My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Originally posted by samusaran253
What do you think of this proposal?

I think it's a case of someone (you, in this case) wanting to limit the freedoms of other people. Plain and simple. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. That means the government cannot interfere.

If you advocate freedom, it must be freedom for ALL, not just those with whom you agree.

reply to post by spyder550


Me, too, spidey!

reply to post by pez1975


Religious persecution is what caused the pilgrims to come here, and several other groups came here out of greed. Freedom of religion had no place in the 13 colonies, at least in the early days. Puritans segregated in New England, Quakers in PA, Catholics in Maryland. While I have no problem with religion or religious people, I have found that the talk they talk, is not the walk they walk, Haggard, Baker, and Swaggart immediately come to mind, not to mention the ongoing pedophilia issues in the catholic church. If they would keep it to themselves, and not feel the need to try and affect my life, I would have no problem at all with it.

My primary quarrel with religion in general is that it tries to teach a false sense of morality, it's also incompatible with science. I respect your right to believe in whatever you damn well please, but I simply cannot condone belief in Christian, Islamic, or any other religion's morality and their failed principles that promote hatred, bigotry, and intolerance. In the founding documents of these religions, at their very hearts, they are prejudice, homophobic, sexist, and archaic. Religion is merely a tool used by the sociopathic elites to control the population.

Nothing like being arrested for wearing a cross in public. heh

No, I mean, I am agnostic-atheist, however, the only way to remove religion from the public is not through laws, but through "conversion". The people should have the right to freely assemble to do whatever they want without interference (positive or negative) from government.

Government needs to remove the fingers it has in religion though...so, make it illegal for governments to support any religion or their institutions (such as tax exempt status for churches, marriage, etc)...however, public land is paid for by the public, and temp displays of whatever should be allowed (so long as they get the right paperwork to do such displays...should be neutral in its ruling there).

Sorry ops...not a fan of that idea, that puts more government in control and creates a "thought police". The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that.

I'm really not understanding how some of you people say that religion has such a major influence on your daily lives that you feel the need to ban it. I'm a Christian and religion doesn't "invade" my life as half as much as it seems to "invade" yours. If you don't want anyone knocking on your door, put a "no solicating" sign up. I sale insurance and I when I see those signs, I skip to the next house. I think you guys take religion way too personal. Outside of someone putting a gun to your head and forcing you to worship, I can't see how religion has negatively affected your lives. Now we all know that there are extreme cases where someone is physical abused, I'm not including them because those people broke the law and should be dealt with accordingly.

reply to post by unicomsol


Even though I'm a Christian, I agree with your statement. If anyone wants to assemble and worship whatever they want, thats fine. If atheist want to assemble and talk about how foolish and dumb we are, knock yourselves out. As long as no one's personal freedoms are violated, then worship and gather however one sees fit.

Originally posted by samusaran253
My primary quarrel with religion in general is that it tries to teach a false sense of morality,

Actually, if it works for a person, then its not false. Wall Street teaches a false sense of morality moreso than bible study in my opinion.

it's also incompatible with science.

Right, but then again, so is love (our species is not really designed for monogomy in a biological sense, but well, there we are..

I respect your right to believe in whatever you damn well please, but I simply cannot condone belief in Christian, Islamic, or any other religion's morality and their failed principles that promote hatred, bigotry, and intolerance. In the founding documents of these religions, at their very hearts, they are prejudice, homophobic, sexist, and archaic.

Good points, but really, the perception of the student and the agenda of the teacher is more important to consider than just the religion as a whole.
I have known plenty of christians that are self described christian, go to church every sunday, and have none of those traits you listed. They see such traits as anti-christian (Jesus wouldn't be, if alive today, riding around in a truck going "gay bashing"...and the point of being a christian is to be christ-like in your actions...sort of the WWJD idea.

But yes, many use the holy books as a weapon.

Religion is merely a tool used by the sociopathic elites to control the population.

edit on 29-5-2011 by samusaran253 because: (no reason given)

It is a tool of control, yes. History shows this clearly, however...before you toss everyone into a pit of rotten apples, consider some people whom actually require religion in order to accomplish something (say, kicking alcoholism). I would suggest that religion is (from the powerless end) a tool for the weak to gain strength when they are surrounded by harmful temptations.

Perhaps one day our society won't require religion to help out the less fortunate (be it mentally or other). but until then, well...its simply needed.

But again, government should relinquish all agenda's towards any religious institution.

Originally posted by samusaran253
My primary quarrel with religion in general is that it tries to teach a false sense of morality, it's also incompatible with science.

I agree with you 100%! I BELIEVE religion is false, made by man to use as a control mechanism. You don't have to convince me how much religion sucks.

And I have a right to that belief and to express it wherever I am.

Just because you have a quarrel with something doesn't mean you should advocate to make it illegal. This is the problem with the country today:

Don't agree with abortion? Make it illegal for EVERYONE.
Don't like gay people? Make gay marriage illegal for EVERYONE.
Don't like religion? Make it ILLEGAL to express in public.
Don't like drugs? Make them illegal for EVERYONE.

I respect your right to believe in whatever you damn well please, but I simply cannot condone belief in Christian, Islamic, or any other religion's morality and their failed principles that promote hatred, bigotry, and intolerance.

No one is asking you to condone the belief. I don't. I think people's attachment to religion is one of the biggest problems on this planet. However, I believe in freedom. even for those with whom I disagree!

In the founding documents of these religions, at their very hearts, they are prejudice, homophobic, sexist, and archaic.

Again, agreed. However, being prejudiced, anti-gay, sexist and archaic is NOT against the law. And they shouldn't be. They are beliefs. Any law that would suppress or deny the right of the people to hold these beliefs would be unconstitutional.

I can see where this thread is heading.
Let's tell it how it is shall we?
Ban the burkha (and don't anyone dare tell me that wearing a cross is the same thing).
Ban faith schools of all denominations. Parents have the right to bring up kids according to their own beliefs but school should be a neutral place, a possible counterpoint.
And yes let's be done with the silly Gay Pride stuff. If one guy wants to stick his appendage into the rear end of another guy, that's his business.Yes God made you. He also made muggers and rapists. Enough with the celebratory marches ffs.

Things could be better, but in this case I believe that the laws are fine as they stand. If you have a problem with hypocrite Christian TV evangelists, don't tune in. If you have a problem with J.W. and Mormons, then put up a no soliciting sign including religious soliciting. My favorite deal with these guys is to tell the Jehovah's Witnesses "Sorry, I'm a devote Mormon" and to tell the Mormons, "Sorry, I'm a devote Jehovah". I don't see any Hare Krishnas enough to even think about them. Otherwise I'd say this is an idea from the Nazi playbook. Just my opinion.

Post Script: To those folks who think religious institutions shouldn't have tax exempt status, they are registered as not for profit organizations not as a religion.

reply to post by samusaran253

For the record, I'm an agnostic atheist and I think this idea is not only terrible, but goes against one of the fundamental rights of our country.

My primary quarrel with religion in general is that it tries to teach a false sense of morality,

Why is it a false sense of morality? Who cares where a persons moral code stems from? I see this as being as bad as when some fundie tells me that morality only stems from God and therefore, as an atheist, I couldn't possibly be moral.

it's also incompatible with science.

Only when religious scripture is taken literally. The way to try and help people understand that religious scripture is a poor source of factual scientific information is by education, not by banning public displays of faith. Dr. Kenneth Miller has written an excellent book on reconciling faith and science.

I respect your right to believe in whatever you damn well please, but I simply cannot condone belief in Christian, Islamic, or any other religion's morality and their failed principles that promote hatred, bigotry, and intolerance. In the founding documents of these religions, at their very hearts, they are prejudice, homophobic, sexist, and archaic.

But our Constitution expressly guarantees the right of people to express those viewpoints. Just because you don't agree with someone's personal beliefs is hardly justification to outlaw public display of them.

Religion is merely a tool used by the sociopathic elites to control the population.

It can be. A hammer can be used to smash someone's skull. It doesn't mean we should ban hammers.

Originally posted by samusaran253
This morning I thought of a new idea for a law, the Home Religious Acts, I shall call it. It would respect people's freedom of religion, but absolutely kill off any control religion still has. It would allow religious worship, but only in one's own home. It would disallow parents from forcing their teenagers and children to convert to a religion or follow a religion's teachings of morality. It would eliminate the display of religion in public, I know, it may sound a bit extreme, but it may be the only way to ensure the continue stability and security of the United States. The government will of course respect other people's religious beliefs, but they would have to keep that to themselves, just as one would keep their own sexual deviance to themselves and not express it in public. What do you think of this proposal?

This directly violates private property rights. If someone buys land, builds a church and wants to worship Ctulu... they can.

I really am not going to go any deeper than this.

Originally posted by samusaran253
What do you think of this proposal?

I'll reply with the same answer that the 101st Airborne
did when they were surrounded by the Germans
at Bastone.

NUTS !!!!

Well, in the United States, it goes against freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Dunno how this would work in other countries. And people don't necessarily hide their sexual deviancies all the time.

Originally posted by samusaran253
This morning I thought of a new idea for a law, the Home Religious Acts, I shall call it. It would respect people's freedom of religion, but absolutely kill off any control religion still has. It would allow religious worship, but only in one's own home. It would disallow parents from forcing their teenagers and children to convert to a religion or follow a religion's teachings of morality. It would eliminate the display of religion in public, I know, it may sound a bit extreme, but it may be the only way to ensure the continue stability and security of the United States. The government will of course respect other people's religious beliefs, but they would have to keep that to themselves, just as one would keep their own sexual deviance to themselves and not express it in public. What do you think of this proposal?

So basically you forbid parents to raise their children how they see fit....
It would take away people's freedom of speech....
This would not fly with voting adults

On the proposal. Wont work. Wont fly. No good.

I would not support this law.

I am not a "christian," but I do believe in "something." I don't have a problem with anyone practicing their religion. I don't, however, believe people have the right to practice their religion any way they want (say your "religion" involved ritual sacrifice for instance).

I don't care if you pray in public, have a church picnic, whatever. It doesn't "offend" me unless I choose. If I choose to be offended for no reason, I am intolerant.

There are crazy christians, muslims, buddhists, etc. I only have a problem with the crazies. Now take the crazy christian sidewalk preachers, I do not want them to preach to me, or engage with me in public. I simply would like to be on my way, rather than debate whether or not I'm going to "hell" in that environment. I would prefer him to leave me alone. If he does not, then I have grounds to do something.

Do I think their religion should be banned from "public displays of religion"? No. Do I think they should be forced indoors, to hide their love of their religion? No. Do i think the action of the "crazies" reflects on the group they are a part of?

Moral: Live and let Live. If they aren't infringing on your rights, or committing a crime, don't worry about it.

reply to post by samusaran253


Religion only in your own home. I guess it will mean that they aren't allowed to have websites either, it is not in your home because you can share it. Will you enforce a censorship and full control over the existing web or do you intend to provide a new and tidy web, where all vulgarities that could cause problems in society have been left out?

What should we do with people who curse and swear?
And what do you do with people who claim it is not a religion but a hobby? I'm just interested in all that stuff but I don't belief in it.

Would you consider superstitious people religious? I mean at certain moment they are just as scary
If yes, what would you do with all that supporters etc watching a final?

Well it is interesting to see how the web closes; I have the feeling I to often hear; we should control this because of that from corners we shouldn't be hearing them. Who cares anyway?

Originally posted by samusaran253
I'm a sexual deviant myself. That being said, I don't go around trying to force other people to adhere to my strange sexual fetishes, just as creationists shouldn't go around trying to force other people to adhere to their strange imaginary god.

When has anyone in a modern-day Western country been ''forced'' to adhere to a particular religion ( or sexual deviance, for that matter ) ?

This whole argument about religious people ''forcing'' their beliefs onto others is just a bunch of cry-baby nonsense from those who are worried that they are too easily-led or weak-willed to resist whatever belief is being offered towards them.

Everyone has a free choice to believe what they want. If I start talking to you about how jelly-babies have magical properties and that you'll enjoy eternal bliss if you accept that fact, then how is that ''forcing'' my belief upon you ?

The only way that my words would have any power is if you personally chose to believe that there was some substance to the belief that I was proffering.

If someone comes to your door and offers to cut your hedge or mow your lawn for a certain price, are they forcing their services upon you ? Of course not. You have the choice to accept, reject or take the ''I'll think about it and call you back'' option to the service that they are attempting to persuade you to take up.

Forget your law op, there already is a better law. Separation of church and state!

I despise how religion drives national policy, it is maddening! Ethics have a place in government but religion? Nope, not one bit.

Originally posted by samusaran253
My primary quarrel with religion in general is that it tries to teach a false sense of morality, it's also incompatible with science.

The most important phrase of your comment in bold. That's your personal quarrel with religion, but now you - by stipulating limitations on how and where people can be allowed to follow a religion - are forcing your personal philosophical views on to others.

The validity of the morality that a religion teaches is to be discerned by the person who chooses to accept or reject it.

The compatibility of religion and science is also to be accepted or rejected by believers and non-believers alike, on a personal and independent basis.

You are attempting to impose your own subjective views on these metaphysical concepts as if they can be defined in terms of irrefutable absolutes.

Originally posted by samusaran253
I respect your right to believe in whatever you damn well please, but I simply cannot condone belief in Christian, Islamic, or any other religion's morality and their failed principles that promote hatred, bigotry, and intolerance.

William Wilberforce and an ardent bunch of others Quakers were largely responsible for the abolition of the British transatlantic slave trade in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Wilberforce and the group of abolitionists felt deeply compelled to stop the barbaric practice largely because they thought the idea of owning and mistreating other human beings in this way was deeply un-Christian and inhumane.

This flew in the face of other Christian churches, most notably the Church of England, who were complicit in the slave trade.

The point being that, on one hand, you see Christianity being used as a strong, inspirational force of good in the above example, and, on the other hand, it was being used to continue and excuse the abhorrent and unconscionable practice of treating other human beings as property to be traded and ''owned''.

Religion is largely neutral; the principles of religions such as Christianity and Islam are interpreted by each individual adherent, and can be used negatively, positively or neutrally.

I don't think that it's entirely fair for you to say that religious teachings promote hatred, bigotry and intolerance.

How many times does the news report a religious person going out of their way to do a good deed because they follow positive messages in the Bible, the Qur'an or another holy text ?

Instead, the news is full of proclamations from extremists who negatively interpret the teachings of their religion. This is what inaccurately distorts and prejudices many people's views of a particular religion or religions.