It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Peaceful and Amicable Request to the President About Religion and the Citizenry

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Secular rule of law in the United States makes it possible for those who have no religion, and those who do have religion, to be able to live side by side in cooperation peacefully. There is no need for either the non-religious or religious people to leave this country unless they break the law, or unless they are so miserable here that they should leave for their own peace of mind and the peace of mind of those around them.

This is a model that the 'religiously ruled' countries should model themselves after. All the nations ruled with Muslim or Catholic laws should take notice ... Secular rule of law is the ONLY fair law for ALL citizens.

Side note - to those wanting religious rule of law in America ... either conservative Christian law or Sharia type Muslim law ... knock it off. Don't try to screw up our secular rule of law. It works well and it protects the rights of everyone. If you want that kind of thing ... go live in a country that enforces it. Leave this country alone.



Yes, exactly.

That is why post is tongue in cheek. We live here together so we have to agree with each other that the call for abolition of religion in the United States is one course of action that is unwarranted and certainly not legal.

But you hear it every day, people call for the total abolition of religion, and yet I never said anywhere that anyone must leave, only that if they want to leave then they could.

Big difference in saying they have to go.

There is no way to get around having religion and giving the religious the freedoms and the rights to be religious, I just wanted people to know that instead of sitting around involving themselves in how to get rid of religion, there can be a choice offered to them.

No one religion holds the most power in this country, but people think there is. Right now, Jon Stewart and Bill Mahr hold a lot of influence with these people. But the rule of law in this country, freedom of religious expression. If people don't like it, stop trying to get rid of religion and quit saying they would give their lives to end religion here. That is very counterproductive and doesn't offer civil rights to religious people.

The point in my post was very sarcastic and I did say that if people were offended, ask themselves why they were offended. Could it be that because it was so absurd to make the claim, that the absurdity merely highlighted the equally insane idea to do away with religion in this country?

Yes, absurd statements. I agree.

But what is the most absurd? Complaining all day about something ridiculous because you don't like it. They don't like religion, then so be it, at least defend the rights of others to express it and be happy for them.




posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: WarminIndy


Without the Declaration, there would be no Constitution.

No, without the intent behind the Declaration, there likely wouldn't have been a Constitution. The Declaration could literally have consisted of "We out!", followed by signatures. The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States, end of statement.


Exactly what I said, no preference to what religion. But there are many who feel cheated in this country because there are religious people, sorry, but if they don't like religion, then they can go where there is no religion.

That's all I am saying.

Maybe you should have worded your OP more carefully. In your OP, you seem to be suggesting that anyone who chooses to not believe in a deity should leave the United States. Now you're saying that it's anti-theists who want to somehow take religion away from everyone should be the people to leave.

Which is it?


Please understand, there are really millions of non-theists and anti-theists and atheists who love this country so much they stand up for the rights of religious people, yes? No?

Changing laws with the ACLU is not for the benefit of all society, only a portion of society that doesn't want religion. The AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION is not recognizing the civil liberties of all Americans.

Are you therefore defending the right for my freedom speech to make an absurd post?



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: WarminIndy

Uuuurgh that was one of the slimiest, creepiest and most passive-agressive posts I've ever come across.

The US is the land of the free, not the land of the Christian Taliban........



Um, did I mention Christianity in my post?

Yes, land of the free. I exercised my freedom of speech. You don't like it, but do you defend it?

And passive-aggressive? Nope, fully aggressive.
edit on 1/19/2015 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: buster2010
....

Shall I post again the Declaration?


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness


Who holds the truth to be self-evident that you are endowed by your Creator with unalienable right? Oh yes, the writers of the Declaration.

Which non-belief system were you referring to?

...


Apparently, you're unaware that the Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land in the U.S.. The Constitution is and nowhere does it mention a creator or declare this country a theocracy.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: buster2010
....

Shall I post again the Declaration?


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness


Who holds the truth to be self-evident that you are endowed by your Creator with unalienable right? Oh yes, the writers of the Declaration.

Which non-belief system were you referring to?

...


Apparently, you're unaware that the Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land in the U.S.. The Constitution is and nowhere does it mention a creator or declare this country a theocracy.


Why do you guys suddenly invoke the Constitution when it suits you?

I said that we could nullify the Declaration, go back to the Church of England and King George if that is what you wish. Apparently not, so then accept the Declaration as the basis for the Constitution and then move forward.
edit on 1/19/2015 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: WarminIndy
...

May I respectfully remind you, Honorable Sir, that the Declaration of Independence does not imply separation of church and state, therefore, the populace cannot extricate itself from its duty to guarantee religious freedom or freedom from religion for the populace.

Because the Declaration of Independence isn't the supreme law of the United States, the Constitution is.
...


Without British Common Law there would be no Constitution. Irrelevant. The Declaration of Independence carries no force of law in the U.S.. As far as law goes, it doesn't matter what it says.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: WarminIndy

Perhaps you would like to book passage to a country where's there a theocracy. Those exist. I'm unaware of any country where there is no religion. Would you care to provide a list?


North Korea.

Why would I go to a theocracy, if I am defending the rights here?

After all, I did invoke the Declaration. We could nullify that, go back to England and King George and be the Church of England all over again, if that is ok with you.

Nepal is also now secular. Perhaps some might like the trip to Khatmandu?







Just a suggestion: support the rights of others, too.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: WarminIndy
...

May I respectfully remind you, Honorable Sir, that the Declaration of Independence does not imply separation of church and state, therefore, the populace cannot extricate itself from its duty to guarantee religious freedom or freedom from religion for the populace.

Because the Declaration of Independence isn't the supreme law of the United States, the Constitution is.
...



Without British Common Law there would be no Constitution. Irrelevant. The Declaration of Independence carries no force of law in the U.S.. As far as law goes, it doesn't matter what it says.


Then go back to England. That's your right and choice.

Otherwise, be happy and don't worry, religious people aren't forcing you to be religious. Yes, we have Christmas, but hey, there is nothing wrong with you guys making a Federal holiday for yourselves, I wouldn't care if you did.

And go to work on Christmas, you can do that if you wish. But you benefit having those days off, because people who work on that day, actually get paid more.

But you can make Christmas completely secular if you wish. See, there's always a workaround.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: WarminIndy

You make some good points.

A totally atheistic nation would have no moral compass and would be guided by:
the trendy, current cultural ideas of what is moral and what is immoral
the best interest of society as a whole

as cultural ideas of morality shift, the laws will shift
individuality will be subsumed by the societal whole
who will dictate values/morals/behavioral standards
which will shift regularly with the cultural winds

(just look at the huge cultural shift in the US in the past
100 years,it happens,
as is the current trend of the pedo culture aiming for
respectability and acceptance)
I find this idea quite frightening

At least with a total theocracy,
as long as immigration in/out is freely allowed
(no adult is forced to stay regardless of gender etc)
the citizens know the moral base
and can choose whether or not to live under
the moral/legal codes which would be clearly defined in the theocracy's revered writings

Some people would also find this frightening,
I don't because the laws,
behavioral standards won't shift with the whims of cultural popularity,
but would be clear and concise.
Which would make the decision to go in or out clear and easy.






I suggest you study history and observe that theocracies also follow trends. Denominations follow trends. Does Israel abide by Old Testament law? No.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: WarminIndy

Perhaps you would like to book passage to a country where's there a theocracy. Those exist. I'm unaware of any country where there is no religion. Would you care to provide a list?


North Korea.

Why would I go to a theocracy, if I am defending the rights here?

After all, I did invoke the Declaration. We could nullify that, go back to England and King George and be the Church of England all over again, if that is ok with you.

Nepal is also now secular. Perhaps some might like the trip to Khatmandu?







Just a suggestion: support the rights of others, too.


Did I say that I didn't?

Point to the place in my post that says I do not support your right to not have religion. Can you do that?



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: WarminIndy

You make some good points.

A totally atheistic nation would have no moral compass and would be guided by:
the trendy, current cultural ideas of what is moral and what is immoral
the best interest of society as a whole

as cultural ideas of morality shift, the laws will shift
individuality will be subsumed by the societal whole
who will dictate values/morals/behavioral standards
which will shift regularly with the cultural winds

(just look at the huge cultural shift in the US in the past
100 years,it happens,
as is the current trend of the pedo culture aiming for
respectability and acceptance)
I find this idea quite frightening

At least with a total theocracy,
as long as immigration in/out is freely allowed
(no adult is forced to stay regardless of gender etc)
the citizens know the moral base
and can choose whether or not to live under
the moral/legal codes which would be clearly defined in the theocracy's revered writings

Some people would also find this frightening,
I don't because the laws,
behavioral standards won't shift with the whims of cultural popularity,
but would be clear and concise.
Which would make the decision to go in or out clear and easy.






I suggest you study history and observe that theocracies also follow trends. Denominations follow trends. Does Israel abide by Old Testament law? No.


And I would suggest you study history and see what happened in total atheistic countries. That's right, the most human rights violations come from those countries. Good to point history out to us.

State Atheism


State atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government. In contrast, a secular state purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion. State atheism may refer to a government's anti-clericalism, which opposes religious institutional power and influence in all aspects of public and political life, including the involvement of religion in the everyday life of the citizen.


Dechristianization in France


The de-Christianization of France during the French Revolution is a conventional description of the results of a number of separate policies, conducted by various governments of France between the start of the French Revolution in 1789 and the Concordat of 1801, forming the basis of the later and less radical Laïcité movement. The goal of the campaign was the destruction of Catholic religious practice and of the religion itself.[1] There has been much scholarly debate over whether the movement was popularly motivated or something forced upon the people by those in power.[1]


Are those what you prefer?
edit on 1/19/2015 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: MOMof3
Why can't you worship whom you wish, in your home or your church and leave the rest of us alone? That is freedom.

Because those of the Abrahamic faiths must be allowed to push their religion on others. It's one of the tenets of their faith. To not be allowed to do so is a violation of their rights. It doesn't matter that you don't want to hear it. Like it, or leave the country. Those are your options. I suppose it's better than another inquisition.


One's rights, including the rights of the religious, end where someone else's rights begin.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Youre confusing and conflagrating a couple of issues here. The Declaration of Independence, is just that. A declaration by a small group of elite rebels wanting to force Brittains hand.its not in any way a legal document. The US Constitution on the other hand IS a legally binding document. Thr declaration , while important as a documemt, is not whst sepersted us from British rule. That document would be the 1783 Treaty of Paris that you are implying you would want to nullify. Its the sctual legslly binding document recognized by internstional law that in effect created the United States as a seperste entity. And homestly, if you want to discuss tge precursor to the US Comstitution you only have to loo, as far back as the Articles of Comfederation. Sure they were based in part in English Common law with a smidgen of Iroquois style democracy thrown in but it was in fact the document that set up tge basis for the Comstitution, not the Declaration.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: MOMof3
Why can't you worship whom you wish, in your home or your church and leave the rest of us alone? That is freedom.

Because those of the Abrahamic faiths must be allowed to push their religion on others. It's one of the tenets of their faith. To not be allowed to do so is a violation of their rights. It doesn't matter that you don't want to hear it. Like it, or leave the country. Those are your options. I suppose it's better than another inquisition.


One's rights, including the rights of the religious, end where someone else's rights begin.


Yes, did I say it was different in my post?

I said one should have the right to go, freedom man. But you seem to like it here a lot.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: WarminIndy

Youre confusing and conflagrating a couple of issues here. The Declaration of Independence, is just that. A declaration by a small group of elite rebels wanting to force Brittains hand.its not in any way a legal document. The US Constitution on the other hand IS a legally binding document. Thr declaration , while important as a documemt, is not whst sepersted us from British rule. That document would be the 1783 Treaty of Paris that you are implying you would want to nullify. Its the sctual legslly binding document recognized by internstional law that in effect created the United States as a seperste entity. And homestly, if you want to discuss tge precursor to the US Comstitution you only have to loo, as far back as the Articles of Comfederation. Sure they were based in part in English Common law with a smidgen of Iroquois style democracy thrown in but it was in fact the document that set up tge basis for the Comstitution, not the Declaration.


Hmm, who says it is not legal? The British sure didn't view it as legal and it created a legal precedence in this country. However the British viewed it, whether or not it was forcing the British hand, the point is that it was recognized by the Founding Fathers, otherwise they would not have had the representatives from the colonies sign it. One could say it is like a bill, one that got pushed through the House and the Senate by majority vote.

Whether you view it as a law or not, it was still signed the same way bills are today.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

Please understand, there are really millions of non-theists and anti-theists and atheists who love this country so much they stand up for the rights of religious people, yes? No?


That all depemds on what specifically you refer to and think are the "rights of religious people" in this country.




Changing laws with the ACLU is not for the benefit of all society, only a portion of society that doesn't want religion. The AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION is not recognizing the civil liberties of all Americans.


Which court cases are you specifically referring to? Do you give as much support to non-theists as you do to say, Jehovahs Witnesses who used the Supreme Court to protect their "right" to proselytize door to door and oush their faith on those who dont want it? A central tenet of most variations of Abrahamic monotheism is in fact proselytizationin an attempt to bring more into their fold.


Are you therefore defending the right for my freedom speech to make an absurd post?


I would, whether i agree with it or not. But at the same time if ome disagrees with it they have every right to speak out against it. It all falls under free speech. The quoted statement below is one you made a few posts prior to this. Based on the comtext of it as well as your other posts, it see,s youre emtirely comcerned with protecting the rights of religious mi ded people while marginalizing agnostics amd atheists unless they let you do whatever you want. How are you not complaining by proposing thst people who you disagree with be "allowed to leave tge country" if they don't like religiois individuals. Its extraordinarily hypocritical that you want to prioritize your own inclinations while marginalizing thoseof others. Tge aimple fact that religious people in general and Christians in particular are by and large the vast majority of people would seem to indicate that they arent being subjected to the level of umbrage you try to imply. In fact, other thsn some isolated cases, its far more common in the US for religious people to be pushing their agendas on others.

What happens if you were able to remove all of the dissenting non religious minority from the country? Would you be satisfied? Or would you then focus on the next smallest group who dares to speak out against how you feel you should be able to live? Where does it actually stop? When only your own denomination is left? When everybody hust shuts up and goes alomg with hos you think it should be? It sounds not just uncomstitutional and hypocritical but selfish and childish.



But what is the most absurd? Complaining all day about something ridiculous because you don't like it. They don't like religion, then so be it, at least defend the rights of others to express it and be happy for them.


Just like youre defending their right huh?



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

No, it was t signed in the same way bills are today. It was dome in secret and only known to a very select minority who chose to speak for tge vast majority. Many of whom did not agree with leaving the fold of Brittain.

Its not really a matter of how i view it, law or not. The british didnt view it as a legal precedent. No foreign power saw it as a legal precedent or document. They saw it as an act of rebellion. The legal act that seperated us from brittain was the treaty of paris. Its not a wuestion of semantics. Its reality.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: WarminIndy

No, it was t signed in the same way bills are today. It was dome in secret and only known to a very select minority who chose to speak for tge vast majority. Many of whom did not agree with leaving the fold of Brittain.

Its not really a matter of how i view it, law or not. The british didnt view it as a legal precedent. No foreign power saw it as a legal precedent or document. They saw it as an act of rebellion. The legal act that seperated us from brittain was the treaty of paris. Its not a wuestion of semantics. Its reality.


However the British viewed it matters little now. The point is, it was signed by representatives from the colonies. It is how we view it, and if we view it as nothing, then we really are still part of the British Empire.

Even if you invoke the Treaty of Paris, the religious tome is included

Preamble. Declares the treaty to be "in the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity", states the bona fides of the signatories, and declares the intention of both parties to "forget all past misunderstandings and differences" and "secure to both perpetual peace and harmony".


Either Declaration or Treaty of Paris, religion was fundamental to the ideals and since Trinity is mentioned, then the Treaty of Paris would be a Christian document.

So, do away with the Treaty of Paris, then do away with Christianity, because the Founding Fathers invoked the Christian ideal.



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy
Contrary to popular belief. I truly have no desire to kick the religious out of this country, or any other. My only real beef with the Abrahamic faiths is their agressiveness and elitism. And they are both. There's no denying it.

Though I know not all xtians, muslims, and jews are that way, but I'm talking about the religions as a whole. All three are "god's chosen people" in their own estimation. That's fine with me. Be god's chosen. Just don't proselytize the rest of us, and threaten us with your god's wrath for making our own choice NOT to be in the clique. If shaking the dust off your feet makes you feel better. Then do it. But I don't need to hear about it.

The xtian "great commission", has been, and is, nothing but a great assault on the free will, and freedoms of people around the world for the past 2000 years. One's faith is a personal matter. Why can't it be kept that way?

Sorry to ramble on, but I feel you need to understand, I truly have no desire to rid the world of xtians, or any other faith. However crass I can be at times, I would stand shoulder to shoulder with you to defend your right to believe in the xtian god, and the bible. But I will also fight you tooth and nail if you try to take away my right not to.


edit on 1/19/2015 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: WarminIndy
Contrary to popular belief. I truly have no desire to kick the religious out of this country, or any other. My only real beef with the Abrahamic faiths is their agressiveness and elitism. And they are both. There's no denying it.

Though I know not all xtians, muslims, and jews are that way, but I'm talking about the religions as a whole. All three are "god's chosen people" in their own estimation. That's fine with me. Be god's chosen. Just don't proselytize the rest of us, and threaten us with your god's wrath for making our own choice NOT to be in the clique. If shaking the dust off your feet makes you feel better. Then do it. But I don't need to hear about it.

The xtian "great commission", has been, and is, nothing but a great assault on the free will, and freedoms of people around the world for the past 2000 years. One's faith is a personal matter. Why can't it be kept that way?

Sorry to ramble on, but I feel you need to understand, I truly have no desire to rid the world of xtians, or any other faith. However crass I can be at times, I would stand shoulder to shoulder with you to defend your right to believe in the xtian god, and the bible. But I will also fight you tooth and nail if you try to take away my right not to.



Well said. There is an inherent battle between theocracy and democracy. They can not coexist peacefully. To the degree that religious people do not attempt to force their beliefs on others, including me, I defend their right to those beliefs. The minute they start to force those beliefs on me, they can expect resistance. The problem is that a significant segment of the followers of the three Abrahamic religions feel that they are God-ordained to force their beliefs on others and are intent on doing so. They must be dissuaded of this notion.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join