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.

 

Do I have freedom FROM religion?

page: 11
36
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Freedom of religion. What if my church wants to marry gays?


lol the government is pissing on our leg and calling it rain...




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by WhoKnows100
 


And Here at ATS,, You Only had to wait for 17 posts before you were pointed in the ''Right"" Direction.

If America were really as FREE as we pretend sometimes,,

Gays would be able to marry,,
it was Religious bigotry that stopped that,, nothing more,,

The Vatican will scream that their Religious Beliefs are being ignored about the Abortion issue,,
but Gay Men and Women can not do as they wish,,
ONLY BECAUSE OF ANOTHER PERSONS RELIGIOUS VIEWS

sounds fair to me


I would say Christian Nation,,, since they have all the players in congress and the senate pinned down



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by lucid eyes
On the contrary. Religion was introduced to liberate humans from violent and barbaric conditions of pre-religious times.


Really? How so?



Because the Gods of the old were barbaric themselves. No matter where you look in the world you will find these "Gods" demanding things such as sacrificing children and other atrocious behavior too sick to mention.


You mean like Abraham sacrificing his son? Atrocious behavior like the crusades or the inquisition? Burning women and children at the stake?
edit on 27-5-2012 by Jagermeister because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   

edit on 27-5-2012 by lucid eyes because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by lucid eyes

Originally posted by jiggerj

WHAT??? If these pilots were not of the muslim faith they wouldn't have done it. If they weren't brainwashed into believing in a dangerous fantasy they wouldn't have done it. Oh, I just love how the religious can bend everything into pure insanity and then call everyone else insane. What a joke.


And what about the many BILLIONS of muslims that dont engage in terrorist acts?

It doesnt matter what they were...they would have done it if they were Hindus, Atheists or anything other. Atrocities have been committed by any and every particular group.

You practice guilt-by-association because you are unable to tell the difference between things. You connect dots and assign false "causes". My kids do this. The villain was a post office clerk so post office clerks must be bad.


The post office doesn't brainwash anyone into killing all the infidels. Your argument is...I can't come up with anything less than insane.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Ask an atheist pilot to crash a plane into a building (sacrificing his life) because he will be rewarded in heaven. Yeah, that'll happen. So NOOOOO, they wouldn't have done it without a belief in their religion.


Ask an atheist-soviet politician to kill off the intellgensia of a European country because he will be rewarded in utopia.


You are branding BILLIONS of people for the bad acts of a few. And you call ME insane?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel

reply to post by ownbestenemy
 

Thought you might find it fun that Richard Dawkins actually was for Bibles being sent to schools in England, with their taxpayer money. Here:

Rapprochement would seem to be in the air – until Dawkins's thesis is studied more closely. While Gove believes the Bible is a guide to morality, Dawkins is sure it is not. "I have heard the cynically misanthropic opinion that without the Bible as a moral compass people would show no restraint against murder, theft and mayhem. The surest way to disabuse yourself of this pernicious falsehood is to read the Bible itself," he says.
See, I could live with this. At leas then, people have a public chance to be educated in it and make a decision for themselves. Got a coworker that was raised in a church, and is quite firmly an Atheist. (He shuts down when you look like you are pushing him TO religion, but has no problem talking about religion when it doesn't sound like a bunch of "you ought to".) So, having people taught things that they don't agree with doesn't change much of anything.


Need to check page 7+8, reminder to self. Off to church!



Dawkins was right here,, at least for me,,
I was fortunate enough to have a class in high school called THE BIBLE AS LITERATURE and it was extremely influientual in my thinking later on.

Read it like a book,, and the Characters show themselves as they really are,,,



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I see the thread has gone off the deep end (big surprise) but it's a very interesting question and it got me thinking.

There are a few ways the question could be interpreted. Do I have freedom from hearing about religion? No. Religion is part of people's life and we have no more freedom from it than religious people have "Freedom from atheism".

And, as we have seen recently with all the birth control and abortion hubbub, there is no escaping religion in government. At least not yet. Teachers are still leading prayers, and teaching about Creation, their god's name is on our currency and in many states' constitutions, etc. Our leaders argue over religion and religious practice in law. I can't help but think the founding fathers are rolling in their graves...


So, if the question is "Do we have the freedom from religion that our founding fathers intended us to have?", my answer would be no.

Can I avoid it? Pretty much. I don't have to send my kids to public school. Money is just a piece of paper, no more "meaningful" than any paper, except that I use it to get what I want. It does the same job, regardless what's printed on it. I don't have to go to church or participate in any of their rituals. And birth control and abortion are something I have no need for. And I'm not gay. So, yes, religion is all around me, and even in our laws, but I personally don't have to be involved, thankfully. Just lucky, I guess.


Originally posted by SaturnFX
Can I go to public places and not have my children or I indoctrinated into any form?


No matter WHERE you go in public, people are going to be expressing themselves in various ways. If they freely choose to express themselves using religion, it's their freedom. You have the freedom to leave, ignore them, or listen and disregard. Or be indoctrinated by it. It's just their opinion.

You don't have to use public schools (I wouldn't use them if you paid me), recite the words someone put together to pledge your loyalty to your country (what a stupid thing to do, IMO) or read the words on the money. I don't read all the other crap on the coins and bills. In this day and age, you don't even have to USE cash.



If yes, then why are some wanting to have teacher lead prayers back in school, under god in the pledge, or in god we trust stamped on the money?


Religious people generally don't want freedom from religion!
Where did you get that idea? Religious people want us to be submerged in religion from our schools to our government. They can deny that all they want, but anyone who wants to make laws based on their personal religious beliefs wants religion IN government.


So, my answer is that I, personally, am free from religion, because I choose to be. I have "freedom from religion" because it impacts my life in NO way. But as a country, the answer is a resounding NO! It's insane to even hint that the USA has freedom from religion. And, if my observations and predictions are correct, it's going to get worse.
Oh, joy!

.
edit on 5/27/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jagermeister
You mean like Abraham sacrificing his son? Atrocious behavior like the crusades or the inquisition? Burning women and children at the stake?
edit on 27-5-2012 by Jagermeister because: (no reason given)


Those were remnants of the old ways. As you can see, today they have been overcome, largely thanks to moral codes inherent within Religion.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by lucid eyes

Originally posted by Jagermeister
You mean like Abraham sacrificing his son? Atrocious behavior like the crusades or the inquisition? Burning women and children at the stake?
edit on 27-5-2012 by Jagermeister because: (no reason given)


Those were remnants of the old ways. As you can see, today they have been overcome, largely thanks to moral codes inherent within Religion.


You have got to be joking... that's your explanation? We have been so overcome by a higher moral standard that these priests just can't keep their hands off those little boys can they?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
I should point out here that there is a difference between "God" and "Allah". "Allah" is a name, comparable to "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" in Christianity; "God" is a title.

Therefore, "In God We Trust" is not a direct reflection of Christianity any more than saying one lives next door to a CEO is the same as saying they live next door to Bill Gates. "In Allah We Trust", "In Jehovah We Trust", "In Ra We Trust" are all endorsements of specific religions; "In God We Trust" is a general statement of faith in something/someone greater than the government... an absolutely vital concept if one wishes to maintain inalienable rights.

The fact this has to be clarified indicates the lack of indoctrination into specific religions in this country. Anyone with more than a passing knowledge of Christianity, Islam, or Judaism would be well aware of this difference. In a truly theocratic society (which appears to be the concern here), such arguments ignoring the difference between name and title would be considered heresy.

 

reply to post by CynicalDrivel

Menorah. It's a religious tradition from the Maccabeean era. Basically, during a battle (likely with the Greeks), they didn't have enough oil to last the needed time...and it lasted for a week. Something like that.

Thank you! That was the word I was looking for. Menorah.


TheRedneck



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
You have the freedom to worship as you want, but not create a harmful means to enforce one's ideals.

You may believe as you want, without that directly influencing others in their life, then you're a cult leader.

You may want to abstain from any of such activities, being as you will be called a heretic, Moral of the story, do what you want, you have freedom to believe what you want and be made fun of it as you do it.

People will find something wrong with everything, it's human nature to think you have the hot stuff.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Allah literally translate to "the God".

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jagermeister

You have got to be joking... that's your explanation? We have been so overcome by a higher moral standard that these priests just can't keep their hands off those little boys can they?


Same fallacy that has been running for the last few pages and runs in every thread like this. The acts of single humans or a small part of a group does not "prove" the intentions and quality of the group.

You have to look at the overall effects and results of any particular group on society. If there are 1% bad apples in any particular Religion but 99% good apples, then the Religion is a force of good.

Picking bad cherries and using them as examples of what a group is about is just fallacious.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I should point out here that there is a difference between "God" and "Allah". "Allah" is a name, comparable to "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" in Christianity; "God" is a title.




Maybe, but maybe not. My understanding is that "Allah" translates as "God", its just another language.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
, they didn't act in the name of atheism, but the point is that even people with a lack of belief in God are capable of committing atrocities.


You nailed it.
Insane people are going to do insane things. It's not that atrocities happen, it's removing one less motive by shutting down religion.

Even in the reverse, if we all followed non-violent religious beliefs then Stalin, Hitler and all the other lunatics would have been tolerated and forgiven. Atheism would've put a bullet in their heads much sooner.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

You nailed it.
Insane people are going to do insane things. It's not that atrocities happen, it's removing one less motive by shutting down religion.



"Shutting down religion" is not going to get rid of psychopaths. You are still equating one unrelated thing to another. If you shut down religion you`ll have psychopaths use something else.

The naive belief that "shutting down" entire groups of people will solve the problem is called totalitarianism.


edit on 27-5-2012 by lucid eyes because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by lucid eyes

Originally posted by jiggerj

Ask an atheist pilot to crash a plane into a building (sacrificing his life) because he will be rewarded in heaven. Yeah, that'll happen. So NOOOOO, they wouldn't have done it without a belief in their religion.


Ask an atheist-soviet politician to kill off the intellgensia of a European country because he will be rewarded in utopia.


You are branding BILLIONS of people for the bad acts of a few. And you call ME insane?


I'm not branding people. I'm branding religion as false, dangerous, childish, illogical, irrational, foolish, and a motive for insane people to do insane things.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by lucid eyes

Originally posted by Jagermeister

You have got to be joking... that's your explanation? We have been so overcome by a higher moral standard that these priests just can't keep their hands off those little boys can they?


Same fallacy that has been running for the last few pages and runs in every thread like this. The acts of single humans or a small part of a group does not "prove" the intentions and quality of the group.

You have to look at the overall effects and results of any particular group on society. If there are 1% bad apples in any particular Religion but 99% good apples, then the Religion is a force of good.

Picking bad cherries and using them as examples of what a group is about is just fallacious.


So quoting Jesus as he states:

Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied…. But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.

Would mean the Pope living in a palace is a contradiction? Not a good example of how religion is inherently good to be sure. Most churches choosing to be exempt from taxation while their flock struggle to keep the lights on? Is this the higher standard you speak of?
edit on 27-5-2012 by Jagermeister because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
removing one less motive by shutting down religion.


All those totalitarian genocidal nutjobs of the 20th Century said that if we "shut down religion, we will live in an utopia". What happened? Psychopaths came from elsewhere, especially from Atheism itself. In fact, the mere idea of "shutting down a group of people" is the root of the whole problem. Why not just respect other views than your own?



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join