racism, etc.). Why not include also organizations which declare that their followers are better than others, because followers have 'right' religion?!


(Or did I miss the point where Christianity stopped calling believers of other religions 'infidels' or something close to that)

I'm not sure what government you are referring to that bans thought crimes. It isn't the U.S.

Exactly. As far as I understand government are trying to ban organizations that advocate criminal activity (like organizations supporting extreme nationalism, racism, etc.). Why not include also organizations which declare that their followers are better than others, because followers have 'right' religion?!


(Or did I miss the point where Christianity stopped calling believers of other religions 'infidels' or something close to that)

First of all, there's a big difference between criminal activity and a superiority complex. As far as I know, being conceited has yet to be declared a criminal offense, and conceit is about the worst offense you could claim for people who merely state that people who agree with them are better than people who don't. It can be mighty annoying, sure, but criminal?

Also, I know this has been said before and will be said again, but Christianity is not a monolith. Christians do not share a hive-mind. Given those facts, generalizations like those you're putting forth are kind of silly. (And yes, I do think you missed the point you mentioned, since I have never heard any of the Christians I know call someone an "infidel" except in jest. I'm sure some Christians do so seriously, but some atheists claim all Christians are nutjobs seriously, too. Christianity has never had a monopoly on bigotry and idiocy.)

It's funny - I know plenty of religious left-wingers, but I think this may be the first time I've encountered anti-religious people who are anti-Constitutional rights. Those two things just don't tend to go together...

*snip*

You and Sevastra should consider the following:

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas--that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

--Oliver Wendel Holmes, Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (dissenting opinion).

Cat-Tribe. I've seen you post before but never actually talked to you. Just curious, why are you an Atheist? I'd like everyone else to stay out of this for a moment so that it doesn't turn into another God thread.

RE: Cat-Tribe: Sorry, didn't mean for it to sound like you were the one calling me a bigot. It got mentioned a few times earlier in the thread.

Also, I did not say that I would want to prevent people from praticing their religion - ignoring for a moment the idea of elected officials - and the destruction of every church in the world at this exact second would not prevent the faithful from practicing, as has been mentioned. Elected officials would be required to give it up, yes, but that's simply a preventative measure. Religious morality isn't something that should be applied in an enlightened society.

RE: Sanx: Cat-Tribe already got your argument against human rights, so focusing on church for a moment; I should have said The Church, which would have been interpreted - correctly - as the ruling body of a given religion. They're the ones who set the doctrines and standards.

Take the moderate Catholics on this forum, for example. While Rome may say that homosexuality is a sin and gay marriage is evil, these people may say that neither is true.

Get it? The people at the top who hand out the propaganda, who write the nonsense, who plant the seeds of hate like they do are the ones who need to be taken out of power. Not the people at the bottom who go to Africa and build houses in the name of someone who promoted loving each other all as equals.

Here's my take on the whole topic (again):

Religion can be - when viewed from an individual's standpoint and applied as only one person, alone, experiencing their faith can - one of the most powerful catalysts and expressions of human compassion, wisdom, and empathy. Individuals go to Africa and build the houses, individuals volunteer their time or resources to soup kitchens and halfway houses and homeless shelters - as do Atheists and all other kinds of people - and individuals can, as the Abrahams and Buhhdas and Jesuses and Mohammads have apparantly taught us, change the world.

Religion can also breed the most extreme forms of hate, malice, fear, anger, injustice, oppression and violence than likely any other source on earth - and I don't think that anyone, no matter what they believe, can disagree with that.

Since ya'll apparantly don't like me using Christian phrases, here's a different one that has just as much meaning: A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If one imagines that the three major western religions (defined as "western" religions by any scholarly theological paper, for you few out there who have been screaming about that), Judaism, Christianity and Islam, started out as three nearly infinite loops of chain, then it shouldn't be too hard to imagine how fractured those chains are today. I say that when something becomes that irreparable it needs to be thrown away.


EDIT: Cat-Tribe: Can you provide context for your Holmes quote? I don't even know what the case was about. Or what sort of point you were trying to make.

Proposition

I propose that all branches and divisions of the Judaic, Christian and Islamic faiths be immediately shut down, their clergypersons defrocked, places of worship torn down, and any and all sacred texts (in print or electronic media) be either destroyed or placed under heavy restrictions.

So you think that destroying temples will make people feel less inclined to follow faith?
It is not reasonable to tear down beautiful buildings with great historical value no matter what. They do not belong to us, they belong to all of our children and their offspring, to rob future generations of the cultural inheritance is pure selfishness.
We need the past to do nice things to eachother, we need the information of the bad and good things that has happened to make wise choices in the future.

RE: *snip*Also, I did not say that I would want to prevent people from praticing their religion - ignoring for a moment the idea of elected officials - and the destruction of every church in the world at this exact second would not prevent the faithful from practicing, as has been mentioned. Elected officials would be required to give it up, yes, but that's simply a preventative measure. Religious morality isn't something that should be applied in an enlightened society.

<sigh>

If you want to keep Church and State separate, you are going about it bass-ackwards.

Yes, your proposal interferes with peoples practice of religion. It forbids them from associating and praying in churches. It imposes a religious test on public service. It actively discriminates against believers in organized religion.

You claim to support human rights. You even rely on my argument that marriage and abortion are human rights.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION IS A HUMAN RIGHT. So are at least a half-dozen other human rights that you would cavalierly destroy.

RE: Sanx: Cat-Tribe already got your argument against human rights, so focusing on church for a moment; I should have said The Church, which would have been interpreted - correctly - as the ruling body of a given religion. They're the ones who set the doctrines and standards.


You continue to confuse all of "western religion," particularly Christianity, with your skewed view of the Catholic faith.

You appear to ignore the existence of Protestants, for example.

EDIT: Cat-Tribe: Can you provide context for your Holmes quote? I don't even know what the case was about. Or what sort of point you were trying to make.

The context is unimportant, the content speaks for itself. The quote is rather famous and stands for itself.

The point is rather clear. You should not supress beliefs or ideas. You should not suppress the expression of beliefs or ideas. You don't declare ways of thought dangerous or outlaw them. You leave things to the market place of ideas.

If you insist on context, I provided the citation. Google it.

Cat-Tribe. I've seen you post before but never actually talked to you. Just curious, why are you an Atheist? I'd like everyone else to stay out of this for a moment so that it doesn't turn into another God thread.

Because any other belief is contrary to my experience and reason.

And I won't debate this, so I hope other will take Commie Catholic's hint and not try to convince me I am wrong. I am simply stating my opinion -- my reason for my beliefs.

You continue to confuse all of "western religion," particularly Christianity, with your skewed view of the Catholic faith.

You appear to ignore the existence of Protestants, for example.

My turn to sigh.

<sigh>

Ah.

I'm a lapsed Catholic, one who went to Catholic school for five years, one who couldn't play with the kids across the street from me because they were Protestant and their mother couldn't abide a Catholic child in her house, so don't tell me I don't know the difference.

"The Church" does not magically imply Catholics. Just because I used Catholics as an example does not mean that I was misinterpreting them. Every variety of Christianity has one, original church where their particular interpretation of the Bible was coined, and thus their interpretation of the world was passed onto their followers. ANY religious body that makes decisions about faith that affects their followers - no matter if the followers number 300 million or thirty - is the subject of scrutiny.

You claim to support human rights. You even rely on my argument that marriage and abortion are human rights.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION IS A HUMAN RIGHT. So are at least a half-dozen other human rights that you would cavalierly destroy.

I'm tired, so I'll just give the most blunt response I have:

Tough. Those are the same rights that religions have been denying to millions over the past 6,000 years.

Because any other belief is contrary to my experience and reason.

And I won't debate this, so I hope other will take Commie Catholic's hint and not try to convince me I am wrong. I am simply stating my opinion -- my reason for my beliefs.

Thanks. As you would probably know I'm also Atheistic for pretty much the same reasons.

You have no understanding of organized religion. What if your faith requires worshiping together? You have banned the practices of the faith..

What if my faith requires to go and kill people of other religions? Should it be banned?! Yes.


Religion has caused wars, hate, and unspeakable cruelty. So have many other things. Religion has also opposed and helped end all three.

Yes, indeed. Many things have caused wars and harm to people, many things have helped to end these two. Wouldn’t that be nice if society could diminsh amount of organizations of first type, and support organizations of second type?! Religion is not the only thing that has helped people, nor it is neccessary for that.



Um. "Fully supported and initiated by Christianity" is not accurate. Nor is Christianity a monolith. .

I do not agree. I have studied history quite extensively, and as I wrote previously, Christianity did support invasion, war, enslavement. I guess, you do not come from nation, which was invaded, conquered, and enslaved by Christians, in name of Christ. And then kept enslaved (in serfdom) for seven centuries, by Christian Church telling that it is very good to serve and be owned by landlords (as they are enslaving you in name of God). I do.


Again, Christians are not controlled by a central hive mind.

Some Christians are anti-choice. Some Christians are stauncly pro-choice. Some Christians are anti-same-sex-marriage. Some support the rights of all genders.

Think Mario Coumo, Hillary Clinton, Jane Fonda, and Senator Kennedy. Among, millions and millions and millions of others.
.

I have nowhere told that Christians are bad or wrong people. I speak about religion as organization. The ideology and opinion of Christian church is something that should not have place in civilized society. Especially with its history.



But: read that sentence of yours over and over and over until you understand it.

Sevastra, please join 'em.
I know what I have written. And I understand it as I have written. And you very well know that I am speaking about religion.

Let me start by saying that it isn’t my intention to start a fight. I’m hoping to have a logical, rational, intellectual argument. Yes, this is an extreme viewpoint, but that's the fun of having it!

Proposition

I propose that all branches and divisions of the Judaic, Christian and Islamic faiths be immediately shut down, their clergypersons defrocked, places of worship torn down, and any and all sacred texts (in print or electronic media) be either destroyed or placed under heavy restrictions.

After the first set of provisions is finished, I would also propose that the collected assets of each religion be liquidated and the money derived from the process be donated to deserving, secular charities.

Finally, I would propose that all official governing documents – the Constitution, etc – be rewritten without religious influence, and that all government officials currently serving in offices to which they are elected must either be confirmed atheists or hold religious beliefs that do not rely on the existence of any god before they are allowed to serve another term or be elected to a different office, with similar restrictions set in place for those who wish to run for office in the future.

Arguments

I make these propositions because western religion, throughout history and endemic to society today, is a source of warfare and death. More people have died in the name of “god” than anyone or anything else. With the possible exception of World War One, every war that has been started since nearly the beginning of recorded history has been over religion. And while I give each respective faith a lot of respect for the good that they have done for humanity – and still do today, despite the state of our world – I say that the problems it causes far outweigh the positive things they can do.

With the exception of some modern theocracies – most notably in the Middle East and Asia, though for how long is anyone’s guess – every theocracy in the world has failed. If “god” cannot run a country – since many rules of most modern societies in the western world have been based on Judeo-Christian morality – then it should not be expected that “he” is qualified to run the lives of billions.

My final argument against western religions is that they impede the flow of science and rationality. The strength of religion lies in the suppression of knowledge, a creed which Christianity and Islam, perhaps more than Judaism (although that may be researcher bias, since I don’t know very much about Jewish societal customs, pressures, etc) has followed since their respective inceptions. Faith and the requisite magic of it only exist so long as science cannot reproduce miracles or resurrect the dead (the latter not being too far off, but that’s a different thread entirely), and with each successive “defrocking,” if you will, of a given religious phenomena*, the church power base grows weaker, thus leading to more fevered proselytizing. (*The Stigmata, for instance, is psychologically driven, a mind-over-matter phenomena that, while not yet fully understood, is certainly explainable and acceptable. But even thirty years ago, before the rise of modern psychology, the Stigmata was still seen as a holy event.)

So, in essence, a unilateral ban on all western religions, based on their repeated failings, is what I'm hoping for. (Or at least an intelligent debate about it.)

*blinks*

That is absolutely ridiculous. While your at it, why don't you remove the rights to freedom of speech, life and privacy as well. Honestly!

Intresting...I always thought that atheists that promote atheist things are not true atheists.

Well, in the same manner you can tell that Christians that promote Christian things are not true Christians.
As an atheist, I do ignore most too radical Christians. However, if I see good people being Christian, I would like to help him: to make him think what stupid things he is doing, what stupid illogical things he is believing in; and by using common sense to show him what religion really is. Hence, I sometimes join in discussions about religion.


And Atheism: A religion of non-religion.


I would not ever agree to such definition. It is contradicting itself.

Also, I did not say that I would want to prevent people from praticing their religion - ignoring for a moment the idea of elected officials - and the destruction of every church in the world at this exact second would not prevent the faithful from practicing, as has been mentioned.

This is a relatively minor point, but that's not really accurate. In most branches of Judaism, for example, while a synagogue is not explicitly a requirement of the faith, a "minyan," or at least ten men, is required for a religious service to count as such. What do you do if you're an orthodox Jew without close Jewish friends, if there's not some sort of religious meeting-place? Heck, what do you do if you're a Jew living in an apartment too small to conveniently contain 10+ people?

Then, of course, there's the issue of how Catholics would receive Holy Communion from non-existent priests, where those who fervently believe in the monastic life would live after the destruction of all monasteries and convents, and what all the people who believe that "Honor the Sabbath day and keep it holy" means "Go to church on Sunday" are supposed to do...

...etc., etc., etc...

im christian but have no faith in church.

anyone who wants to see an athiest paradise.

live in any uk council estate.

thats about the best you can get.

<snip> A true atheist wouldnt bother with arguements about a God because he knows there is not one and he/she dosent really care what other people waste their time doing. <snip>

This raises a good point. Why do atheist feel that they must abuse, patronise and insult theists because of thier beliefs? I mean, I can understand atheists defending themselves, but the initial post on this thread was unprovoked. Provided a member of the Judeo-Christian Religions adheres to their principles, they will be a nice person to have arround, and the kinds of people who use religion as an excuse for killing people are the kinds that will kill people anyway.

Any butthole who comes to my church looking to shut it down is going to get two in the chest and one in the head. Ban happy religion-haters are one of the reasons the United States has a Second Amendment. :mp5:

Any butthole who comes to my church looking to shut it down is going to get two in the chest and one in the head. Ban happy religion-haters are one of the reasons the United States has a Second Amendment. :mp5:

hear hear

In most branches of Judaism, for example, while a synagogue is not explicitly a requirement of the faith, a "minyan," or at least ten men, is required for a religious service to count as such. What do you do if you're an orthodox Jew without close Jewish friends, if there's not some sort of religious meeting-place? Heck, what do you do if you're a Jew living in an apartment too small to conveniently contain 10+ people?

Then, of course, there's the issue of how Catholics would receive Holy Communion from non-existent priests, where those who fervently believe in the monastic life would live after the destruction of all monasteries and convents, and what all the people who believe that "Honor the Sabbath day and keep it holy" means "Go to church on Sunday" are supposed to do

I acknowledge these things, but I still support banning religions. Are these things obligatory for one to believe god?

I support freedom of faith. You can believe that all people believing in other gods than you should be punished. But you should not be allowed to implement this punishment. Hence, you can have faith whatever you want. But it should not be practiced...

Although some people use religion as an excuse to kill people, religion's main purpose throughout history has been to preserve culture and guide people on what is right and wrong. Banning religion is blatantly inhibiting freedom and would cause more death and violence than any religion has caused in history.

I have a proposal that would keep people with this kind of ideology from breeding.

*snip*

Scientific tyranny is not an improvement over religious tyranny. Science and true spirituality should complement one another. While I agree that the Western religions are not particularly spiritual in nature, and were created mainly for the purpose of controlling others, one cannot dictate another's spiritual beliefs to them. Each individual must discover it for him/herself. Of course, it is important to control the excesses inherent in those aforementioned religions (e.g., raping, pillaging, plundering and killing in the name of God can no longer be permitted), but as long as people are behaving peacably and lawfully, they must be left to figure out the spiritual things for themselves.

Neither are included in the UN charter of Human rights. Neither are nessecary for human existance.

The UN while defining certain rights; does not iterate all that could be categorized as "Rights".... Same occurs with the Constitution of the United States....

In US Jurisprudence you have two "types" or rights in laws; based off of the precept of Common Law; those which are enumerated (coded); and those which are non-enumerated (uncoded).

In common law (as with the US); all rights are an extension of life, liberty, and property (three fundamental rights) to which the enumerated (those rights coded into "law" [the Constitution]) are derived from.

Both the 9th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights, illude to the uncodified rights of people (those which have not been specifically enumerated); that is; the Constitution, while enumerating certain rights; itself recognizes that retained rights are not merely the ones mentioned, but that more exist, which have not been mentioned.

SCOTUS recognizes "Marriage" as a right, and it is an extension of those three fundamental rights (life, liberty and property), as such, it's an "uncodified" right, laying in the realm of case-law, and common law; as opposed to statutory codified law.

Your basic problem, is you do not understand how the US system of rights and government operated on its full scale.

RE: Cat-Tribe: Sorry, didn't mean for it to sound like you were the one calling me a bigot. It got mentioned a few times earlier in the thread.

Also, I did not say that I would want to prevent people from praticing their religion - ignoring for a moment the idea of elected officials - and the destruction of every church in the world at this exact second would not prevent the faithful from practicing, as has been mentioned. Elected officials would be required to give it up, yes, but that's simply a preventative measure. Religious morality isn't something that should be applied in an enlightened society.

RE: Sanx: Cat-Tribe already got your argument against human rights, so focusing on church for a moment; I should have said The Church, which would have been interpreted - correctly - as the ruling body of a given religion. They're the ones who set the doctrines and standards.

Take the moderate Catholics on this forum, for example. While Rome may say that homosexuality is a sin and gay marriage is evil, these people may say that neither is true.

Get it? The people at the top who hand out the propaganda, who write the nonsense, who plant the seeds of hate like they do are the ones who need to be taken out of power. Not the people at the bottom who go to Africa and build houses in the name of someone who promoted loving each other all as equals.

Here's my take on the whole topic (again):

Religion can be - when viewed from an individual's standpoint and applied as only one person, alone, experiencing their faith can - one of the most powerful catalysts and expressions of human compassion, wisdom, and empathy. Individuals go to Africa and build the houses, individuals volunteer their time or resources to soup kitchens and halfway houses and homeless shelters - as do Atheists and all other kinds of people - and individuals can, as the Abrahams and Buhhdas and Jesuses and Mohammads have apparantly taught us, change the world.

Religion can also breed the most extreme forms of hate, malice, fear, anger, injustice, oppression and violence than likely any other source on earth - and I don't think that anyone, no matter what they believe, can disagree with that.

Since ya'll apparantly don't like me using Christian phrases, here's a different one that has just as much meaning: A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If one imagines that the three major western religions (defined as "western" religions by any scholarly theological paper, for you few out there who have been screaming about that), Judaism, Christianity and Islam, started out as three nearly infinite loops of chain, then it shouldn't be too hard to imagine how fractured those chains are today. I say that when something becomes that irreparable it needs to be thrown away.


EDIT: Cat-Tribe: Can you provide context for your Holmes quote? I don't even know what the case was about. Or what sort of point you were trying to make.


Your idea of "Church" is so predominately "Catholic" it is sickening; You treat all "Churches" as if they are the Episcopalian structure of the "Catholic" church.

I'm Presbyterian.... our pastors, elders, are elected; our Presbyters and General Assembly are composed of representatives elected by the bodies. We specifically elect our representatives for the purpose of handleing doctrinal and functional problems within our "greater" body (The Regional Presbytery; or National General Assembly), and within our individual bodies (of each congregation). You can't assume that by attacking our "elected government" you're not attacking us, as Presbyterian Christians... While it may work differently in your most certainly "Catholic" perspective; it does not work that way with Presbyterians and Congregationalists; whose MEMBERS themselves ARE the Chrurch Government. Monetary concerns, budgeting and the like is advides by the "Session" (Body of Ruling Elders, elected by the Congregation, who proside over an individual congregation), but we (as a congregation, under vote of all communing members) make the final budgeting decisions (it is "our" church, "our community"). So "seizing" money from the Church; is seizing money from the congregation (the community of believers of that church); removing our governing offers; is removing duly elected representatives which WE (as a congregation) have chosen to handle our community affairs inside the church. And you would be doing dis-service to all the people we have helped around the globe; from building schools in Belize, to operating orphanages in Haiti, to feeding the homeless here in our own home towns....

I'm sorry; you're ignorant of the truth; and it comes accross in your ideas.

I personally believe that most religions are more harmful than helpful, but I completely respect peoples right to freedom of belief...

You and Sevastra remind me of one my favorite passages from a play, "A Man For All Seasons" by Robert Bolt:

That's exactly what I had in mind when having that little bit of conversation! :eek: Someone picked up on it!!

It is nice to know there is someone else on this forum who has read more than just comic books.

I suppose the fact that I don't like redheads makes me a bigot, too.


Yes it does, you evil bastard! :p

2. Churchs are not buildings with opinions. Churchs are groups of people with similar beliefs. If you hating the activity of Chruchs your hating the activity of people.

I'm sorry ... but that's a really funny typo ... crutch ... hehehe.

Neither are included in the UN charter of Human rights. Neither are nessecary for human existance.

The UN Charter of Human Rights is not the end-all be-all of that which are Human Rights.

Because any other belief is contrary to my experience and reason.

Neat! That's the exact same reason I'm Muslim. :)

Proposition

I propose that all branches and divisions of the secular beliefs be immediately shut down, their teachers arrested, homes taken, and any and all secular texts (in print or electronic media) be either destroyed or placed under heavy restrictions.

After the first set of provisions is finished, I would also propose that the collected assets of each athiest be liquidated and the money derived from the process be donated to deserving, religious charities.

Finally, I would propose that all official governing documents – the Constitution, etc – be rewritten with only religious influence, and that all government officials currently serving in offices to which they are elected must either be confirmed Christians, Muslims, or Jews or hold religious beliefs that rely on the existence of God before they are allowed to serve another term or be elected to a different office, with similar restrictions set in place for those who wish to run for office in the future.

THAT'S what I think of your proposal

Proposition

I propose that all branches and divisions of the secular beliefs be immediately shut down, their teachers arrested, homes taken, and any and all secular texts (in print or electronic media) be either destroyed or placed under heavy restrictions.

After the first set of provisions is finished, I would also propose that the collected assets of each athiest be liquidated and the money derived from the process be donated to deserving, religious charities.

Finally, I would propose that all official governing documents – the Constitution, etc – be rewritten with only religious influence, and that all government officials currently serving in offices to which they are elected must either be confirmed Christians, Muslims, or Jews or hold religious beliefs that rely on the existence of God before they are allowed to serve another term or be elected to a different office, with similar restrictions set in place for those who wish to run for office in the future.

THAT'S what I think of your proposal


You doing it is no better or funnier (if it was an attempt at humor) then the original poster

(You have a point there)

anyways, it's not the religions that cause wars, it's the people (mostly men)

so I have a great Idea

either kill all the males on Earth, or strip all the goverment leaders of their power and replace them with women

THAT'S how we can eliminate war. (don't get mad at me, this is what a friend of mine said on an AIM conversation)

well, besides once a month when we'll probably start nuking everyone for no apparent reason. (This is what another friend of mine added in)

"Protestant" is a catch-all general term as well; you can't lump "Protestants" groups together, anymore than trying to lump Catholics in with them.

Which protestants?

Baptists?
Anabaptists?
Presbyterians?
Episcopalians?
Anglicans?
Lutherans?
Methodists?
Reformed?

Which Baptists?
Primitive Baptists?
Reformed Baptists?
Southern Baptists?
Northern Baptists?

Which Anabaptists?
Mennonites?
Amish?

Which Methodists?
United Methodists?
African Methodists?

Which Presbyterians?
Evangelical Presbyterians?
Reformed Presbyterians?
Orthodox Presbyterians?

The questions go on...

None of them have exacting identical beliefs
None of them have the same forms and functions in their Church Governments
None of them have similar ideas regarding politics

You make alot of ascertions (in general) about the various groups; pretty much assuming all are politically active, episcoplian organizations.

one last thing

NOBODY restricts my freedoms

if you ban praying

I'll do it illegally

if you ban bible reading, I'll read anyways just to spite you

and if you try to arrest me for following God, I'll kill you

personally I hate all those fanatics (including the Athiest fanatics who want to ban Religion)

it's the people like you who are the cause of wars.

people trying to force their beleifs on others, pathetic.

As a Christian I beleive in God and that he created everything, nothing more

I'm not all like "oh, what you're doing is a sin, you'll go to hell"

we all have the power to choose, an I respect that, but don't get mad at me if you wind up in a firey place you don't think is real (hell)

I do not feel like reading all the posts in this thread, instead I will make one comment to the OP: Please, do us all a favor and never speak again.

NOBODY restricts my freedoms

if you ban praying

I'll do it illegally


I'm the same way about flag burning.

"Protestant" is a catch-all general term as well; you can't lump "Protestants" groups together, anymore than trying to lump Catholics in with them.

Which protestants?

*snip*
I was in San Fransisco once, walking along the Golden Gate Bridge, and I saw this guy on the bridge about to jump. So I thought I'd try to stall and detain him, long enough for me to put the film in.

I said, "Don't jump!" and he turns...

He said, "Nobody loves me."

I said, "God loves you, you silly ninny."...

He said, "I do believe in God."

I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"

He said, "A Christian."

I said, "Me too. Protestant or Catholic?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me too! What franchise?"

He says, "Baptist."

I said, "Me too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"

He says, "Northern Baptist."

I said, "Me too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He says, "Northern Conservative Baptist."

I say, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist or Northern Conservative Reform Baptist?"

He says, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist."

I say, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region?"

He says, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region."

I say, "Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"

He says, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."

I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

~Emo Philips

Except for WWII, Chinese civil war, American Civil War, Napoleonic wars, Vietnam, Korea, Portugese Colony wars, and more then I care to go on about.

Aethiests have a nice ability to gloss over all the genocides that have taken place in their name over the 20th century.

Also I notice you only wanted to ban "western" religion, making you a bigot on top of everything else.
Quite right, except for WWII. It was mostly because of Adolph Hitler's ethnic cleansing. So yeah, that one was from religion.

*snip*


LOL!!!!

I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.


Ahaha ... Emo Philips rocks.

Snip
Thats great my friend :p

I proposition to ban all of humanity, in response to the worthy challenge this thread has propositioned!

For inded, it is humans in general, with their failable, flawed persons that have misinterpreted religions of peace, blindly followed despotic rulers into war, and caused the very evils that many religions seek to ease.

Humanity - CEASE TO BE!

You obviously dont understand faith enough then. While you can have blind acceptence as a faith, it ultimately wont do you much good. Most people have a highly developed faith that comes from study and understanding. If you cant see that you dont know enough about the faith communities.

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. "Most people have a highly developed faith that comes from study and understanding"? Are you kidding me? Maybe most people in these forums, maybe most people in urban religious communities (and here I'm maybe stretching it). But "most people" in general? That's just simply not true. Although there are a lot of cultured followers of faith, the majority of the people that follow a religion, any religion, come from poorer backgrounds, don't have access to that many mediums of culture, and don't have the possibility to have a "study and understanding" of pratically anything, much less the metaphysical complexity of the concept of God.

Nowadays, it is the same thing just in more civilized ways: Christianity strongly suggest limiting human rights and choices (like abortion, etc.) in the name of its god - I also read news, that Christian Church has suggested Spanish civil servants to not register legal (gay) marriages.


Christianity does not suggest these things. the bible does not say homosexuals are bad, the 11 commandment is not "Thouh shall no abort thy baby"
The things you mentioned are what the leaders of the church think. I can think of many good christians who believe in abortion, homosexuality and gay marriages.

Let me start by saying that it isn’t my intention to start a fight. I’m hoping to have a logical, rational, intellectual argument.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

I propose that all branches and divisions of the Judaic, Christian and Islamic faiths be immediately shut down, their clergypersons defrocked, places of worship torn down, and any and all sacred texts (in print or electronic media) be either destroyed or placed under heavy restrictions.

Yes, let's get rid of all books, while we're at it. Dangerous things, those.

After the first set of provisions is finished, I would also propose that the collected assets of each religion be liquidated and the money derived from the process be donated to deserving, secular charities.

Are you going to steal directly from believers as well?

Finally, I would propose that all official governing documents – the Constitution, etc – be rewritten without religious influence, and that all government officials currently serving in offices to which they are elected must either be confirmed atheists or hold religious beliefs that do not rely on the existence of any god before they are allowed to serve another term or be elected to a different office, with similar restrictions set in place for those who wish to run for office in the future.

There goes representative government...

I make these propositions because western religion, throughout history and endemic to society today, is a source of warfare and death. More people have died in the name of “god” than anyone or anything else. With the possible exception of World War One, every war that has been started since nearly the beginning of recorded history has been over religion.

This statement is completely false from a historical standpoint. Try again.

My final argument against western religions is that they impede the flow of science and rationality.

Yes, this is why no scientists or rational people are also religious...

Oh wait, some of us are.

The strength of religion lies in the suppression of knowledge

Incorrect. The strength of power many religious leaders have achieved lies in the suppression of knowledge. However, that power is not equivalent to all religion.

So, in essence, a unilateral ban on all western religions, based on their repeated failings, is what I'm hoping for. (Or at least an intelligent debate about it.)

This is like saying, "I propse that we ban all people who have emotions. Emotions cause warfare and death. Sure, they do good things as well, but we should give all that up and deny humanity so that we can prevent war. Let's talk about this intelligently."

Ever seen Equilibrium?

BACKGROUND:
I have been raised a very conservative Catholic. I am one of a small portion of society who has actually studied other religions without the intentions of mocking or putting them down. I am a physicist by trade and a truth seeking by heart.

INTENTIONS:
I intend for the world to be happy and unified. Yes it may seem a bit naive but I believe it will work one day. I hope to help people to understand that organized religions are just an expression of spirituality, not spirituality. Furthermore, spirituality is just an expression of the search for truth, there are many.

PROPOSITION:
This is a crude summary for the sake of space, but I will do my best. As I said in the title, email me with thoughts (preferably productive and constructive thoughts). My proposition is inspired by the message of Pope John XXIII in his address concerning Vatican II, that we as human beings are requested to search for truth. Now what is truth? He was referring to Jesus Christ, the truth and light, whereas I propose a deeper truth which may have been protrayed in a fashion of Jesus for some and science for others. I don't really care, these are all just methods for searching for truth. Across the ages there have been three major methods and expressions of truth seeking which I will be concerned: Religion, Science, Philosophy. I argue that all great truths must be rooted in all three. As we all become accustomed to seeking and believing these truths, the manner with which we express these truths, such as religion, will be trivial.

Please comment constructively, and email me with any support, for my proposition is for all people. :) May your believes guide you towards peace.

Please comment constructively, and email me with any support, for my proposition is for all people. May your believes guide you towards peace.

This is like saying, "I propse that we ban all people who have emotions. Emotions cause warfare and death. Sure, they do good things as well, but we should give all that up and deny humanity so that we can prevent war. Let's talk about this intelligently."



WOW!!!!

FINALLY we get some smart people on this thread

In my opinion, all of the worlds troubles today boild down to two things: Power and Religion. So I can empathize with you wishing to end religion, but surely, religious fanatics will fight back, therefore causing more problems. You cant witch hunt people who still believe. You truly are moronic.
I vote NO

In my opinion, all of the worlds troubles today boild down to two things: Power and Religion. So I can empathize with you wishing to end religion, but surely, religious fanatics will fight back, therefore causing more problems. You cant witch hunt people who still believe. You truly are moronic.
I vote NO

Really? I can boil it down to one! SELFISHNESS!

Oh, so there's voting involved?

well,for the opening proposal (the one to ban western religions), I vote NO

as for Hemingsoft's proposal, I vote Yes

Oh, so there's voting involved?

well,for the opening proposal (the one to ban western religions), I vote NO

as for Hemingsoft's proposal, I vote Yes
So you expect people to be tolerant of you but not you of them way to be a hypocrite

How are you any better then the thread opener?

So you expect people to be tolerant of you but not you of them way to be a hypocrite

How are you any better then the thread opener?

What in the world are you referring to? I might agree I you explain.

What in the world are you referring to? I might agree I you explain.
I apologise I was reading something compleatly different

My apologies

Quite right, except for WWII. It was mostly because of Adolph Hitler's ethnic cleansing. So yeah, that one was from religion.
Not true, Adolf Hitler didn't hate Jews for there religion, and doing so would (somewhat) lessen what he did. A jew coverted to christianity got the same punishment as one to stick to his. It was racially motivated, not religiously.

How about banning imperialist Hinduists too?

And these "I'm better than you *spit* *spit* shame on you" Buddhists?

How about banning imperialist Hinduists too?

And these "I'm better than you *spit* *spit* shame on you" Buddhists?

How about just protecting free exercise of religion for everyone?

How about just protecting free exercise of religion for everyone?
I'd support that.

But banning western religions, while keeping the others would be ludicrous.
I've visited India and believe me, their religious groups are no better than ours (Hare Krishna, Buddhists, Jaïn, Sikh, Hinduist, Muslims, ......)
We tend to view "foreign" religions as "more pure", but if you've ever been publicly scorned by a pissed-off buddhist, you know what I mean.

Banning religion. No, that's so Soviet Union.

While I think that the majority of atheists might be ok with that, I get the strong feeling, that maybe some of the others might not approve of this idea.
No, most atheists support religious freedom.

I'd support that.

But banning western religions, while keeping the others would be ludicrous.
I've visited India and believe me, their religious groups are no better than ours (Hare Krishna, Buddhists, Jaïn, Sikh, Hinduist, Muslims, ......)
We tend to view "foreign" religions as "more pure", but if you've ever been publicly scorned by a pissed-off buddhist, you know what I mean.

I wonder how western religions are viewed in places such as India. Of course, this would not quite be a good comparison, because roughly 20% of India practices Islam.

Banning religion is not the answer. I personally believe that America needs to look to God more often. I don't honestly think Western religions cause any more trouble in the big picture than other religions.

~ Romandeos.

Let me start by saying that it isn’t my intention to start a fight. I’m hoping to have a logical, rational, intellectual argument. Yes, this is an extreme viewpoint, but that's the fun of having it!

Proposition

I propose that all branches and divisions of the Judaic, Christian and Islamic faiths be immediately shut down, their clergypersons defrocked, places of worship torn down, and any and all sacred texts (in print or electronic media) be either destroyed or placed under heavy restrictions.

After the first set of provisions is finished, I would also propose that the collected assets of each religion be liquidated and the money derived from the process be donated to deserving, secular charities.

Finally, I would propose that all official governing documents – the Constitution, etc – be rewritten without religious influence, and that all government officials currently serving in offices to which they are elected must either be confirmed atheists or hold religious beliefs that do not rely on the existence of any god before they are allowed to serve another term or be elected to a different office, with similar restrictions set in place for those who wish to run for office in the future.

Arguments

I make these propositions because western religion, throughout history and endemic to society today, is a source of warfare and death. More people have died in the name of “god” than anyone or anything else. With the possible exception of World War One, every war that has been started since nearly the beginning of recorded history has been over religion. And while I give each respective faith a lot of respect for the good that they have done for humanity – and still do today, despite the state of our world – I say that the problems it causes far outweigh the positive things they can do.

With the exception of some modern theocracies – most notably in the Middle East and Asia, though for how long is anyone’s guess – every theocracy in the world has failed. If “god” cannot run a country – since many rules of most modern societies in the western world have been based on Judeo-Christian morality – then it should not be expected that “he” is qualified to run the lives of billions.

My final argument against western religions is that they impede the flow of science and rationality. The strength of religion lies in the suppression of knowledge, a creed which Christianity and Islam, perhaps more than Judaism (although that may be researcher bias, since I don’t know very much about Jewish societal customs, pressures, etc) has followed since their respective inceptions. Faith and the requisite magic of it only exist so long as science cannot reproduce miracles or resurrect the dead (the latter not being too far off, but that’s a different thread entirely), and with each successive “defrocking,” if you will, of a given religious phenomena*, the church power base grows weaker, thus leading to more fevered proselytizing. (*The Stigmata, for instance, is psychologically driven, a mind-over-matter phenomena that, while not yet fully understood, is certainly explainable and acceptable. But even thirty years ago, before the rise of modern psychology, the Stigmata was still seen as a holy event.)

So, in essence, a unilateral ban on all western religions, based on their repeated failings, is what I'm hoping for. (Or at least an intelligent debate about it.)

Um, no.

It's also a source for ethics/morals, which have led to laws that keep us all from raping/killing/stealing from each other.

It's also a means to a happy afterlife, which you cannot disprove (nor can I prove it... has to do with faith).

also... I know a lot of people who were having a very tough time in life... unhappiness tore at them. They found Jesus and became happy. You cannot discount/overlook the positive influence that Christianity has had on hundreds of millions (or billions, even) of people who found knowing Christ to be a profoundly happy/positive experience which came to be reflected in their lives.

I wonder how western religions are viewed in places such as India. Of course, this would not quite be a good comparison, because roughly 20% of India practices Islam.

Religious angry mobs in Gujarat from time to time.

Muslims try not to make too much noise. I know one muslim jeweler in Baroda who had to hide (with his family) at a friend's house for weeks during religious unrest. His shop was vandalised.

And Hare Krishna are RUDE with Christians. I tested it first-hand.

Hinduist and Christians dislike each other, but it looks more like a cold war.

The jaïn are cool, though.

And the Sikh mind their own business.

Jew's are a whole different league...please do not demean us... i think 4000 years is more then enough, we certainly do not need this.

You may however ban Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist synagouges....they're what would happen if minimal, medium and maxium (respectively) prisoners escaped and changed the judicial code.

The Jew's on the board should understand this. ;)

Your war analysis is highly biased from American point of view.
Ok, well, let me do it for you then, as a student of History. Sorry if someone already did this, I stopped at the bottom of page 2 or whatever.

The ones mentioned.

Franco-Prussian War: Territory.
Russian-Lithuanian/-Polish Wars: Territory
Pretty much all European wars during the middle ages (internal, so not the Crusades): Territory.
French Revolution: Removal of aristocracy.
Napoleonic Wars: Territory.
100 Years War: Revenge over previous invasion(s).
Just about all Roman wars before 300 CE: Territory.
Peloponesian Wars: General hatred, but no religion.
Persian Wars: Territory
Egyptian-Hittite Campaigns: Territory/Removing an enemy.
Egyptian-Nubian Wars: Territory
Just about every major war: Territory, and as a byproduct its wealth.

As you can clearly see, the vast majority of history's wars were started over territorial greed. There are only a few wars I can think of that involved religion as an actual cause:

The Crusades (1-5) (c.1100)
Muslim Expansion (c. 7/800)

Notice the numbers difference. (Edit: and the years too!)

THEREFORE given that territory is the main cause of most wars, I say we ban that. Oh wait, it's been done in communism, and it failed. Sorry.

if you ban praying

I'll do it illegally

if you ban bible reading, I'll read anyways

<snip>

As a Christian I beleive in God and that he created everything

<snip>

we all have the power to choose, an I respect that, but don't get mad at me if you wind up in a firey place you don't think is real (hell)

ditto me :)

Ok, well, let me do it for you then, as a student of History. Sorry if someone already did this, I stopped at the bottom of page 2 or whatever.

The ones mentioned.

Franco-Prussian War: Territory.
Russian-Lithuanian/-Polish Wars: Territory
Pretty much all European wars during the middle ages (internal, so not the Crusades): Territory.
French Revolution: Removal of aristocracy.
Napoleonic Wars: Territory.
100 Years War: Revenge over previous invasion(s).
Just about all Roman wars before 300 CE: Territory.
Peloponesian Wars: General hatred, but no religion.
Persian Wars: Territory
Egyptian-Hittite Campaigns: Territory/Removing an enemy.
Egyptian-Nubian Wars: Territory
Just about every major war: Territory, and as a byproduct its wealth.

As you can clearly see, the vast majority of history's wars were started over territorial greed. There are only a few wars I can think of that involved religion as an actual cause:

The Crusades (1-5) (c.1100)
Muslim Expansion (c. 7/800)

Notice the numbers difference. (Edit: and the years too!)

THEREFORE given that territory is the main cause of most wars, I say we ban that. Oh wait, it's been done in communism, and it failed. Sorry.

You call yourself a history student?

Those “European wars” you glanced over , shouldn’t have been glazed over
Namly “The Wars on religion” <<- (actual name)

War 1 (1562-1563)
War 2 (1567-1568)
War 3 (1568-1570)

The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre (1572)


War 4 (1572-1573)
War 5 (1576)
War 6 (1577)
War 7 (1580)

The War of the Three Henries (1584-1589)

The Wars of the League (1589-1598)

And that’s just in those internal wars you glossed over
I am disappointed from a history student … all of those had massive religious motivations (namely catholic protestant fighting)

(And all this from a NON history student that just took the time to learn)

Neither are included in the UN charter of Human rights. Neither are nessecary for human existance.
it depends on who you are if it is a nessecary. i believe it is because of my faith (religon).in my way of looking at is if there was no God then there would be no life because He created it.

Well, in truth it wasn't Religion that caused ANY wars

it was the Fanatics who wanted to shove their beleifs down other people's throats

Well, in truth it wasn't Religion that caused ANY wars
it was the Fanatics who wanted to shove their beleifs down other people's throats

It's always good to mention that, because religions always get a bad name based upon the actions of extremists who take it too far. I agree with the actions of the Inquisition, witchhunts, or Crusades no more than any of their unfortunate victims. Even today, with the extremists like CR, Christian Identity, the terrorists or any religion's extremists really we still have problems, but must remember that they don't reflect the faiths but rather a group of twisted ideologues who only want power.

Well, in truth it wasn't Religion that caused ANY wars

it was the Fanatics who wanted to shove their beleifs down other people's throats
Its a tool like a lot of other things ... it can be used to guide people twords "good" or bad ... it can be used to controll people for good or for bad it can be used to inform or cover up the truth

It can be used as a motivating factor for descovery (like it used to) or to cover up new descovery (latly)

Religion really is a tool

Yes, and Atheism is up there with them, it has Extremists as well (look at this topic, it's original purpose was an Extremist proposal to ban western religions)

Yes, and Atheism is up there with them, it has Extremists as well (look at this topic, it's original purpose was an Extremist proposal to ban western religions)
So? such was a fact of life who said any differently lol