I’m against the Institutions of Religion, not the intellectual pursuit of. A Ban is the only way Forward.

Dave_S888
Posts: 1
Joined: 2011-04-14
User is offlineOffline
I’m against the Institutions of Religion, not the intellectual pursuit of. A Ban is the only way Forward.

I’ve been posting at the Richard Dawkins F.B. and what I keep getting from the Atheist side – which is slightly surprising, is that the thought of banning Organized Religion outright is somewhat heavy handed. The rational is to simply “educate” the Religionists away from faith: that it must be gentle and “kind.” But as I said: I appeal to the Historical record; no change on a global scale has ever come about via slow motion assimilation. Empires have come and gone, business built up and bankrupted; ideologies waxed and waned – but not a single one has ever come to prominence simply via gentle persuasion.  We are a brutal lot: the lives and intellectual freedoms we enjoy now have come at a high cost. Are we not a tad arrogant when we trust that intellect alone will save the day, when the record says otherwise? Why can’t we accept our nature: it’s got us this far – and something needs to change: the world is heading for a great change even if we don’t accept it. I advocate banning Organized Religion, but not the right for individuals to think. In practical terms, this would mean no more Churches and gathering en mass publicly – in any form. No Muslims, no Christians and any other denomination may meet to worship publically. Still, the reading of Holy books in the privacy of their homes, and even on Internet Forums will be allowed. I’m against the Institutions of Religion, not the intellectual pursuit of.

 

I like the start of this YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6-SD5phNmA


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Right to peaceably assemble

Right to peaceably assemble shall not be infringed. This is in the US Constitution, the American Convention on Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

Your idea is full of fail-sauce.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:Right to

Ciarin wrote:

Right to peaceably assemble shall not be infringed. This is in the US Constitution, the American Convention on Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

Your idea is full of fail-sauce.

I'm with Ciarin.

 

Instead of banning religious institutions I would tax them, then... what problems were you talking about again?

 

At worst I might consider requiring churches to claim "For entertainment purposes only as these claims have not been verified by reality."

 

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Yah, you can't make

 

Yah, you can't make religion go away just by saying that it is gone. Just look at some of the recent societies where religion has been suppressed. One good model would be Russia. When the wall fell, religion came back as a social force right away. It did not have to be reinvented. In fact, Boris Yeltsin found religion very quickly (although I suspect that he was just making the moves because he saw the writing on the wall).

 

Or what of Christianity in the middle east? They just meet in secret at each others houses or offices when the authorities are looking the other way. Falun Gong in China? Aum Shrinkyo in Japan?

 

Really, if we would just make them pay taxes, then we would have them practicing out in the open where we could keep them on the up and up for the major part. Against that, religion forced into the shadows can easily become corrosive to a society just about as fast as racism where that is actively suppressed.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
 Thought control is not

 Thought control is not permissible, not even an option. I hope we can steer enough people in the right direction to simply take religion out of the big picture. People will always want to believe in something not everyone can handle it and religion is an easy out for a simple mind. However just because they can't deal with reality does not mean I and everyone else should have to deal with their fantasy.

I do think we should be taxing churches, these "institutions" are money making entities that leech off of ignorance.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


lalib
atheist
lalib's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

r what of Christianity in the middle east? They just meet in secret at each others houses or offices when the authorities are looking the other way.

 

If I'm understanding you correctly, yes Christianity is suppressed in the Middle East, but of the countries I'm familiar with (Syria, Eygpt, Lebanon), they all have public churches etc. There is no need for meeting in secret. In Saudi Arabia, I don't think any other religion except Islam is allowed. So I would agree with you there.

Also, I agree with Ciarin; banning religion is a bad idea.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
The two countries that do

The two countries that do this is China and North Korea. I wouldn't really take them as an example of what to do.

 

The Soviet Union tried it and so did Albania. The fact is that it doesn't work.

 

As for the middle east, Iraq, Syria, Israel and Lebanon [hiz'bollah lost the 2008 elections by a very very large margin] are all secular governments that allow Christians and other religions to practice freely. With the former two have been and currently are authoritian regimes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Dave_S888 wrote:I’ve

Dave_S888 wrote:

I’ve been posting at the Richard Dawkins F.B. and what I keep getting from the Atheist side – which is slightly surprising, is that the thought of banning Organized Religion outright is somewhat heavy handed. The rational is to simply “educate” the Religionists away from faith: that it must be gentle and “kind.” But as I said: I appeal to the Historical record; no change on a global scale has ever come about via slow motion assimilation. Empires have come and gone, business built up and bankrupted; ideologies waxed and waned – but not a single one has ever come to prominence simply via gentle persuasion.  We are a brutal lot: the lives and intellectual freedoms we enjoy now have come at a high cost. Are we not a tad arrogant when we trust that intellect alone will save the day, when the record says otherwise? Why can’t we accept our nature: it’s got us this far – and something needs to change: the world is heading for a great change even if we don’t accept it. I advocate banning Organized Religion, but not the right for individuals to think. In practical terms, this would mean no more Churches and gathering en mass publicly – in any form. No Muslims, no Christians and any other denomination may meet to worship publically. Still, the reading of Holy books in the privacy of their homes, and even on Internet Forums will be allowed. I’m against the Institutions of Religion, not the intellectual pursuit of.

 

I like the start of this YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6-SD5phNmA

Working to minimize the harm religion can do is achievable. Banning it is absurd.

BANNING is not a good tactic, anymore that has been affective for Muslims to ban other religions in their theocracies.

It goes against human nature to use force of law to ban ANYTHING, you can only regulate it. And the only universal regulation all humans should agree on is not getting violent over expressions others may have.

OUTSIDE of that it is reasonable to use debate and appeal to move forward, but on a planet of 6 billion trying to ban ANYTHING regarding religion or atheism is stupid.

You can only point to the fact that beliefs come and go and in the future your belief may end up being considered a myth just like ones in the past.

There will be no utopia where one label captures the planet. You can only use appeal to lead.

Utopias will not work for atheists anymore than it works for theists.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3436
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:The

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

The Soviet Union tried it and so did Albania.

no, they didn't.  there were perfectly legal churches in both countries, as in every other warsaw pact country as well as yugoslavia.  the party simply decided who was going to be in charge of these churches.  stalin knew that the best way to handle the churches was not to ban them, but to make them impotent, and most rank-and-file believers were more than satisfied to go along with this.  the biggest challenges to central, southern, and eastern european communism did not come from the religious community.

buddhism still flourishes in both china and north korea.  christianity is persecuted because it is seen as foreign and politically subversive.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Ciarin wrote:Right to

Ciarin wrote:

Right to peaceably assemble shall not be infringed. This is in the US Constitution, the American Convention on Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

Your idea is full of fail-sauce.

This is one thing we can and do agree on.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
iwbiek wrote:Cpt_pineapple

iwbiek wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

The Soviet Union tried it and so did Albania.

no, they didn't.  there were perfectly legal churches in both countries, as in every other warsaw pact country as well as yugoslavia.  the party simply decided who was going to be in charge of these churches.  stalin knew that the best way to handle the churches was not to ban them, but to make them impotent, and most rank-and-file believers were more than satisfied to go along with this.  the biggest challenges to central, southern, and eastern european communism did not come from the religious community.

buddhism still flourishes in both china and north korea.  christianity is persecuted because it is seen as foreign and politically subversive.

DUH, there was plenty of religion under the Soviet Union, what WAS however illegal in all cases, even if the church was legal, was any criticism of the state.

I bet you if any one of these legal churchs started criticizing the state, they would have been shut down in short order and the critics arrested or disappeared.

There is plenty of religion in China too, and bullshit to claim otherwise. But again, none of them can challenge the authority of the state.

BOTH the former Soviet Union and China have the same thing in common with the god of Abraham, if you criticize them, you get the shit beat out of you, or murdered. But if you kept your mouth shut, they most of the time, left you alone. And most people back then and now in both those countries DO have some sort of superstition.

BUT, they would have a problem with any type of dissent to the government even if it came from an atheist. The problem to these governments wasn't so much what you believed, their problem was competition to the state. No different than the god of Abraham and his actions towards dissent.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:iwbiek

Brian37 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

The Soviet Union tried it and so did Albania.

no, they didn't.  there were perfectly legal churches in both countries, as in every other warsaw pact country as well as yugoslavia.  the party simply decided who was going to be in charge of these churches.  stalin knew that the best way to handle the churches was not to ban them, but to make them impotent, and most rank-and-file believers were more than satisfied to go along with this.  the biggest challenges to central, southern, and eastern european communism did not come from the religious community.

buddhism still flourishes in both china and north korea.  christianity is persecuted because it is seen as foreign and politically subversive.

DUH, there was plenty of religion under the Soviet Union, what WAS however illegal in all cases, even if the church was legal, was any criticism of the state.

I bet you if any one of these legal churchs started criticizing the state, they would have been shut down in short order and the critics arrested or disappeared.

There is plenty of religion in China too, and bullshit to claim otherwise. But again, none of them can challenge the authority of the state.

BOTH the former Soviet Union and China have the same thing in common with the god of Abraham, if you criticize them, you get the shit beat out of you, or murdered. But if you kept your mouth shut, they most of the time, left you alone. And most people back then and now in both those countries DO have some sort of superstition.

BUT, they would have a problem with any type of dissent to the government even if it came from an atheist. The problem to these governments wasn't so much what you believed, their problem was competition to the state. No different than the god of Abraham and his actions towards dissent.

 

 

 

In the China you have to register with the government if you want to publically practice Christianity and the Chinese Atheists is a government organization and they want all part memebers to be officially atheist.

 

The point is that they tried to control and legislate religion and failed.

 

It's true that they would kill an atheist if they were dissent but Saudi Arabia or Iran will still kill a Muslim if they were dissent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Brian37

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

The Soviet Union tried it and so did Albania.

no, they didn't.  there were perfectly legal churches in both countries, as in every other warsaw pact country as well as yugoslavia.  the party simply decided who was going to be in charge of these churches.  stalin knew that the best way to handle the churches was not to ban them, but to make them impotent, and most rank-and-file believers were more than satisfied to go along with this.  the biggest challenges to central, southern, and eastern european communism did not come from the religious community.

buddhism still flourishes in both china and north korea.  christianity is persecuted because it is seen as foreign and politically subversive.

DUH, there was plenty of religion under the Soviet Union, what WAS however illegal in all cases, even if the church was legal, was any criticism of the state.

I bet you if any one of these legal churchs started criticizing the state, they would have been shut down in short order and the critics arrested or disappeared.

There is plenty of religion in China too, and bullshit to claim otherwise. But again, none of them can challenge the authority of the state.

BOTH the former Soviet Union and China have the same thing in common with the god of Abraham, if you criticize them, you get the shit beat out of you, or murdered. But if you kept your mouth shut, they most of the time, left you alone. And most people back then and now in both those countries DO have some sort of superstition.

BUT, they would have a problem with any type of dissent to the government even if it came from an atheist. The problem to these governments wasn't so much what you believed, their problem was competition to the state. No different than the god of Abraham and his actions towards dissent.

 

 

 

In the China you have to register with the government if you want to publically practice Christianity and the Chinese Atheists is a government organization and they want all part memebers to be officially atheist.

 

The point is that they tried to control and legislate religion and failed.

 

It's true that they would kill an atheist if they were dissent but Saudi Arabia or Iran will still kill a Muslim if they were dissent.

 

I get that, but what is foreign to theists is the concept of an atheist supporting westernized pluralism because of the false meme sold in the west.

I could no more live in China and survive than I could in Iran.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3436
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:DUH, there was

Brian37 wrote:

DUH, there was plenty of religion under the Soviet Union, what WAS however illegal in all cases, even if the church was legal, was any criticism of the state.

not the state, never the state.  the party.  it was criticism against the party that could not be brooked.  sometimes not even the party, but the secret police.

this might seem like semantics, but it makes the difference between mere tyranny and totalitarianism.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
iwbiek wrote:Brian37

iwbiek wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

DUH, there was plenty of religion under the Soviet Union, what WAS however illegal in all cases, even if the church was legal, was any criticism of the state.

not the state, never the state.  the party.  it was criticism against the party that could not be brooked.  sometimes not even the party, but the secret police.

this might seem like semantics, but it makes the difference between mere tyranny and totalitarianism.

I guess we are arguing semantics because neither sound peachy to me. That would be like asking which is worse, breaking one arm or breaking all you limbs.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3436
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
actually, let me expand a

actually, let me expand a bit more.  one of the essential characteristics of totalitarianism is that there is no connection between penalty and crime.  none at all.  a crime is not necessary, and if a crime is committed, it may not be "punished" until many years after the fact, when to most observers there is no clear connection between the two.

this is not just a foible of totalitarianism: it is in fact one of the only things that allows it to exist.  to say that "criticizing the state" invites punishment is missing the point entirely.  punishment has no correlation in reality.  it cannot.  if it did, that would mean there is a jurisprudence that the leader could be held accountable to.  there is no system of law in a totalitarian society--for all intents and purposes, there is no "law" to break.  there may be an ostensible one, mostly for the benefit of foreign observers, but it would carry no authority in a totalitarian society (one cannot even use the word "state" in this situation).  how do we know?  precisely because we can know about the "laws" of the totalitarian society; the rule of thumb with totalitarianism is that what we can observe has no real power at all.  this is why US government officials during the cold war were so baffled when a top soviet statesman would defect and tell them that an obscure clerk in the soviet embassy was his immediate superior.

only a nontolitarian society--a military dictatorship or a petty despotism--would do something as obtuse as banning religion through legislation, and by doing so it would be numbering its days to less than a decade.  no one would have anything to fear from such a society, because it wouldn't last long,

 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the

Welcome to the forum.

Dave_S888 wrote:
I’ve been posting at the Richard Dawkins F.B. and what I keep getting from the Atheist side – which is slightly surprising, is that the thought of banning Organized Religion outright is somewhat heavy handed.

I'm thinking that "somewhat heavy handed" is quite a euphemistic description of the responses that you've received. 

Words that I would use to describe your proposal might include, "enacting an epic smackdown on the very intellectual freedoms that you believe you're saving."

Dave_S888 wrote:
But as I said: I appeal to the Historical record; no change on a global scale has ever come about via slow motion assimilation.

Okay, what good change on a global scale has ever come about via a state that bans people's freedom to assemble and practice their beliefs?

So, you know the 'historical record' very well? How did Japan, Sweden, and Denmark become so non-religious? Did they ban the right to assemble?

Dave_S888 wrote:
In practical terms, this would mean no more Churches and gathering en mass publicly – in any form.

So, Red Cross meetings are still okay? Girl scouts? Sports teams?

What counts as a religious gathering?

It will be illegal for a group of Christians to meet and discuss the Bible, right? Okay, what will be the punishment for a group of Christians that assembles illegally?

Dave_S88 wrote:
Still, the reading of Holy books in the privacy of their homes, and even on Internet Forums will be allowed. I’m against the Institutions of Religion, not the intellectual pursuit of.

 

Okay, how about a video chat? Can a group of Christians meet in someone's house?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Dave_S888 wrote: I advocate

Dave_S888 wrote:
 I advocate banning Organized Religion, but not the right for individuals to think. In practical terms, this would mean no more Churches and gathering en mass publicly – in any form.

That would undermine any opposing groups (atheists for example) from developing structured, organized and deliberate oppositions to religious movements.

Religion is politics. They're fighting for supremacy and control.

In America, they're fucked. What they can mostly do is make noise.

America's policy is pluralism. No matter how many Christians bellyache and claim otherwise.

That's the deal.

So is Canada. So are many other countries.

They're never going to overturn the progress, and be able to prosecute homosexuals for their sexuality, mandate women staying in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, and allowing slavery again.

They're never going to be able to teach Creationism in schools, as a science.

 

The events of 9/11 changed everything.

Religiosity became a pivotal focus for a lot of high profile, influential people. And it's on the rise.

So is the growth and spread of information.

 

At best, I think it would be a monumental victory if churches would be regulated like commercial establishments that serve alcohol.

IOW, the 'consumption' or 'intoxication' of religious indoctrination in youths, would not be permitted in public establishments.

 

Hey....I like the sound of that...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
redneF wrote:Dave_S888

redneF wrote:

Dave_S888 wrote:
 I advocate banning Organized Religion, but not the right for individuals to think. In practical terms, this would mean no more Churches and gathering en mass publicly – in any form.

That would undermine any opposing groups (atheists for example) from developing structured, organized and deliberate oppositions to religious movements.

Religion is politics. They're fighting for supremacy and control.

In America, they're fucked. What they can mostly do is make noise.

America's policy is pluralism. No matter how many Christians bellyache and claim otherwise.

That's the deal.

So is Canada. So are many other countries.

They're never going to overturn the progress, and be able to prosecute homosexuals for their sexuality, mandate women staying in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, and allowing slavery again.

They're never going to be able to teach Creationism in schools, as a science.

 

The events of 9/11 changed everything.

Religiosity became a pivotal focus for a lot of high profile, influential people. And it's on the rise.

So is the growth and spread of information.

 

At best, I think it would be a monumental victory if churches would be regulated like commercial establishments that serve alcohol.

IOW, the 'consumption' or 'intoxication' of religious indoctrination in youths, would not be permitted in public establishments.

 

Hey....I like the sound of that...

Good luck trying to implement that in an open society. I doubt may parents, even atheist parents like having government tell them what their kids can or cannot do in public.

What if government told you you couldn't read Dawkins to a child in public?

Utopias don't exist, they don't for anyone.

The best you can do is undermine the parents when the kid is away from them or on line, or with friends or in media. The kids will grow up eventually and be exposed to more than what their parents try to sell them. Believe me, long term, in our age of media, kids are growing up more open minded and less like the old white guys on Fox News.

I had the opportunity at a atheist protest in front of the Supreme Court to do that, but didn't think about it until after.

The kid was clinging to his dad because of the "scary atheists". I should have said, "He kid, daddy wont tell you about Lott and his daughters". Even if the kid still grew up a Christian, that seed of mistrust will be planted and he will be less likely to take what adults say on face value.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Good luck

Brian37 wrote:

Good luck trying to implement that in an open society. I doubt may parents, even atheist parents like having government tell them what their kids can or cannot do in public.

What if government told you you couldn't read Dawkins to a child in public?

There's a huge distinction between Dawkins educating children on science, history, literature and spirituality, and priests indoctrinating children with hate mongering of individuals, for arbitrary reasons.

You trying to conflate the two, as synonymous, is simply an incredibly myopic and dim attempt at building a strawman.

 

I hesitate to jump on the bandwagon against you sometimes for your overzealous attempts at being 'egalitarian', but, you've outdone yourself this time with your 'kneejerk'.

Someone mentions 'regulation', and you see red, and become irrational.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
Banning religion is self

Banning religion is self defeating, try to persecute and you simply make them cling harder to their beliefs. On a more basic level it's immoral to try to ban thoughts and ideas from being covered by people. As it is, for all I care you can believe that the universe was coughed up by the great congested warthog if it helps you get through the day. So long as they aren't trying to impose their beliefs on others and aren't hurting anyone I have no problem with them practicing their beliefs. Banning religious gatherings and the like is also an easy way to allow the government to persecute minorities. As it is, I would rather have to deal periodically with religiously motivated idiots than to live in a society that would attempt to tyrannize others and force them to believe or disbelieve certain things.