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.

 

Freedom of religion: a bad idea?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Is freedom of religion really such a great idea? If each different sect believes that its church has the truth, how can a few thousand such cults live together in peace without having to compromise their beliefs?

Here's an interesting take on the whole freedom of religion issue; This guy says that there is NO natural right to the freedom of religion.


Tyranny Over Religion

The First Amendment does not impose a universal right to religious freedom within the United States but only forbids the Congress (and by implication the President and the Courts if they pretend to be legislators) to interfere in the exercise of religion or set up a national church. We have a national church–that goes without saying–in the education establishment, but that is another question.

Any conservative, that is any soft-leftist, who knows anything about the Constitution will agree with this first point, though they may be under the delusion that the 14th Amendment has something to say about religion, but where they are sure to be enraged is with my second point, which is this: There is not only no natural or rational or god-given right to religious freedom, but, what is more, the whole idea is entirely bogus. Freedom of religion is nothing other than a weapon, forged by the Enlightenment Left, in their unremitting campaign to extirpate Christianity.

Religious freedom is a gift of a society or commonwealth, not a natural right. This is partly because religion is not faith–what one believes or feels–but an organized public action. Thus the public or republic has the right and duty to protect itself from alien or malignant cults. In a diverse Christian society, naturally, the various churches have had to learn to tolerate each other, though in practice toleration is generally a sign of indifference. Church becomes that thing you do or don’t do on one day a week. It is like the beautiful jewel you take out of the box every once in a while to admire and feel good about yourself for owning. But religion is more like a wedding ring, a visible symbol of an enduring commitment.

The painful truth is that serious Catholics and serious Calvinists cannot live together without sacrificing a good deal of their religion. Christians can only co-exist with Jews on a basis of toleration, that is, the Christian majority agrees to put up with an alien religion so long as the adherents behave themselves. But Satanists? Muslims? The idea of Christians according religious freedom to Muslims who define themselves in part by their hatred of Christianity and who have oppressed Christians whenever they have had the power to do so, is preposterous. It is worse than preposterous, because the point of the exercise is not to liberate Muslims but to enslave Christians.

Chronicles Magazine


I myself agree with the author; I don't believe that any country can last which does not recognize some type of objective standard for truth. By allowing all religions to exist on an equal footing, no matter how wacky, violent or offensive to others, the state is putting itself in the official position of saying that there is no such thing as truth.

Without some objective standard for what is the truth, where does the state claim to get its authority to rule over the people? From the will of the majority; Does this mean that the majority can outlaw the minority, I sure hope not. From the Constitution; pfft, that's been a dead letter since even before the Civil War.

The bottom line is that most all modern governments get the authority for their power at the point of a gun. They have destroyed the religious impulse in their societies to such a point that the internal controls on people's behavior (their conscience) has become so dulled, that only external controls are sufficient to control the masses.

Morality has become an antiquated notion and ethics in this day and age has devolved into the practice of doing what is legal. A people without fear of divine judgement have no reason to obey the rules if they think they can get away with it.

This is the modern reason the state feels the need to legislate every single aspect of their people's lives; they know that without religion and the treat of divine judgement, the people will do whatever they can get away with. The state must become the conscience of the people and must enforce its "moral laws" upon the people at the point of a gun in order to prevent total anarchy from breaking out.

Maybe the Federal government should get out of the business of enforcing its version of religious indifferentism on the people and should allow states and municipalities to recognize the truths that the majority of their citizens believe in. This was the original meaning of the 1st Amendment; that the Federal government had no business establishing a state religion, that right was left to the states and to the people.




edit on 9/9/10 by FortAnthem because: 'cause I made some mistakes alright.




posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Theocracies inevitably lead to tyranny, that's why freedom of religion is a good idea.
Why do you want the majority to impose their beliefs on the minority?


edit on 9-9-2010 by hippomchippo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 

Does that mean I just cannot label myself a LaVeyan Satanist and keep the Satanic Bible (what have they ever done to anybody, apart from making tangible pictures for the Christian anti-occult book industry)?
If I label myself a "fundamentalist Christian" and still indulge in fun, fun, fun - is OK then?
OK fine, I'm a good Christian (wink, wink). Now where's the tavern?

PS. The first people to get burnt and hanged when it comes to rooting out the pagans and heathens are the most pious Christians - the devil, after all disguises himself as an angel of light. The Bible says so.
So, be careful what Crucible you wish for.
Apart from that Protestanism has no central authority, so you'll have a hard time defining legitimate from illigitimate Christians.

I'm a good Christian, and so were all my celibate ancestors, now show me the way to the next Whisky bar.
Oh yes, remember to errect a stake for yourself.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


A country that recognises objective moral standards based upon the religious beliefs of its people is NOT a theocracy. In a theocracy, the clergy or a so-called Deity rules the people and makes the laws. In a society that recognizes the truth of its peoples beliefs, the government is guided by the moral beliefs of the majority of the people and the state looks out for the common good of its people in both their physical and spiritual needs by promoting the common faith and either tolerating other faiths or outright banning them if they are too offensive to what the people believe.

I would rather live a persecuted Catholic in an Anglican nation, having to hid my faith in the catacombs than live in the current world which recognises no truth. At least the Anglicans believe in the objective and moral truths of their religion and I know where they're coming from.



edit on 9/9/10 by FortAnthem because: typo




posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


A country that recognises objective moral standards based upon the religious beliefs of its people is NOT a theocracy. In a theocracy, the clergy of a so-called Deity rules the people and makes the laws. In a society that recognizes the truth of its peoples beliefs, the government is guided by the moral beliefs of the majority of the people and the state looks out for the common good of its people in both their physical and spiritual needs by promoting the common faith and either tolerating other faiths or outright banning them if they are too offensive to what the people believe.

I would rather live a persecuted Catholic in an Anglican nation, having to hid my faith in the catacombs than live in the current world which recognises no truth. At least the Anglicans believe in the objective and moral truths of their religion and I know where they're coming from.

So you need to fear God to live a life without doing bad things?
I would have thought you would have simply not liked to do bad things due to them hurting other people.
I feel bad for you.
I would rather live in a free nation where I can choose what things I believe than any Catholic or Islamic nation.
The reality is, you just want to impose your beliefs on others, that's the main goal here, as we all know countries that use Islamic or Christian law DONT have a squeaky clean record.


edit on 9-9-2010 by hippomchippo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by hippomchippo
So you need to fear God to live a life without doing bad things?
I would have thought you would have simply not liked to do bad things due to them hurting other people.
I feel bad for you.
I would rather live in a free nation where I can choose what things I believe than any Catholic or Islamic nation.



Without religion and the morality it teaches, how does one define what is bad or good? Many would resort to defining it as; "what's bad for me is BAD and whatever makes me happy is GOOD."

That's no basis for morality. There needs to be one central authority to tell us what is good or bad. Through religion, that moral law is imprinted on the hearts of the people and good believing people will follow their conscience to do what is right, not just for themselves but, also for the common good.

Without religion, only the state is left to define what is right or wrong and this is often done at the whim of the desires of the people or whatever lies the demagogues have been feeding the people through the MSM. The morality of the state is always enforced at the point of a gun.

To me, religion seems a much more benign form of control.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 

Well, "Satanism" needs to be clearly defined.
Some regard Catholicism as Satanic.
Isn't that why the Irish and Italians had such a tough time in WASP America? I was just reading on the Sacco and Vanzetti trial.
They have violent secret societies like the Mafia that are incompatible with most Protestant culture.
With their law of "omerta" it's hard to divide the guilty from the innocent, so, by your standards - chuck them all out!

They obviously cannot all behave by your standards as is PROVEN, and the Muslims already outnumber the Anglicans in the US and have absolute standards.
So, chuck out the Catholics.
(Only for the sake of your strange argument.)



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman

They obviously cannot all behave by your standards as is PROVEN, and the Muslims already outnumber the Anglicans in the US and have absolute standards.



If the Christians who founded this nation hadn't turned over their God-given right to recognise their beliefs through their laws to the Federal government, we would have been able to toss the Muslims out on their behinds for being incompatible with the spirit of this nation.

If we had done that, then they wouldn't have been in the country on 9-11 and the government would have had to frame some other group for the demolition of the WTC in order to trick us into invading the middle east for Israel.

Thanks to the Federally mandated religious indifferentism, we have to tolerate religions even if their professed aims are to cut all of our heathen throats in our sleep. (not sayin that's what Muslims believe,just making an extreme example)

All hail Freedom of (from) religion.

not.



edit on 9/9/10 by FortAnthem because: add stuff



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Originally posted by hippomchippo
So you need to fear God to live a life without doing bad things?
I would have thought you would have simply not liked to do bad things due to them hurting other people.
I feel bad for you.
I would rather live in a free nation where I can choose what things I believe than any Catholic or Islamic nation.



Without religion and the morality it teaches, how does one define what is bad or good? Many would resort to defining it as; "what's bad for me is BAD and whatever makes me happy is GOOD."

That's no basis for morality. There needs to be one central authority to tell us what is good or bad. Through religion, that moral law is imprinted on the hearts of the people and good believing people will follow their conscience to do what is right, not just for themselves but, also for the common good.

Without religion, only the state is left to define what is right or wrong and this is often done at the whim of the desires of the people or whatever lies the demagogues have been feeding the people through the MSM. The morality of the state is always enforced at the point of a gun.

To me, religion seems a much more benign form of control.

Morality arises from being a social being, not from God.
Therefore as society changes, as will our morality, as is shown throughout thousands of years.
There is an experiment where a monkey will hit a button to get a banana, but when doing this he will shock a monkey in another room, and the first monkey CHOSE to starve to not hurt his fellow monkey.
I find it funny you NEED an absolute morality simply because you think Christanity is obviously that moral law we should follow.
The morality of the state is enforced through law, and I think law works alot better than a magical man in the sky, but that's just me.


edit on 9-9-2010 by hippomchippo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Everyone is created with the ability to think for their selves.

We all have the natural right to believe whatever we choose to believe.

It doesn't matter what a government claims religion should be.

People will choose for their selves...

So why cast the stumblingblock before people that they will be punished for what they believe?

Laws should be here to keep SOME order. What a boring world if you crystallized society into a robotic, time-eating, pointlessly-living, train-on-tracks which must inevitably end.

Let people have their faith, for your sake.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Morality arises from being a social being, not from God.
There is an experiment where a monkey will hit a button to get a banana, but when doing this he will shock a monkey in another room, and the first monkey CHOSE to starve to not hurt his fellow monkey.
I find it funny you NEED an absolute morality simply because you think Christanity is obviously that moral law we should follow.
The morality of the state is enforced through law, and I think law works alot better than a magical man in the sky, but that's just me.


We ARE NOT MONKEYS.

And your statement is incorrect.

I was born and raised an incredibly unsocial being.

If my name being Tarzan isn't evidence of this being possible...

My morality has been the same for as long as I remember - I love you people, regardless of how much stupidity and harm y'all impress upon me.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   
My Truth is not your Truth.

Freedom of religion is a fundamental of all freedom.

Freedom to reject or accept what ever I deem sutiable for myself.

Freedom to don robes and scrible symbols in the dirt

or suck up to a genecidal father figure.

Screw the majority!

What ever group(s) your are freaking out about are already here, by the millions, with more on the way.

I hope I live long enough to see them all registered to vote.


magpie



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 

But aren't you saying in this post that the Muslims were framed, in order to create a reaction that would benefit Israel? So why then get rid of the Muslims if they were framed?

I don't think they were framed. There is that radical, extremist element. In SA we had the Cape Town Waterfront bombings long before 9/11. However, the law did react, and although extremists like that worry me, if I had my throat cut I think the chances are slim it will be a Muslim.

There's probably dooms-day groups and cults out there within Christianity and other religions that would do the same.

To me Mohammed Ali and Malcom X seem as American as Coca Cola, and honestly, the majority of good Muslim people have more to lose by this terror-cult than anyone. They are probably a first line of defense for law enforcement.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem


A people without fear of divine judgement have no reason to obey the rules if they think they can get away with it.




Its statements liked that, that raise a flag in the minds of atheists .

So presumable you are a theist , a Christian ?
Are you telling me that the only reason why you do not run amok i.e doing whatever you think you "can get away with it. " is the fear of divine judgement ? That to my mind , is a very dangerous train of thought .

So ......is there any statistical evidence of these atheists proclivity to not "obey the rules" ?. The prisons of the world must be filled with them .


Morals and ethics and basic empathy did not spring forth in humanity with the coming of Christianity .



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
Everyone is created with the ability to think for their selves.

We all have the natural right to believe whatever we choose to believe.

It doesn't matter what a government claims religion should be.

People will choose for their selves...

So why cast the stumbling-block before people that they will be punished for what they believe?



I see where your coming from but I think there's nothing wrong with the government recognizing that this is a Christian nation, founded upon Christian principles. Even if the state or local governments don't choose to recognise a SPECIFIC sect of Christianity as being the true one, at least that would give society some anchor on which to define what is true and what is not.

As for not punishing people for what they believe; don't you think its proper to punish a cult that believes in human or even animal sacrifice as part of their rituals? How about pedephilia; what if some "religious" group starts marrying off its members to minors? If a group partakes in something repulsive to society, it should not be able to claim religious exemption if what they believe in is in direct opposition to the mores of the society they live in.

The Mormon practice of polygamy was outlawed early in America's history. How can this not be construed as an expression of the nations Christian spirit? What is the basis for this prohibition today? Nothing, its only an activist judges ruling away from becoming legal, as is any other practice which is currently prohibited by law now.

Without SOME standard to stand on, the Federal government is free to pass ANY laws it wishes, so long as a bare majority agrees on it, or if enough of their so-called "representatives" can be bribed into voting in favor of it.

That's no way to run a country, no values, no hard and fast rules, just the absolute fiat of the state with no boundaries to tell it where to stop.

Explains how the health care reform bill was passed in contravention of the Constitution and the strong opposition of the people right?

A country needs a foundation on which to base its laws, the Constitution has proven to be a foundation of sand. Its time to think about going back to something that has a proven track record.




edit on 9/9/10 by FortAnthem because: fix stuff



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 

Exactly what known cult that practices human sacrifice hasn't been punished?
(Except for the Christian cult that sends out young men to be sacrificed for a lie by a so-called self-confessed Christian leader, and kill several thousand people due to "faulty intelligence"?)



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by UmbraSumus


So ......is there any statistical evidence of these atheists proclivity to not "obey the rules" ?. The prisons of the world must be filled with them .


That evidence is in the atheistic communist nations and their blatant disregard for the lives of the people they ruled. You complain about religions persecuting people, atheistic communist regimes have killed far more people in the name or idealogical purity than all the religions of the world ever have, and they did this in the course of only about 100 years.

Impressive feat.



Morals and ethics and basic empathy did not spring forth in humanity with the coming of Christianity .


No, morals and ethics did not spring up suddenly from the dirt when Christianity came on the scene, they were here for as long as men walked the Earth and for all of that time, men have believed in some higher power directing their fates (well, until recently, that is). It was their religious impulse that caused them to live according to the rules of morality, even when nobody was looking.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
And FortAnthem said;

"A country needs a foundation on which to base its laws, the Constitution has proven to be a foundation of sand.
Its time to think about going back to something that has a proven track record."

Proven track record?
Your not seriously speaking about the peoples of the Book(s)?

I'll take the sand! At least there is some agreement on what sand is made of.

I SUPPORT SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND HATE!

magpie



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by FortAnthem
 

Exactly what known cult that practices human sacrifice hasn't been punished?



None, yet.

But, if this nation continues along its path of religious indifference, it is possible to see some group claiming the right to do this in the future, especially if their followers volunteer to be sacrificed (it was considered a great honor in some old pre-christian religions to be sacrificed to the gods).

If a person volunteers to be sacrificed and the government doesn't recognise that there is a line that you cannot cross when it comes to religious observance, so long as all parties are willing, where does anyone have the right to say its wrong?

Its the old "what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom (or church) is their own business" argument. Just because both parties consented to something doesn't make it right, especially when one of those persons is in a position of authority (high priest) over the other.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by minefield magpie
 


I find it interesting how you stated that there:


I SUPPORT SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND HATE!


I like how you replaced the word "state" with "hate".

A Freudian slip?

Maybe its a recognition that the state is more likely to destroy its enemies for crossing its beliefs than Christian religions are. Christians who kill in the name of their religion are called "hypocrites", people who kill in the name of their state are called "patriots".




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join