Atheists: If a vote was held today to ban all religions and religious expression, how would you vote?

Comments

Comments

• I totally agree, banning anything sends it underground, but does not stop it. Prohibition in the USA in the 1920s and 1930s merely allowed the rise of organised crime to supply booze to people who craved it.
  Female genital mutilation is banned in most countries, but it hasn't stopped it, only education will do that.

  • Report
  

  by Pontrhydfendigaid on February 14th, 2011

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• That's OK. In my mind I will deduct one from the BAN column and put it in the ALLOW column.
  
  Question for you: How would you limit the influence of religion as much as possible? What kind of laws or restrictions would you implement to limit it?

  • Report
  

  by Mike Astill on February 15th, 2011

• Remove all mention of God from anything government including the courts, currency, pledge etc. Public sermons, Bible readings etc would need a permit. General restrictions. You can be free to worship your God(s) so long as that worship doesn't infringe on another's right not to worship the God(s).

  • Report
  

  by Sodapop on February 15th, 2011

• "Public sermons, Bible readings etc would need a permit."
  
  So, what would be the limit on this? Would you punish someone for even mentioning God in public? What if someone saw something that inspired awe and they slipped mentioned deity? Would you punish such a person?
  
  Personally, I am glad that you are not in a position of authority. You obviously have not respect for the First Amendment to the Constitution which prevents government from doing just what you propose.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on February 15th, 2011

• Despite the ridiculous idea you have that everyone has an unlimited right to free speech the only real topic that is allowed in its entirety is religion. I cannot hold a demonstration in Washington D.C. without a permit. On the contrary a group of christians can sit on the steps of the Supreme Court interfering with traffic heading in and out of the court to protest the Roe v. Wade inevitable decision.
  
  This is preaching I'm talking about. It's pushing the bible on the public. You have the freedom to worship what you want but when your freedom and belief infringes on my right NOT to be involved or forced into indoctrination then it is going too far and needs to be controlled. I should not have to stand trial and swear on the BIBLE to tell the truth. I do not believe in the bible, nor do I believe in God. A secular nation that practices public endorsement of any religion is a greater embarrassment to our founding fathers than a theocracy.
  
  I wonder what your opinion is of the Westboro Baptist Church or the Straight Camps that LGBT teens are shoved into every month.. the same camps in which a large amount of teenagers later commit suicide. Where does THEIR right to freedom of expression and belief end and the rights of the soldiers and teens begin?
  
  We have no unlimited rights. You cannot go out and make a mockery of another man without being sued. You can't own a gun unless you have registered it with the state. "A code of Wartime Practices for the American Press" was issued from the Office of Censorship during WWI to limit the influence of the press on the american public. To submit to government drafted pamphlets of propaganda. During WWII Japanese Americans were forced into concentration camps for being born to parents of an enemy country.
  
  I think the idealism of the 18th century has been lost to the century. You don't have unlimited rights, you have granted rights. As long as we have a government we can't do an unlimited measure of anything we want to do. But if you can push through congress a measure establishing a limitation to certain dogmatic practices then so be it. If I can shut down a straight camp and cult compound, so be it.
  
  The Patriot Act has violated our rights for years. Did you agree with its passage or abhor the bill? In the "War on Terror" republicans have shown that the government DOES have a right to infringe on its own citizens rights. Politics is dirty either way.

  • Report
  

  by Sodapop on February 15th, 2011

• @Sodapop: Thanks for your answer and comment. I appreciate your opinions on this subject.
  
  First, Glenn never said that he believes that people should have an “unlimited right” of free speech. Of course there should be limits on certain types of speech. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre, for example. You can’t stand on a street corner at 2 a.m. and read the bible into a megaphone. You can’t maliciously slander or lie about someone. The courts have established long ago that there are time, place, and manner restrictions on speech. Nobody is arguing that. You need to get a permit to hold a rally in Washington D.C. regardless if you are a group of Atheists, or a group of Born Again Christians. Conversely, a group of Atheists has the exact same right to sit on the steps of the Supreme Court and make their protest as a group of Christians. BOTH forms of speech, religious and political, receive the exact same protection under the Constitution.
  
  Now, if the government came out and said Atheists need a permit to march on Washington but Christians don’t, then I would 100% be on your side and I would march with you to demand you have access to your rights.

  • Report
  

  by Mike Astill on February 15th, 2011

• When you say that a religious reading or sermon cannot happen unless the government gives them permission, that goes against everything the Founding Fathers had in mind. Political and religious speech are the two most protected forms of speech in this country. The thought of having a some government bureaucrat make the decision on what you can or cannot say in the religious or political arena is a frightening thought. To put this in perspective, what if you lived in a conservative, Christian town and you wanted to have an Atheist day down at the public square where you want to read the writings of your favorite Atheists, and some stuffy religious government official told you that you could not do that because the government didn’t approve of that speech?
  
  As a religious person, the thought of that happening disgusts me. I would march with the Atheists demanding that they have the freedom to speak as they want.

  • Report
  

  by Mike Astill on February 15th, 2011

• You said: “You have the freedom to worship what you want but when your freedom and belief infringes on my right NOT to be involved or forced into indoctrination then it is going too far and needs to be controlled.”
  
  OK. So will you also agree that Gay Rights parades should be banned? Or what about a college group passing out literature advocating radical environmentalism? What about a group of Pro-Choice women who want to set up a booth to raise money for Planned Parenthood? You see, I think that many of these groups operate with equal religious fervor and are also trying to brainwash people, and in some cases, force indoctrination upon them. YET, I do not think this type of speech should be banned. I am 100% OK when the local LGBT group files a permit to have a local Gay Rights parade and use MY tax dollars for it (for police, sanitation, etc.). I completely disagree with their agenda. But I completely support their right to get out in the street and “preach” their message to everyone. I just simply choose to stay home and ignore them.

  • Report
  

  by Mike Astill on February 15th, 2011

• Exactly right, East Hill.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on February 15th, 2011

• As is your right East. I did not say a government should forbid any worship, I said that it should act as a damage control to ensure that free speech is not used as a tool to opress another group of people. Government should be the buffer between two opposing groups ensuring both act as civilized as possible while not endorsing either side.
  
  The lgbt community does not attack religious bigots or corral them in camps for civility. The same cannot be said for Christians. Would you March with the families and friends of lesbians and gays who's rights have been ignored by others? You say you would for atheists so this must apply to the gay community as well.
  
  Had the lgbt community viciously attacked the religious community in my area I would March with the religious.
  
  As far as my reasoning towards my response towards Glenn I was pointing out the fallacious "slippery slope" argument inferred. Taking action to limit abuse and require planned and controlled demonstrations is not the same as banning God from public altogether. Surely you can agree with that.

  • Report
  

  by Sodapop on February 15th, 2011

• You said: "I said that it should act as a damage control to ensure that free speech is not used as a tool to opress another group of people...The lgbt community does not attack religious bigots or corral them in camps for civility."
  
  Nor do religious groups attack homosexual bigots or corral them in camps for civility. And if someone does attack a homosexual for those reasons, there are laws that will throw them in jail.
  
  Now, let me clarify: I agree with you that speech cannot and should not be used to oppress or enslave another. However, you have to define what "oppress" and "attack" means. For example, if I say "I don't believe that gays should have a legal right to marry", that would be deemed as oppressive and hateful speech by some and they would argue that at the very least I should be silenced, and at worst, I should be prosecuted by the law and punished or my church should have it's tax exempt status revoked because of it. I am officially being punished for stating my mind, for speaking freely about what I believe. That is wrong.
  
  Now, if we're going to protect one class of people from "hateful" comments or speech, we have to protect EVERYONE from "hateful" comments. So if a gay person comes out and says "I hate Christianity and anyone who believes in god is an idiot", well, now I am hurt and that is now an "attack" and that speech needs to be muzzled as well. What follows is the government reviewing and regulating every type of political/religious type of comment made, which inevitably leads to censorship.
  
  That is how it is in North Korea, and Cuba, and much of the Middle East.
  
  "Had the lgbt community viciously attacked the religious community in my area I would March with the religious."
  
  Really? Do you mean attack with words? Or a physical attack, like burning down buildings? Because if you mean they are attacking with words, I will not march with you. In fact, I will defend the right of the LGBT community to attack my faith all they want with their words--that is their Constitutional right. If those words turn into arson or physical assaults, they have crossed the line and that speech is no longer protected.

  • Report
  

  by Mike Astill on February 16th, 2011

• Oops. Double post.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on February 16th, 2011

• Sodapop wrote, "The lgbt community does not attack religious bigots..."
  
  They don't?
  http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=30504
  http://www.cnsnews.com/node/41858
  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/apr/07040408
  http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/religiousfreedom_underattack.html
  http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=80711
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD1AITHS2Wc
  
  I see what you mean. LGBT supporters don't attack those that disagree with them. Yeah, right.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on February 16th, 2011

• Every action has an equal reaction. When the church stepped into the political arena pushing voters to deny homosexuals their right to marriage. When the CHURCH stepped into politics and contributed millions of dollars in a smear campaign against homosexuals 30 people of 30 million formed a radical group. That's 30 people. Not 30 million.
  
  I can think of more than 30 people that harass the LGBT community on a daily basis.
  
  And I agree East that assaults on churches differ significantly from verbal opinion. Everyone has a right to their opinion but we also have a responsibility to practice restraint. The fact of the matter is that for the LGBT community when the church entered into a political campaign meant to take away a homosexual's right to marriage, housing, employment etc they assaulted the foundations of the movement. The gay community has rioted before when it has felt its rights have been dashed aside. The Stonewall riots are an example of that. African Americans rioted when Martin Luther King Jr was killed. Chicago was hit worst with the riots. Yet the community itself was not to blame for the radical actions of a few who followed the agenda for equal rights. Now, I know you could say that the church in the same way is not to blame for the actions of a few organizations that force homosexuals to hate their sexuality, but it's different because the LGBT community is not funding these radical groups. The church IS funding these camps.
  
  Straight camps do continue to exist. You can find one in your area by google search. Religious organizations fund these places and teens continue to commit suicide in these camps. It is brutal what the religious are doing to the LGBT community. Rights do continue to be taken away from the LGBT community. In Virginia our governor has abolished equal protections for the LGBT community in all aspects our our society. Employment and Housing especially. A business is not entitled to protect an employee from discrimination because of his sexuality although many do. His message to the LGBT community was that we are not equal citizens and that we do not have any rights. We didn't riot. We didn't burn down churches or storm pulpits. 30 people and a hand full of others did in aggravation to the denial of rights in a liberal state in the union.

  • Report
  

  by Sodapop on February 16th, 2011

• No, it is not just thirty people, if you had actually read the links that I provided, you would see that in a number of cases it is a systemic persecution of religious people for daring to disagree with the homosexual agenda. If you were to look at those stories, you would see that it is governments that are infringing on the freedom of religion in order to force people to accept behavior they consider to be immoral. So, no, it is not jus thirty people doing this.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on February 17th, 2011

• @Sodapop: Again, I appreciate your comments and opinions. This comment thread is getting a bit off topic, but I want to address a few points you made in your previous comment.
  
  You said: "the church stepped into the political arena pushing voters to deny homosexuals their right to marriage."
  
  The church did no such thing! Gays have just as much of a right to marry as a straight person does. What the homosexual community is trying to do is to change the fundamental nature and definition of marriage! As it stands right now, a gay man has every right to go and legally marry a woman if he wants. THAT is how marriage is defined in this country. The church and the many other groups involved simply wanted to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.
  
  Now, I have no problem whatsoever with the gay community getting out into the community and trying to change the definition of marriage to include gay marriage. If they can convince enough people to change and vote accordingly, more power to them! That is the great thing about freedom of speech. But please don't turn around and get angry at a church who decides it wants to exercise its right to free speech and try to convince people to keep the traditional definition of marriage! They have every right to do that.
  
  Ironically, the voters of California TWICE voted to keep the traditional definition of marriage. This is the fundamental core of what a democracy is all about!

  • Report
  

  by Mike Astill on February 17th, 2011

• The Mormon Church of Utah is actually what I had in mind when I made the statement. "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has mobilized followers to give an estimated 77% of the total donations that have come in to support California's proposed gay marriage ban, Proposition 8. Californians Against Hate released figures Tuesday showing that $17.67 million was contributed by 59,000 Mormon families since August to groups like Yes on 8. Contributions in support of Prop. 8 total $22.88 million."-http://www.advocate.com/article.aspx?id=41338
  
  The church has every right to its opinion, but it doesn't have a right to take untaxed funds and donate it towards a smear campaign against same-sex marriage. I do believe that had that church simply given a voice against same-sex marriage their impact would not have been so strong but they did more than just denounce same-sex marriage. They lobbied voters and politicians. They helped introduce the proposition and they did everything they could to get voters to change their opinion on what they consider traditional marriage. The same church that believed one man could marry multiple women.
  
  The people have every right to pass the proposition, but the courts also have a right to determine the constitutionality of the measure. Unfortunately its still a waiting game before the Supreme Court hears and decides on the case. When the measure passed of course a small group (or several small groups but regardless I emphasize the small part) of bitter same sex couples would strike out but the damage done from that does not in any way overshadow the actions of the church against the lgbt community. There is no LGBT conspiracy to destroy the church. We just want equal rights.

  • Report
  

  by Sodapop on February 19th, 2011

• You do realize that if your position that churches have no right to lobby the government or its citizens for change was the law, slavery might have never been abolished, and Martin Luther King Jr and his organization of the Civil Rights movement could not have happened?
  
  Also, to clarify your first point, the actual total donated to support Prop 8 was actually around $43 million. The LdS church made no cash donations. They made in-kind donations of over $180,000 which covered the administrative costs of their support of the effort. They were fined just over $5,000 for failing to submit a report on time, but other than that mistake, every thing else they did was completely legal and within the law.

  • Report
  

  by Mike Astill on February 19th, 2011

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• There are billions of religious people out there, and you would ban it based on the actions of a few (comparatively)? You are just as bad as the religious people you claim to scorn you maniac. Religious people outnumber you, what if they all decided to ban "not believing" in a religion, how would you like them forcing their views onto you far more than you already think that they do? What makes you any better than them, if you're wanting to force your views onto them, and ban their entire belief system? I'll be straight forward with you.... You sir, disgust me. GTFO my internet.

  • Report
  

  by Castrate on February 14th, 2011

• You know, Nemo, it sounds to me like you are describing communism. They tried to ban religion and they did all of the things that you mention in the attempt to move their secular ideas forward. My point here is that religions don't have a monopoly on such behavior. It crops up in supposedly atheist societies as well. Therefore, it is rather simplistic to blame such abuses only on religion.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on February 14th, 2011

• Well Cas, I have already been down that other road by YOU BELIEVERS and I was given a choice I had to choose a religion I was told flatly that I had to choose either Catholicism, Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, I refused and I still refuse and barring Accident or Assassination which has happened more than once now I will live to see these 4 horsemen and all their followers wiped from the face of the planet for what they have done already because that is the only thing you will listen too and all I have to do is sit back and watch it happen ...
  
  You have brought this on yourselves and that little list is nothing even close to the real harm you and yours have done ...
  
  Enough Said ...

  • Report
  

  by Nemo_S on February 14th, 2011

• Well Glen Screw Communism and Screw Religions especially when there is little difference in the methods they use which is torture, murder, coercions you name it to comply or reform or what ever else it is that they say they want from you but what they really want is what does not belong to them and that is not going to change at any time and they will use anything they can to do it of course when you use Religious Beliefs it is always much more legitimate since your doing it all for what flavor of the deity it is you your doing it in the name of as IF that deity could not do it for itself IF it had the will and desire to do so without them ..

  • Report
  

  by Nemo_S on February 14th, 2011

• If you ban religious expression they will just go underground. I rather prefer my religious nutters where I can see them coming...

  • Report
  

  by Kiku on February 15th, 2011

• Actually what this idiot Nemo is suggesting has already happened...it was called the French Revolution and the resulting Reign of Terror, where hundreds of thousands were murdered by the athiests that took over.
  Oh and to the moron, read about your great hero of that time, Robespierre, the main supporter of getting rid of religion, turned out pretty good for him.

  • Report
  

  by Rand.Al.Thor on February 15th, 2011

• The point that Nemo ignores from history is that humanity has an inherent weakness. This weakness is that people keep rising up that will do anything to obtain and hold onto power. The alleged reason for the acquisition of power vary, but they are just excuses. Some will use religion as the excuse. Some will use secular humanism for the excuse. These people just want the power and once they have it they will do anything to hold on to it no matter how brutal they have to be. To blame all religious people for the brutality of the few that use religion as an excuse make as much sense as blaming all atheists for the brutality of the few atheists that go too far.

  • Report
  

  by Glenn Blaylock on February 15th, 2011

• "Well Cas, I have already been down that other road by YOU BELIEVERS..."
  
  You're an idiot... Just what exactly are you accusing me of believing in you limped nut kumquat?! I haven't made one jab or jibe about my own beliefs, so you can take your pathetic attempt at sticking me in an easy stereotype, and SHOVE it up your ass!
  
  Furthermore, you may have had religion jammed down your throat to some degree or another, just as many religious people have had secular horseshit jammed down theirs, but that is not the same as outright banning a belief system or viewpoint. What you are proposing is to actually make it a crime to believe differently than you, which in turn makes you my enemy. As I said before, GTFO, you're a waste of space and resources.

  • Report
  

  by Castrate on February 15th, 2011

• Alter_Ego, Robespierre was a deist and had a deep dislike for atheists, whom he considered aristocratic. Regardless, his attempted de-Christianization of France was certainly along the lines of what East Hill asked.
  
  Nemo, how far would you be willing to do to eradicate religion? Would you not then become the type of person you despise?

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on February 15th, 2011

• the only way to really eradicate religion is by always speaking the truth I mean REAL TRUTH and people opening their eyes to that truth far beyond the blinders that their own belief systems have placed upon them because religions are like all other drugs, in the heat and high of them one becomes insanely brave and drunk on that power that they feel and much harm is done by those drunken fools as they wallow in their ignorance bringing torture and murder in their wake ..
  
  And Cas, My apologies for any misunderstanding as I was not speaking to You as a personal attack I meant it as a general YOU to those reading that is why it was Capitalized as one would speak to a jury to make a POINT and NOT the you the individual ..

  • Report
  

  by Nemo_S on February 15th, 2011

• "the only way to really eradicate religion is by always speaking the truth"
  
  Then why not do that instead of banning it outright? Censorship only strengthens the resolve of those who have been censored, and enacting what they perceive to be persecution of their beliefs will only further confirm their position in their minds. Prohibiting a belief or an idea is always an abysmal failure.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on February 15th, 2011

• Nicely done Meridian, I was wondering when that point would be brought forward, I personally do not support ANY FORM of censorship except child porn which I have expressed on more than one occasion and that should be cleaned at the source (Hooray Europe) sometimes the expression of the other extreme can sometimes wake some one up as long as it is done without violence because IF the end game is the same that is Fraud, Theft, Murder, Torture and Extortion as well as a whole slew of other vile and inhuman acts does it really matter whether it is a Hitler or Stalin doing it or A Catholic, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Democrat, Republican, Socialist, Communist, Atheist or Anarchist if so please show me why it is different depending on just who is doing it ..

  • Report
  

  by Nemo_S on February 15th, 2011

• "the only way to really eradicate religion is by always speaking the truth" Oh you mean the truth as you see it? You sound just like a religious zealot for atheism. "There can only be one way of thinking, and I'm right, you're wrong, and even though I can't prove a god damn thing, I'm going to declare that you're an idiot for believing differently than me!"
  
  As I said before, you are no better than the very type of person you claim to despise so much.

  • Report
  

  by Castrate on February 16th, 2011

• Show me why it is different depending on just who is doing it...
  
  All world religions, just as with all philosophies and with all political ideologies, are open to corruption, as any position that exercises authority will attract individuals who are willing to exploit their power for selfish reasons. However, keep in mind that you voted for the prohibition of religious expression, not religious organisations. If you believe there is a problem with a particular organisation, the Catholic Church for example, then I think it would be proper to address the specific violations it is guilty of. It seems to me as though you're painting all of religion with too wide a brush.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on February 18th, 2011

• Actually I making the historical point of these and others religions or politico's, simply because they are all bringing the extinction of the species much closer to happening and unlike all that came before this one is not natural by any means ..

  • Report
  

  by Nemo_S on February 18th, 2011

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• What if a religious idea is also a moral idea? For example, if I'm religiously opposed to murder because it is in the Ten Commandments, should I not be able to vote for a legislator who is opposed to murder as well?
  
  I know that is not what you mean. I know you're talking about teaching creationism in school, prayers in school, etc. (And I probably agree with you on things like that)
  
  However, there are many things that I believe violate God's laws that also happen to be man's law. (Stealing, rape, fraud, etc., etc.) How do I reconcile that? Or am I only allowed to vote for those things which the non-religious deem to be free from religious influence?

  • Report
  

  by Mike Astill on February 18th, 2011

• I thought about what you are now saying as I wrote my comment, I didn't elaborate too much for the sake of brevity. Now that you have brought it up, my response would be that I was referring to things which are exclusively religious. For instance, if you feel that it is an affront to the god of your religion that people work on the Sabbath then I would not agree that this should be put into law.
  
  There are many things that most of us can agree on regardless of religion or lack thereof, what I am opposed to are things which only serve the purpose of elevating one religion above others. Church and state should remain separate, and no one religion should receive special treatment under the law.

  • Report
  

  by Gratis on February 18th, 2011

Comments

Comments