NationStates Jolt Archive

According to Elton John, it would be a good idea http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/13/britain.eltonjohn.ap/index.html

I don't think its a good idea, but do you?

Ban it? No, because a lot of the "moral majority" are only "moral" because there's the threat of eternal damnation. They're not ready to be responsible for their own actions.

According to Elton John, it would be a good idea http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/13/britain.eltonjohn.ap/index.html

I don't think its a good idea, but do you?
Um... you want to debate something Elton John said?

:rolleyes: If we're playing "ban whatever you want", why doesn't he just call for a ban on homophobia?

how do you go about banning religion?

According to Elton John, it would be a good idea http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/13/britain.eltonjohn.ap/index.html

I don't think its a good idea, but do you?

I wish people would just wake up and abandon it on their own. It's an addiction!
But banning it would just make it proliferate underground :(

Ban it? No, because a lot of the "moral majority" are only "moral" because there's the threat of eternal damnation. They're not ready to be responsible for their own actions.

but that's the beauty part. If the government is strong enough to ban organized religion then they're gonna be strong enough to force people to do what they want anyway. And they get to redefine morality to suite the state's goals while they're at it.

You can't ban religion. Only organised religion.

I realise that it's a bit too much for atheists to grasp, but God wouldn't just stop existing if you 'banned' Him.

Its not plausible or beneficial to ban something that is greatly composed of thought. Elton John sounded like he was just talking out of his ass anyway, he adds it as an aside, not a direct statement.

but that's the beauty part. If the government is strong enough to ban organized religion then they're gonna be strong enough to force people to do what they want anyway. And they get to redefine morality to suite the state's goals while they're at it.

Fascism always works out well.

how do you go about banning religion?

It usually involves a bit of genocide, until people realise it's safer to lie about it.

how do you go about banning religion?

Exactly. I saw that story and thought Sir Elton needs a little reality check, if only on the practicality of what he's saying.

It usually involves a bit of genocide, until people realise it's safer to lie about it.

oh......well, that doesn't sound pleasant at all.

I am against.

You can't ban religion. Only organised religion.

I realise that it's a bit too much for atheists to grasp, but God wouldn't just stop existing if you 'banned' Him.

LOL And She won't start existing if you believe in Her either :p

Fascism always works out well.

as long as it doesn't invade Poland, yes ;)

This is why we don't look to celebrities for intelligent discourse unless they demonstrate it on their own. We only look to them (hopefully) for talent in their chosen profession.

I realise that it's a bit too much for atheists to grasp, but God wouldn't just stop existing if you 'banned' Him.

God wouldn't start existing if you made loaded statements where your assumption was that God ever existed in the first place.

God wouldn't start existing if you made loaded statements where your assumption was that God ever existed in the first place.

or does it?

and when was the last time anyone listened to Elton John for anything less than musical beauty?

You can't ban religion. Only organised religion.

I realise that it's a bit too much for atheists to grasp, but God wouldn't just stop existing if you 'banned' Him.

And he wouldn't start existing just because the theists thought he existed.

According to Elton John, it would be a good idea http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/13/britain.eltonjohn.ap/index.html

I don't think its a good idea, but do you?

I think we could deffenatly survive without religion and possibly prosper BUT that being said I don't think it is a good idea to arbitrarily ban any idea even if it would work. People have the right to believe as they please even if I don't agree with it

It's a great idea.

You can't ban religion. Only organised religion.

I realise that it's a bit too much for atheists to grasp, but God wouldn't just stop existing if you 'banned' Him.

Yeah us poor atheists ... we are all have problems grasping reality :rolleyes:

*laughs at Elton John*

Yea, I would love for him to band something that has no material value, and can't be grabbed like a cup or piece of paper. Ahh this is rich. Seriously though, John, go back to playing the piano. Stick with what you know.

Oh, I confused Elton John and John Lennon. <_<
I don't think it should be banned.. sense will prevail eventually.

According to Elton John, it would be a good idea http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/13/britain.eltonjohn.ap/index.html

I don't think its a good idea, but do you?

I say ban Elton John!

I say ban Elton John!

I second this. His last single was dreadful.

how do you go about banning religion?I prefer using fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms:)

Ban? No.

But it would be in our best interests if we could get rid of it.

Ban? No.

But it would be in our best interests if we could get rid of it.

Yes. Secularising as a natural consequence of society developing FTW.

According to Elton John, it would be a good idea http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/13/britain.eltonjohn.ap/index.html

I don't think its a good idea, but do you?

What can we ban next? Music? Freedom of expression? Sex?:rolleyes:

Elton John is an idiot, then.
Banning religions only makes them stronger, especially ones like Christianity (which is no doubt his main target) which glorify martyrdom.
Its like trying to hurt the ocean by throwing buckets of boiling water into it

Seriously though, go ahead President John. Im totaly sure that a thosand years of Romans wont be laughing at you.

but that's the beauty part. If the government is strong enough to ban organized religion then they're gonna be strong enough to force people to do what they want anyway. And they get to redefine morality to suite the state's goals while they're at it.

Yeah, that worked SO well in the Soviet Union...

Yeah, that worked SO well in the Soviet Union...

*shoots Kat*
>_>
<_<
*vanishes into alley*

According to Elton John, it would be a good idea http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/13/britain.eltonjohn.ap/index.html

I don't think its a good idea, but do you?

Yes. What else causes more hatred and death in the world? I challenge someone to find an answer.

Now, realistically it would never work, since just because something is banned doesn't mean it won't exist, but in theory I'd support it entirely.

but that's the beauty part. If the government is strong enough to ban organized religion then they're gonna be strong enough to force people to do what they want anyway. And they get to redefine morality to suite the state's goals while they're at it.

Fascist.
Anyway,banning religion is not a good idea.A good proportion of the world are religious,and once it was banned,the atheists would have to find a new excuse for the worlds problems,hence it goes full cycle.

According to Elton John, it would be a good idea http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/13/britain.eltonjohn.ap/index.html

I don't think its a good idea, but do you?

Elton John: "Hey look at me I am so open minded and liberal, I am soooo for our freedoms and all that, so I think we should ban religion, you know one of our most important freedoms! See how open minded I am, as I have cleverly reasoned that all religion and religious people are obviously homophobic, it shows my amazing understanding"

Seriously, no words describe what a fool this man is.

Yes. What else causes more hatred and death in the world? I challenge someone to find an answer.

Politics and nature.

Yes. What else causes more hatred and death in the world? I challenge someone to find an answer.

Now, realistically it would never work, since just because something is banned doesn't mean it won't exist, but in theory I'd support it entirely.

More hatred? Nationalism, racism, etc.
More death? HIV, malaria, etc.

And you'd support something you know is doomed to failure? How useful.

Anyway,why are we debating something Elton John said?

Anyway,why are we debating something Elton John said?

Because the function of NS is to debate everything until its deader than a week old horse corpse in the middle of the Nile delta.

Anyway,why are we debating something Elton John said?

Get with the program. We're just debating the idea now :p

Yes. What else causes more hatred and death in the world? I challenge someone to find an answer.


Difference of opinion, religion like anything else is a difference of opinion. And differences causes conflict. Now we don't want to force everyone to have the same opinion do we? We don't want to be fascist thought police do we?

It's very easy for people to place blame all hatred and death on religion. It's also very moronic.

We shouldn't ban religion. That's just stupid and backwards.

However, I can understand Elton John's displeasure with religious groups, and I think that he has just cause to feel the way he does.

What can we ban next? Music? Freedom of expression? Sex?:rolleyes:

I vote Music. j/k.

Because the function of NS is to debate everything until its deader than a week old horse corpse in the middle of the Nile delta.

That's been thoroughly raped by a few crocs.
God bless NS.

Elton's reasoning is that religion is intolerant of homosexuals. Here his argument, and moral high ground, comes crashing to the ground; for he is a homosexual who is intolerant of religion. That makes him just as bad as the "religious bigots".

how do you go about banning religion?
Unsuccessfully.

We shouldn't ban religion. That's just stupid and backwards.

However, I can understand Elton John's displeasure with religious groups, and I think that he has just cause to feel the way he does.

It's also fascist.
And I don't think he has just cause.I don't like rap music,but I haven't ever said we should ban it.Evidently Elton John is as open minded as a cherry tomato.

More hatred? Nationalism, racism, etc.
More death? HIV, malaria, etc.

And you'd support something you know is doomed to failure? How useful.

Nationalism and racism? Bah...how about the Jews being hated forever by everyone? How about the Middle Easy conflict since the foundation of Islam? Religion kills more.

HIV and malaria? Oh come now...at least your first answer can be argued. HIV's been around for how many years vs. religion? Ya...I thought so.

And before you try to "outwit" me or whatever you intention was, I said that if banning religion were to work, I'd be for it. therefore I am for banning religion in theory. However, since it wouldn't work, it'd be pointless. I never said I'd support something that is "doomed to failure."

Yes. What else causes more hatred and death in the world? I challenge someone to find an answer.
Racism, fascism, and Maoism.

Racism, fascism, and Maoism.

And Stalinism.

if it were possible.

Nationalism and racism? Bah...how about the Jews being hated forever by everyone? How about the Middle Easy conflict since the foundation of Islam? Religion kills more.

Say that to the millions of Russians, Americans, Germans, Japanese, Jews and others that we're killed in WW2. Not to mention the casualties in WW1 or any of the other non-religion inspired wars.

HIV and malaria? Oh come now...at least your first answer can be argued. HIV's been around for how many years vs. religion? Ya...I thought so.

Give it 5 more centuries and it will beat religion hands down when it comes to the number of victims. And malaria's been around for ages, killing millions.

Besides if you need another example, how about the black death?

And before you try to "outwit" me or whatever you intention was, I said that if banning religion were to work, I'd be for it. therefore I am for banning religion in theory. However, since it wouldn't work, it'd be pointless. I never said I'd support something that is "doomed to failure."

So you support it or not?

Difference of opinion, religion like anything else is a difference of opinion. And differences causes conflict. Now we don't want to force everyone to have the same opinion do we? We don't want to be fascist thought police do we?

It's very easy for people to place blame all hatred and death on religion. It's also very moronic.

Hmm...I agree...I would be moronic to blame all hatred and death on religion...just as it would be to not realize the impact it has had.

Difference of opinion, ultimately, is the cause of conflict. You could even go as far as saying it's simply the nature of humanity. However, neither of those answers make you able to try and prevent or understand anything about the conflict. It's one thing to have a difference of opinion on a border, perhaps, or on the killing of civilians, or government types. All of these things are real.

Religion on the other hand is unable to be proven. For Christians and Muslims, or Muslims and Jews, or whoever else to fight, basically over whose opinion on something that can't be proven either way is the most insepid thing ever thought of. It is quite similar to a "who would win in a fight...wolverine or cyclops?" with a bunch of fanboys arguing for their favorite character.

"Nooo!!!111 Allah is better, infadel "

"Nuh-uh u n00b, God kicks more ass! he would so totally win!"

"but Allah will use his super pillar of islam powers!"

"Ya but then God will flood the middle east and wash all the sand away!"

It's equally as ridiculous...

Racism, fascism, and Maoism.

And Stalinism.

Say that to the millions of Russians, Americans, Germans, Japanese, Jews and others that we're killed in WW2. Not to mention the casualties in WW1 or any of the other non-religion inspired wars.

Give it 5 more centuries and it will beat religion hands down when it comes to the number of victims. And malaria's been around for ages, killing millions.

Besides if you need another example, how about the black death?

So you support it or not?

First of all...uh...you kinda argued with yourself. You told me to talk to Jews in World War II...I'm pretty sure they were killed because they were Jews...

Also, I'm not going to sit here and bicker over what may kill more people in 500 years. The arguement we have now is pointless enough really...a theoretical version 500 years from now would ruin both of our IQ's.

Do I support it or not? I guess "no" would be my final answer. I support the theory of it, but in practice it wouldn't be entirely successful, so it would be a fruitless thing to do.

Hmm...I agree...I would be moronic to blame all hatred and death on religion...just as it would be to not realize the impact it has had.

Difference of opinion, ultimately, is the cause of conflict. You could even go as far as saying it's simply the nature of humanity. However, neither of those answers make you able to try and prevent or understand anything about the conflict. It's one thing to have a difference of opinion on a border, perhaps, or on the killing of civilians, or government types. All of these things are real.

Religion on the other hand is unable to be proven. For Christians and Muslims, or Muslims and Jews, or whoever else to fight, basically over whose opinion on something that can't be proven either way is the most insepid thing ever thought of. It is quite similar to a "who would win in a fight...wolverine or cyclops?" with a bunch of fanboys arguing for their favorite character.

"Nooo!!!111 Allah is better, infadel "

"Nuh-uh u n00b, God kicks more ass! he would so totally win!"

"but Allah will use his super pillar of islam powers!"

"Ya but then God will flood the middle east and wash all the sand away!"

It's equally as ridiculous...

It is not exclusive to religion that makes people too stubborn on your beliefs, their are shit loads of non religious ideoligies which will brainwash people into doing anything without changing their beliefs, for example Stalinism, Nazism etc....

Even if what you were saying was true, how does that justify banning it if it were to work. That is one of the most fascist oppressive acts you could do, banning people to think freely. To make their own mind up about the world around them, to look for guidance or for happiness etc...

I see no justification whatsoever.

Yes. Secularising as a natural consequence of society developing FTW.

Secularization doesn't necessarily mean abolishing or even getting rid of religion.

Say that to the millions of Russians, Americans, Germans, Japanese, Jews and others that we're killed in WW2. Not to mention the casualties in WW1 or any of the other non-religion inspired wars.

Even most of the religion-inspired wars were no such thing. They were political wars - land grabs mostly - that, at their core, had nothing to do with religion. The political leaders of the time used religion as an excuse for actions motivated by political concerns and power-grabbing.

First of all...uh...you kinda argued with yourself. You told me to talk to Jews in World War II...I'm pretty sure they were killed because they were Jews...

Interestingly enough, they didn't have to religiously active Jews. Unlike many religions, those who are traditionally Jewish have tended to marry within their own group, even in other areas. This has led to an ethnic group that is called Jewish. Many people who tell you they are Jewish are not religious at all. They may even be atheists, but they are ethnically Jewish. For the most part, the Nazis attacked the Jews as an ethnic group moreso than a religious one.

What better way to show your tolerance and acceptance of others than by advocating an imposed restriction on the right to worship! Because we all know that painting everyone with a broad, stereotypical brush is a true sign of a person who appreciates equality and freedom of thought. There's no better system than the government telling us what we can and can't think!

When he says things like this, Elton John is no better than the people he criticizes. He shows the same sense of narrow-mindedness that they do in their harassment of homosexuals, and really that makes him little better if at all than those people in the first place.

Remember kids, ignorance, stereotyping, and narrow-mindedness are bad no matter for what purpose they are used.

Even if what you were saying was true, how does that justify banning it if it were to work. That is one of the most fascist oppressive acts you could do, banning people to think freely. To make their own mind up about the world around them, to look for guidance or for happiness etc...

I see no justification whatsoever.

One of the worst aspects of Democracy and "freedom" are morons thinking freely...

Perhaps if they worried more about reality they wouldn't need a fantasy to escape to...

One of the worst aspects of Democracy and "freedom" are morons thinking freely...

How does one justify what is "intelligent" and what is "moronic"? I consider a person advocating banning free thought to be far more moronic than even the most repulsive homophobe.

Perhaps if they worried more about reality they wouldn't need a fantasy to escape to...

We all have fantasies that we escape to...our perception of reality is invariably clouded by our own viewpoints and beliefs.

Religion is an interesting topic. It lends itself to the philosophical debate of "What is God" and "Does God exist". These are difficult to answer because people who are religious tend to believe in God with absolute faith. I however argue that religion is simply a crutch that people use to justify existence. It also offers the security of not "being alone" which is a just concern for all people. Banning religion would simply not be possible in any way, religion is rooted at the very base of peoples lives. Faith is not something that can be argued with, or at least not to a degree that would ever allow for religion to be removed from society. Even if government policy banned religion, people would still be religious. Further, the assertion is that if religion was banned then everyone would be atheist, which is a religion, and such the foundation of the argument is flawed. Religion is part of human nature and will remain that way.

According to Elton John, it would be a good idea http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/13/britain.eltonjohn.ap/index.html

I don't think its a good idea, but do you?


No, it's a banning of freedoms.

Honestly, I am for creating a completely secular society with common sence laws, then one could add any personal morals/ beliefs/ rules upon themselves. It's exactly how I run the USSMT

\ Religion is part of human nature and will remain that way.

Excellent first post, by the way.

This interests me because it touches on a fairly important aspect of human nature; we have a strong desire to associate ourselves with some unifying principle that provides us with direction and clarity in our decisions. In its broadest sense, this is a religion; the system creates an underlying principle that we use to make decisions and construct our moral and ethical code.

Perhaps religions of all forms, theistic and nontheistic, are really seeking the same thing in different terms. I've always felt that our individual conception of God is merely part of the puzzle, tailored to our understanding and affected by the experiences we have in life. It's up to the individual to determine what that conception is and how it applies to them.

Perhaps religions of all forms, theistic and nontheistic, are really seeking the same thing in different terms...It's up to the individual to determine what that conception is and how it applies to them.

First: Thank you
Second: I like your signature...Nietzsche is amazing

Ok...I agree with you. What is quoted above is exactly the reason why religion could not be "banned" or otherwise disposed of. It is an individualistic part of everyone, and because of this banning it would require the government and policy makers to in essence take control of the sub-conscious of every person and alter it to remove the faith/belief of God. Basically to sum up...unless there is some type of faith gene that can be removed then religion is here to stay.

It's also fascist.
And I don't think he has just cause.I don't like rap music,but I haven't ever said we should ban it.Evidently Elton John is as open minded as a cherry tomato.

Elton John is a gay man who has lived a very different life than you have, I assume. He has every right to be angry with the people who have wronged him and made his life difficult.

That doesn't make him right, it just puts his comments in perspective.

Banning religion makes no more sense than forcing religion on someone. While I agree that organized religion causes more problems than it solves, I can find no justification for interfering with someone's freedom to believe as long as they don't harm anyone.

I prefer using fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms:)

:fluffle:

As to the OP, I don't think religion should be banned. Although I am an atheist, I can see that others need faith, that it makes them happy. Far be it for me or anyone else to deny theists that.

Elton John is a gay man who has lived a very different life than you have, I assume. He has every right to be angry with the people who have wronged him and made his life difficult.

That doesn't make him right, it just puts his comments in perspective.

Of course. Understanding his basis for such feelings helps us to understand the why, although it doesn't justify them.

When he says things like this, Elton John is no better than the people he criticizes. He shows the same sense of narrow-mindedness that they do in their harassment of homosexuals, and really that makes him little better if at all than those people in the first place.

He is infinitely better than they are.

He is responding to a campaign of hatred and prejudice that has ruined millions of lives throughout history; one that undoubtedly has had its negative effects on him as well. This campaign of hatred is beyond unjustified. It has not the slightest moral legitimacy or purpose; there can be no excuse and no mitigation.

In responding to that campaign of hatred, he has noted, quite accurately, that the reason behind it is, in large part, the dominant religious institutions in our society. He has also observed, quite accurately, that those dominant religious institutions have a long record of promoting unjustified prejudice against others. From this he has taken a position that may indeed not be fully justified, but which has a genuine basis in the immense harm caused by those he opposes.

There is no comparison.

Of course. Understanding his basis for such feelings helps us to understand the why, although it doesn't justify them.

I'm not sure that the feeling isn't justified. It is certainly incorrect, but unjustified? Who am I to judge a man's suffering when I have not lived his life?

I'm not sure that the feeling isn't justified. It is certainly incorrect, but unjustified? Who am I to judge a man's suffering when I have not lived his life?

I consider it unjustified because I consider freedom of thought to be superior to anyone's feelings, no matter how much people expressing those views may hurt others. You defeat intolerance and hatred through freedom of speech, by discrediting their views through debate and not through trying to silence them. All that does is make them look like victims.

It's especially problematic because not all religious people feel that way; banning an entire concept because of the actions of individuals is fundamentally unjust and alienates people who could help.

You defeat intolerance and hatred through freedom of speech, by discrediting their views through debate and not through trying to silence them.

Have you ever tried arguing with religiously-motivated bigots?

He is infinitely better than they are.
He is responding to a campaign of hatred and prejudice that has ruined millions of lives throughout history; one that undoubtedly has had its negative effects on him as well. This campaign of hatred is beyond unjustified. It has not the slightest moral legitimacy or purpose; there can be no excuse and no mitigation.

Of course it isn't justified, and he is better than they are because irrational hatred is the most reprehensible position of all. However, hatred is not destroyed through oppression and it isn't destroyed by ignoring the bigots. You defeat them by using your freedom of speech to reveal the idiocy of their ways, not by trying to silence them and make them look like victims.

In responding to that campaign of hatred, he has noted, quite accurately, that the reason behind it is, in large part, the dominant religious institutions in our society. He has also observed, quite accurately, that those dominant religious institutions have a long record of promoting unjustified prejudice against others. From this he has taken a position that may indeed not be fully justified, but which has a genuine basis in the immense harm caused by those he opposes.

Yes, that's true. However, we have to fight that intolerance by changing religion, not advocating a clamping down of independent thought no matter how vile or idiotic that thought is. Advocating the forcible restriction of thought does nothing but facilitate the very environment you seek to correct, and turns you from a victim of oppression in to an oppressor yourself. You can't silence thought if you want to change it, and it is wrong to advocate doing so.

There is no comparison.

No, there isn't although they have similar problems. Silencing freedom of thought is hardly an admirable position. Just because you have suffered because of it does not justify silencing it and oppressing those who have done nothing wrong. Generalizations and stereotyping work both ways, and painting religion with a broad brush of intolerance does nothing but hurt those who want to help and give the bigots all the more ammunition for their hate .

Have you ever tried arguing with religiously-motivated bigots?

Yes, and it's an exercise in futility. However, the people who aren't bigots who see that kind of debate can pretty clearly determine the winner. Contrary to the opinions of some people, debating bigots is necessary because ignoring them allows them to deceive people uniformed about their idiocy.

I consider it unjustified because I consider freedom of thought to be superior to anyone's feelings, no matter how much people expressing those views may hurt others. You defeat intolerance and hatred through freedom of speech, by discrediting their views through debate and not through trying to silence them. All that does is make them look like victims.

It's especially problematic because not all religious people feel that way; banning an entire concept because of the actions of individuals is fundamentally unjust and alienates people who could help.

All that says is that he is wrong. I agree. The question is, is he justified? And, at least in my opinion, I have no right to say whether or not he has suffered enough to be unjustified.

All that says is that he is wrong. I agree. The question is, is he justified? And, at least in my opinion, I have no right to say whether or not he has suffered enough to be unjustified.

Is he justified in feeling anger and hurt towards the bigots? Absolutely.

But that doesn't necessarily justify an extremist position; there are a lot of people with valid reasons for their anger and hurt to take an extremist position, but that doesn't make it justified to advocate extremism.

Is he justified in feeling anger and hurt towards the bigots? Absolutely.

But that doesn't necessarily justify an extremist position; there are a lot of people with valid reasons for their anger and hurt to take an extremist position, but that doesn't make it justified to advocate extremism.

Eh... The Relativist in me begs to differ, but I can see where you are coming from.

Yes, it's an exercise in futility. However, the people who aren't bigots who see it can pretty clearly determine the winner.

Sometimes. Unfortunately, there are a whole lot of bigots around these days.

There are two often-cited bases for freedom of speech. The first is that freedom of speech permits meaningful democracy by opening up the public forum to varying points of view. This is undoubtedly a useful objective, but it is also a framework from which we can come to the conclusion that intolerant, irrationally-based opinions, which do not expand the public forum but which rather attempt to restrict it, do not deserve the same kind of respect that opinions in accordance with basic norms of rational thought and tolerance do.

The second is that freedom of speech doesn't really harm anyone. This is a falsity. The public expression of these opinions, and the kind of intolerant attitudes they foster, cause serious harm.

In all honesty, if I had the power to make Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, and all the rest shut up, even against their will, without harming anybody, I might well do it. I'm not particularly interested in giving the state that kind of power, but in principle, the idea has much justification.

In all honesty, if I had the power to make Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, and all the rest shut up, even against their will, without harming anybody, I might well do it. I'm not particularly interested in giving the state that kind of power, but in principle, the idea has much justification.

Your fallacy is that you fail to see that the loss of the right, not only to speak, but worse, to think, is harm.

Anybody who wipes a vast brush over everybody of a certain group (Be they Christian, Homosexuals etc.) is being a bigot, in other words, banning religon is a postion that exudes biggotry, I know many people of different religons who hold everybody on earth as inherently equal (Their character is what defines them). Too prevent these and many other good, religous people the right to believe in God or Allah or gods or tree spirits or whatever, taking away something that helps them move on in life, be happy, is wrong, and they believing in such a religon hurts nobody. Only some (maybe most) of the people in a religon support attacks on homosexuals and other groups, to force all to give up religon is bigotry pure and simple.

Also as to free speech and thought, these people who are bigots within religous groups still deserve to have a right to believe in what they want because to deny them the right to believe a higher power(s) exists (or for atheists to believe it doesn't) is the equivalant of saying that 68% of Americans can't think George Bush is an idiot.

For the record I am a centrist and an atheist.

Your fallacy is that you fail to see that the loss of the right, not only to speak, but worse, to think, is harm.

So?

Locking someone in prison is harm, too. It's harm with a legitimate purpose. It just isn't the kind of thing that merits killing.

So?

Locking someone in prison is harm, too. It's harm with a legitimate purpose. It just isn't the kind of thing that merits killing.

Gah... Not this again.

Listen: You aren't always right, you don't always get to be the only one right, you have no right to free speech or thought if others don't have the right to free speech and thought, and free speech exists for that speech you find most repulsive, not that speech with you agree with.

No.

You aren't always right,

That is something I am quite quick to admit.

you don't always get to be the only one right,

So?

you have no right to free speech or thought if others don't have the right to free speech and thought,

I don't support denying anyone free thought.

As for free speech, everyone has an equal right to express non-bigoted opinions. I think it's highly questionable, however, if anyone, including me, has the right to express racist, sexist, or homophobic opinions when doing so contributes to a culture of hatred and intolerance towards the attacked group.

and free speech exists for that speech you find most repulsive,

It isn't a question of repulsiveness. I find Objectivism repulsive; I think Objectivists have a right to express themselves.

I don't really believe in the kind of free speech you seem to hold to; your arguments might be more productive if, instead of repeating rhetoric I have heard (and repeated myself, incidentally) a million times already, I advise you come up with an actual argument.

not that speech with you agree with.

Obviously, that would be pointless. Fortunately, I think free speech extends far further than simply those people who disagree with me.

That is something I am quite quick to admit.



So?

So you need to step back and accept that no ideology can be treated as though it is completely wrong.



I don't support denying anyone free thought.

As for free speech, everyone has an equal right to express non-bigoted opinions. I think it's highly questionable, however, if anyone, including me, has the right to express racist, sexist, or homophobic opinions when doing so contributes to a culture of hatred and intolerance towards the attacked group.

"As for marriage, everone has the equal right to marry someone of the opposite gender. I think it's highly questionable, however, if anyone, including me, has the right to marry someoe of the same gender, when doing so contributes to a culture of sexual immorality and the breakdown of the family unit."

It isn't a question of repulsiveness. I find Objectivism repulsive; I think Objectivists have a right to express themselves.

I don't really believe in the kind of free speech you seem to hold to; your arguments might be more productive if, instead of repeating rhetoric I have heard (and repeated myself, incidentally) a million times already, I advise you come up with an actual argument.

What argument is there to make, beyond the ideological one. I beleive that I have no right to free speech, unless everyone has the right to free speech. Otherwise I am just illegitimate.

Obviously, that would be pointless. Fortunately, I think free speech extends far further than simply those people who disagree with me.

Just not those who disagree with you on certain issues, eh?

So you need to step back and accept that no ideology can be treated as though it is completely wrong.

That does not follow.

"Soheran is mistaken on a few subjects" does not lead to the conclusion that "Religiously-motivated homophobia is not completely wrong."

"As for marriage, everone has the equal right to marry someone of the opposite gender. I think it's highly questionable, however, if anyone, including me, has the right to marry someoe of the same gender, when doing so contributes to a culture of sexual immorality and the breakdown of the family unit."

And, indeed, were the "culture of sexual immorality" and "the breakdown of the family unit" both legitimate concerns and things that gay marriage would lead to, opposition to it would be justified. That would be a non-arbitrary distinction between civil arrangements.

Fortunately, neither (except perhaps the latter, in certain limited contexts) are legitimate concerns, and if anything, gay marriage combats both; it does not intensify them. It follows that they are not legitimate bases for opposing gay marriage.

What argument is there to make, beyond the ideological one. I beleive that I have no right to free speech, unless everyone has the right to free speech. Otherwise I am just illegitimate.

But while a commitment to universality is a good thing, it doesn't extend to non-arbitrary distinctions. We don't say that as long as criminals can be imprisoned, we have no right to freedom, because there's a good reason for sending them to prison that does not apply to us. Similarly, if there is a good reason to restrict free speech in certain areas that does not apply to other areas, there is no problem with making the distinction.

The basis here is twofold. Firstly, the kinds of public expression that would be prohibited (and recall that I am speaking of public expression; I'm not advocating telescreens monitoring everything everyone says in private conversation) cause serious harm through promoting a culture of intolerance. Secondly, the lack of commitment to rational discussion and the rejection of basic ideals of tolerance on the part of the people expressing these opinions make the function of such expression not the expansion and strengthening of the public forum, the end for which free speech exists, but rather its limitation.

Just not those who disagree with you on certain issues, eh?

Yes, they disagree with me, but my problem with them is not that they disagree with me; it is that they encourage intolerance and persecution.

That does not follow.

"Soheran is mistaken on a few subjects" does not lead to the conclusion that "Religiously-motivated homophobia is not completely wrong."

No, the question is: "Could you be wrong?"

If the answer is "Yes"

Then the only rational conclusion is that you cannot be the sole judge and arbiter on right and wrong things to have free speech about.


And, indeed, were the "culture of sexual immorality" and "the breakdown of the family unit" both legitimate concerns and things that gay marriage would lead to, opposition to it would be justified. That would be a non-arbitrary distinction between civil arrangements.

Fortunately, neither (except perhaps the latter, in certain limited contexts) are legitimate concerns, and if anything, gay marriage combats both; it does not intensify them. It follows that they are not legitimate bases for opposing gay marriage.

Ah... So because, in your opinion, they do not exist, and a culture of bigotry and racism exists, we must stop anyone who dissagrees from speaking against your ideas, eh?

The sheer arrogance of it...

But while a commitment to universality is a good thing, it doesn't extend to non-arbitrary distinctions. We don't say that as long as criminals can be imprisoned, we have no right to freedom, because there's a good reason for sending them to prison that does not apply to us. Similarly, if there is a good reason to restrict free speech in certain areas that does not apply to other areas, there is no problem with making the distinction.

Actually, one of my favorite bands said "As long as others are held captive, do not consider yourself free," but that's more of an aside, and not really relevant.

"Your right to swing your fist extends as far as my nose."

There is no reason to criminalize behaviour that causes no harm (and, contrary to your claims, being racist harms no one. Harming people out of racism harms them. The difference is important). There is never a good reason to resrict free speech. Free speech is still free, even if it offends your sensibilities, even if it makes you feel bad, even if it disgusting and hurtful. No one get's to be the decider about what is right or wrong in the expression of opinions.

The basis here is twofold. Firstly, the kinds of public expression that would be prohibited (and recall that I am speaking of public expression; I'm not advocating telescreens monitoring everything everyone says in private conversation) cause serious harm through promoting a culture of intolerance. Secondly, the lack of commitment to rational discussion and the rejection of basic ideals of tolerance on the part of the people expressing these opinions make the function of such expression not the expansion and strengthening of the public forum, the end for which free speech exists, but rather its limitation.

Where is the serious physical or economic harm in intolerance? If an attack is carried out in the name of intolerance, it is assault, and therefore a crime. If a bank is robbed out of intolerance, it is theft, and therefore a crime. Making people unhappy is not a crime. It is cruel and rude, but we don't get to say whether or not people choose to be creul or rude.

If we follow your logic we end up in a world where ideas that the majority find offensive, say, evolution, end up getting banned (after all, we don't want a culture of humanism), and free speech becomes a thing of the past.

Even if it offends you. Even if you think it is evil, you must let it be said, or your right to say it is null and void.

No, the question is: "Could you be wrong?"

If the answer is "Yes"

Then the only rational conclusion is that you cannot be the sole judge and arbiter on right and wrong things to have free speech about.

No, it isn't.

The better question would be, "Could I be wrong on whether or not homophobia is wrong?" The answer is yes, it is conceivable, but the possibility is marginal enough that I'm not particularly worried. We can never act with complete certainty; we can only do our best.

Ah... So because, in your opinion, they do not exist,

I never said they did not exist. I said they are not legitimate concerns. Those two statements are quite different.

and a culture of bigotry and racism exists, we must stop anyone who dissagrees from speaking against your ideas, eh?

Disagrees as to the existence of a culture of bigotry and racism? No, we should let them speak out against that idea. Disagrees as to the proper method of combating such a culture of bigotry and racism? No, we should let them speak out against my methods. Disagrees as to whether opposition to legal recognition of gay couples is necessarily based upon bigotry? I will even give them that, and in that context, I would permit them to offer their non-bigoted arguments.

Actively supports said culture of bigotry and racism? Sorry. At that point you've gone too far.

"Your right to swing your fist extends as far as my nose."

There is no reason to criminalize behaviour that causes no harm (and, contrary to your claims, being racist harms no one. Harming people out of racism harms them. The difference is important).

I didn't say anywhere that being racist harms anyone.

There is never a good reason to resrict free speech.

I've just given you two.

Free speech is still free, even if it offends your sensibilities, even if it makes you feel bad, even if it disgusting and hurtful.

Why?

Where is the serious physical or economic harm in intolerance? If an attack is carried out in the name of intolerance, it is assault, and therefore a crime. If a bank is robbed out of intolerance, it is theft, and therefore a crime.

What about encouraging those kinds of acts? That is exactly what a culture of bigotry does. The religious leaders who rail about perverts and abominations are complicit in the hate crimes committed as a result.

Making people unhappy is not a crime. It is cruel and rude, but we don't get to say whether or not people choose to be creul or rude.

"Making people unhappy" and letting the public forum be contaminated with bigotry and intolerance are two different things. The aim is not simply "happiness," it is ensuring that everyone gets to participate meaningfully in society, without being marginalized and oppressed simply because of their sexual orientation, race, or gender by a campaign of hatred against them.

If we follow your logic we end up in a world where ideas that the majority find offensive, say, evolution, end up getting banned (after all, we don't want a culture of humanism), and free speech becomes a thing of the past.

I explicitly said that I don't support giving the state that kind of power.

Evolution might encourage a culture of humanism, but a culture of humanism does not promote oppression the way bigotry does and does productively contribute to the public debate.

No, it isn't.

The better question would be, "Could I be wrong on whether or not homophobia is wrong?" The answer is yes, it is conceivable, but the possibility is marginal enough that I'm not particularly worried. We can never act with complete certainty; we can only do our best.

Why should we accept lessthan perfection when it comes to taking rights away?



I never said they did not exist. I said they are not legitimate concerns. Those two statements are quite different.

Strawman. The point stands with changed wording.

Actively supports said culture of bigotry and racism? Sorry. At that point you've gone too far.[/qupte]

And I suppose you define what is and isn't racism, right?


[quote]I've just given you two.

I have yet to see any, and since we're playing the over-confident Ideologue game, that must mean there are none.


Why?

Because your use of the word "Why" is offensive, and you should no longer be able to use it, since it makes me feel bad.



What about encouraging those kinds of acts? That is exactly what a culture of bigotry does. The religious leaders who rail about perverts and abominations are complicit in the hate crimes committed as a result.

If they explicitly threaten, or call for assaults, then they are guilty of incitement to crime. Saying that something is immoral, or that one race is superior to another is not saying that the immoral people should be harmed, or that the inferior race should be. You're putting words in mouths.


"Making people unhappy" and letting the public forum be contaminated with bigotry and intolerance are two different things. The aim is not simply "happiness," it is ensuring that everyone gets to participate meaningfully in society, without being marginalized and oppressed simply because of their sexual orientation, race, or gender by a campaign of hatred against them.

Sorry, their feelings aren't my problem. Being rude isn't a crime. The fact that I can say things that offend you is something that I celebrate.



I explicitly said that I don't support giving the state that kind of power.

Evolution might encourage a culture of humanism, but a culture of humanism does not promote oppression the way bigotry does and does productively contribute to the public debate.

Boy.. You really don't get it. You've picked arbitrary concepts built around your definitions and run with them. You're basically talking in sound bytes. If you don't support giving the state that power, why do you support giving the state, exactly. that. power.

Who gets to define wrong or right? Who gets to define promotion of opression? Who gets to define hate speech?

No person, group, or majority can be trusted to do so fairly, and we must therefore allow all speech, because the other option is that we lose all speech.

how do you go about banning religion?
Advertising and napalm.

Why should we accept lessthan perfection when it comes to taking rights away?

Because then we are being foolish.

We do not have - indeed, cannot have - perfection in the criminal justice system. We are not omniscient. Should we abolish it?

Strawman. The point stands with changed wording.

I was merely clarifying. I responded to the major element of your point later on.

And I suppose you define what is and isn't racism, right?

I think the definition of racism is fairly objective.

I have yet to see any, and since we're playing the over-confident Ideologue game, that must mean there are none.

Which is what you just said. If I am an "over-confident Idealogue," you certainly are.

Because your use of the word "Why" is offensive, and you should no longer be able to use it, since it makes me feel bad.

That is pretty baseless. The preference not to be hated for your sexual orientation is not.

If they explicitly threaten, or call for assaults, then they are guilty of incitement to crime. Saying that something is immoral, or that one race is superior to another is not saying that the immoral people should be harmed, or that the inferior race should be.

No, but it's still encouraging that kind of behavior. Sure, they may make moralistic protestations that "homosexuals should be treated with dignity" after proclaiming that gays and the way they love are abominable and perverted, but the mentality is similar to that of the slave-owner who, in mitigation for his abusive racism, attempts to argue that he doesn't whip them too hard.

Sorry, their feelings aren't my problem. Being rude isn't a crime.

Marginalization for arbitrary reasons is most definitely society's problem; it is a denial of equality and a rejection of the idea that everyone should be permitted full opportunities to access the fruits of society. Their "feelings" may or may not be, depending on their basis.

Boy.. You really don't get it. You've picked arbitrary concepts built around your definitions and run with them.

Where's the arbitrariness? If you honestly don't see the difference between advocating humanism and advocating homophobia, then I think the problem is not that I am making arbitrary distinctions, but that you refuse to make any distinctions at all.

You're basically talking in sound bytes.

In all honesty, you are the only one who is doing that.

If you don't support giving the state that power, why do you support giving the state, exactly. that. power.

I don't. What are you talking about?

I question their right to free speech in principle, and in so doing, would not necessarily object to individual action to restrict it. I do not support the state taking action against it; the kind of precedent that would set is far too dangerous.

Who gets to define wrong or right?

We all act based on our definitions of right and wrong. There is no way around that.

Who gets to define promotion of opression? Who gets to define hate speech?

No person, group, or majority can be trusted to do so fairly, and we must therefore allow all speech, because the other option is that we lose all speech.

I see a justification for caution in there, but not for an absolutist standard. Undoubtedly we should make our best efforts to make these kinds of decisions with rationality and fairness, and undoubtedly also, when our imperfection in that respect is a good reason to dismiss our conclusions, we should do so. But there are some cases where the right answer is sufficiently clear that we need not worry, and some cases where the harm that would be caused by inaction is great enough that we should act anyway, even if there is some chance that we are wrong.

You can't ban religion. Only organised religion.

I realise that it's a bit too much for atheists to grasp, but God wouldn't just stop existing if you 'banned' Him.

Yeah except God doesn't exist. There are just a bunch of fools who believe he does. If we could impose a death penalty on religion... *dreams*

Yeah except God doesn't exist. There are just a bunch of fools who believe he does. If we could impose a death penalty on religion... *dreams*
Then you'd have to slaughter half the world's population?

Then you'd have to slaughter half the world's population?

Well it is already over populated....

Well it is already over populated....
By billions of individually-feeling and thinking humans with families to take care of a jobs to do?

By billions of individually-feeling and thinking humans with families to take care of a jobs to do?

Who are also religious... I have no empathy for religious people. If their families are such a worry for you then do as the Romans did and kill their entire families that way there isn't a problem.

Trying and banning religions is the best thing to do, if you want to have fundamentalists grow stronger everywhere.

It would be great if religion did not exist, but banning it infringes on my namesake.

Just ban stupid people. Most religions will then cease to exist.
.

Just ban stupid people. Most religions will then cease to exist.
.

:eek: But I love stupid people! I love me!

Enough of this extreme ban this and ban that. It's not kosher for knowledge in general. Just take everything in moderation.

Trying and banning religions is the best thing to do, if you want to have fundamentalists grow stronger everywhere.

Liberty EKB;11944855']It would be great if religion did not exist, but banning it infringes on my namesake.
QFT.

Depending on how one defines "religion" and "religious experience", everyone has had an experience of religion, regardless of whether or not they acknowledge a belief in any religion.

Of course, I'm assuming the issue here is banning the organized institution of religion. Maybe what we should be focused on is why the media feels the urge to print whatever falls out of the mouth of our entertainers, and that their words are often treated as expert advice.

According to Elton John, it would be a good idea http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/13/britain.eltonjohn.ap/index.html

I don't think its a good idea, but do you?

Nice thought. Utterly impractical, though.

There are plenty of other things we would hate and kill each other over.

Religion is just an excuse, another one could be found without any trouble at all.

There are plenty of other things we would hate and kill each other over.

Religion is just an excuse, another one could be found without any trouble at all.


Couldn't agree more. There's a world of difference between religion taken in itself, and religion taken as a vehicle of oppression and the selfish designs of a small group.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6145522.stm

The afore-mentioned article states it rather nicely.

Couldn't agree more. There's a world of difference between religion taken in itself, and religion taken as a vehicle of oppression and the selfish designs of a small group.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6145522.stm

The afore-mentioned article states it rather nicely.What if the religion is not the vehicle of but the reason for oppression and the selfish designs of a (small) group? As is true for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?
.

No I don't think you should ban religion. Having a Belief is Good. Having a Belief allows us to have Hope and Hope is Good.

No I don't think you should ban religion. Having a Belief is Good. Having a Belief allows us to have Hope and Hope is Good.
http://www.soaringpanda.com/gelblog/archives/orly.jpeg

I just cannot stand Elton John. Yeah he is really has it bad, sitting in his huge mansion, complaining that he is somehow "persecuted". Yeah that really gives him a good "perspective" on things... Bullshit.

Elton John is an idiot, it is well known that religious groups are and have been far more persecuted in the world then homosexuals. Does that mean because my mum is a christian, she now has a moral high ground to condemn anti religious groups? Of course not, it means nothing. That is the same with Elton John, the self rightous moronic and bigoted prick.

How can you respond to hatred of gays among SOME religious people by banning one of the most important freedoms. Ingenious, lets stop intolerance by promoting intolerance.

Any liberal, who claims that using this fascist thought police regime is good in theory (if it worked), is more like a far right dictator.

Ideological belief systems are primarily responsible for a lot of the nastiness of the past. Not just religion.

According to Elton John, it would be a good idea http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/13/britain.eltonjohn.ap/index.html

I don't think its a good idea, but do you?
Won't work, any more than Prohibition got rid of alcoholism. If anything, prohibiting religion would probably make it even more fanatical and dangerous.

What fascinates me about this is the utter hypocrisy of the idea. "You should be banned for what you believe in order to accomodate what I believe."

And they knighted this guy.... sheesh.

So if someone's religion teaches that homosexuality is wrong, then religion ought to be banned... What do we do with organizations that teach that religion is wrong?

Cater to them, apparently.

For the record: I am a member of a Church that believes that while the act of homosexual sex is morally wrong, it does *NOT* support or endorse unkindness, bigotry or anything else aganst homosexuals or anybody else. It's a live and let live philosophy. We don't think it's right, but you're an adult and make your own choices.

Would Sir Elton John like to see my church banned too? I mean, he seems to have a vast reservoir of knowledge and understanding. Must be his long and distinguished background ad an anthrolpological resercher and... oh wait...

He sings songs.

I'm responding to the OP:

The Romans tried it, it failed.

http://www.soaringpanda.com/gelblog/archives/orly.jpeg

http://www.orlyowl.com/upload/files/YA-RLY.jpg

Any liberal, who claims that using this fascist thought police regime is good in theory (if it worked), is more like a far right dictator.

You know... I think dictatorships can arise from being oin the extreme of either end. Too far to the left or right basically winds up with the same sort of lack of freedom... just different rationales.

You know... I think dictatorships can arise from being oin the extreme of either end. Too far to the left or right basically winds up with the same sort of lack of freedom... just different rationales.

I agree in practical terms. But that only happens because you need the iron fist to keep the extreme far left ideals in place without it falling apart.

I agree in practical terms. But that only happens because you need the iron fist to keep the extreme far left ideals in place without it falling apart.

True dat.

What if the religion is not the vehicle of but the reason for oppression and the selfish designs of a (small) group? As is true for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?
.

There is nothing inherent in Christianity (and nothing that I know of inherent in either of the other two religions) that would be a reason for oppression. In fact, oppression would be directly counter to the teachings of Christ - on which Christianity is based.

It would appear that, as usual in religious topics, your own bigotry is getting in the way of rational discussion.