Do I have freedom FROM religion?

Originally posted by jiggerj

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.

...I dunno, have you been to the post office lately?

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

10 or 20 years from now when Islam is the religion of the majority instead of Christianity, do you want the government putting "In Allah We Trust" on the money? Would you feel offended, as a Christian? I bet you would.

As previously mentioned I consider people who are offended at mere words, especially harmless or positive words, mentally ill. So no, I wouldn't be offended by the word "God" (or "Allah" if its translated to another language).

Hmm.. I máy be the contrarian here, but having this "in god we trust" -thing on money, and in pledges, don't mean Anything to me. So, it doesn't bother me.

Iwas raised a Dutch Protestant, but even as a kid, this whole "prayer before school" was, as far as I was concerned, completely irrelevant, again, it meant nóthing whatsoever to me, and didn't bother me. I just considered it a bit of a curious tradition on the part of our teachers, and a nice bit of silence before the lessons.

As long as "a" religion does not force me to do or say something that "feels" wrong, or unfair, I don't mind the quirky-ness and contradictory statements that permeate ALL religions, or even "schools of thought"

Street preachers? Crazy bible-thumpers? I just shrug an go on with what I am doing. If they feel better doing it, and are not in any way violently forcing their convictions upon me, i do not care, i júst do NOT care.

JW's? I 'll just look at them, and then friendly request they leave my property. They always do. (it might be the sawn-off 12-gauge I push up their nostrils, though... I am kidding....)

"freedom" to mé is also having the courtesy to let other people express their opinions, convictions and delusions, however far-fetched some of them are....

My courteousness, however, stóps the moment they try to fórce ideas upon me by violence or threat, (and, yes, hellfire&brimstone is a threat) there stíll is this nice law about "feeling threatened" and lawful action.....

reply to post by PurpleChiten


How dare you say one persons crazy beliefes are any more crazy then yours,This is exactly what Mr Hitchens ment by religon makes good people say and do bad things

Originally posted by Jagermeister

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by lucid eyes

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
In God We Trust wasn't put on our money until 1956, did you realize that? It wasn't on there from the very beginning, it's only been on there for the past 56 years. Now, I trust in God and it gives me some comfort in seeing it on there, but the guy standing next to me may not even believe in God. That's an example of the Government forcing religion onto him.

You'd have to be oversensitive to the point of emotional illness to feel offended or "forced upon" by mere words, such as "in God we trust". Thats the whole problem with your side of the table. You believe that mere thoughts and words voiced by someone else imposes on you or that you are "forced" to Religion by others words. Thats why your attitude would ultimately end in thought-police / totalitarianism. Wait...it already has in some countries.

You're not getting it sweetie. If it's done by a private party, fine. If it's done by the Government, NOT fine.
10 or 20 years from now when Islam is the religion of the majority instead of Christianity, do you want the government putting "In Allah We Trust" on the money? Would you feel offended, as a Christian? I bet you would. I don't want that on our money, I don't want the Koran read from every morning at schools, I don't it posted in our courthouses and unless I'm willing to demand a separation of church and state when I'm in the majority, I'll have no right to do it when I'm in the minority.
NO RELIGION from the government. PERIOD. Free religion to all citizens. I'm not going to have my Christian beliefs infringed upon by the government in 10 years just because the majority of the population is no longer Christian. Understand?

Oddly enough, it's okay to do all the things you've listed as long as it's Christian based and then, in the very same sentence, type in all caps "NO RELIGION from the government". Interesting that it is okay to infringe on another's belief as long as your belief is currently more popular.

That's just it, it's NOT okay to do all the things I listed because it's Christian based and it's not okay to do them if it's another religion. That's exactly what I'm saying. It's not ok for the government to endorse any religion, even mine. If I don't stand up and say "Government, don't force MY religion onto others" while I'm in the majority, I have no right to do it when I'm in the minority. It's Christians themselves who should be standing up and telling the government to not endorce or deny any religion, including their own. Otherwise, at some point, it's going to be a different religion they are endorcing and those who are Chrsitian are not going to like it.

reply to post by Jagermeister


Something I just thought about, who's to say that the founding father's even saw God as specifically the Christian God of the Bible, why is the word God even immediately have to be Christian, if a Christian is a fundamentalist Christian than that would mean that their God is the God of Christ and if you don't believe that your not a Christian, nowhere in any Government documentation does it mention anything about specifics of the Bible. Just the word God.

Once again we have the Atheists crying about the word God, and we have some religious people overtly pressing their belief's through use of the Government's strong arm which in all honesty, who can say that they really are doing anything that's in peoples interests other than satisfying whatever group has the greatest amount of political social following, whether it be religious or scientific. Lets take an objective look here and ponder about the possibility that maybe groups and people within the government are working towards a one world religion government, fractionalizing the fundamentalist churches, and supporting those who are willing to lean in whatever direction is acceptable as a whole.

Originally posted by lucid eyes

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

10 or 20 years from now when Islam is the religion of the majority instead of Christianity, do you want the government putting "In Allah We Trust" on the money? Would you feel offended, as a Christian? I bet you would.

As previously mentioned I consider people who are offended at mere words, especially harmless or positive words, mentally ill. So no, I wouldn't be offended by the word "God" (or "Allah" if its translated to another language).

Fine, 10 years from now, get back to me and let me know how you're enjoying it.

Originally posted by NoGod
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

How dare you say one persons crazy beliefes are any more crazy then yours,This is exactly what Mr Hitchens ment by religon makes good people say and do bad things

I didn't say anything of the sort. Are you not comprehending what you are reading or what???

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by Jagermeister

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by lucid eyes

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
In God We Trust wasn't put on our money until 1956, did you realize that? It wasn't on there from the very beginning, it's only been on there for the past 56 years. Now, I trust in God and it gives me some comfort in seeing it on there, but the guy standing next to me may not even believe in God. That's an example of the Government forcing religion onto him.

You'd have to be oversensitive to the point of emotional illness to feel offended or "forced upon" by mere words, such as "in God we trust". Thats the whole problem with your side of the table. You believe that mere thoughts and words voiced by someone else imposes on you or that you are "forced" to Religion by others words. Thats why your attitude would ultimately end in thought-police / totalitarianism. Wait...it already has in some countries.

You're not getting it sweetie. If it's done by a private party, fine. If it's done by the Government, NOT fine.
10 or 20 years from now when Islam is the religion of the majority instead of Christianity, do you want the government putting "In Allah We Trust" on the money? Would you feel offended, as a Christian? I bet you would. I don't want that on our money, I don't want the Koran read from every morning at schools, I don't it posted in our courthouses and unless I'm willing to demand a separation of church and state when I'm in the majority, I'll have no right to do it when I'm in the minority.
NO RELIGION from the government. PERIOD. Free religion to all citizens. I'm not going to have my Christian beliefs infringed upon by the government in 10 years just because the majority of the population is no longer Christian. Understand?

Oddly enough, it's okay to do all the things you've listed as long as it's Christian based and then, in the very same sentence, type in all caps "NO RELIGION from the government". Interesting that it is okay to infringe on another's belief as long as your belief is currently more popular.

That's just it, it's NOT okay to do all the things I listed because it's Christian based and it's not okay to do them if it's another religion. That's exactly what I'm saying. It's not ok for the government to endorse any religion, even mine. If I don't stand up and say "Government, don't force MY religion onto others" while I'm in the majority, I have no right to do it when I'm in the minority. It's Christians themselves who should be standing up and telling the government to not endorce or deny any religion, including their own. Otherwise, at some point, it's going to be a different religion they are endorcing and those who are Chrsitian are not going to like it.

Thank you for making your 1000th post dedicated to me, now I feel special !

The question is, where is Government endorsing religion? The money is printed by a private bank. The schools you mention are funded by tax dollars through the people. Now I can agree with the court houses and the like, but private corporations or people do have a 1st ammendment right to freedom of speech regardless of which religion they choose to support.

Originally posted by EnigmaticDill
reply to post by Jagermeister

 

Something I just thought about, who's to say that the founding father's even saw God as specifically the Christian God of the Bible, why is the word God even immediately have to be Christian, if a Christian is a fundamentalist Christian than that would mean that their God is the God of Christ and if you don't believe that your not a Christian, nowhere in any Government documentation does it mention anything about specifics of the Bible. Just the word God.

Once again we have the Atheists crying about the word God, and we have some religious people overtly pressing their belief's through use of the Government's strong arm which in all honesty, who can say that they really are doing anything that's in peoples interests other than satisfying whatever group has the greatest amount of political social following, whether it be religious or scientific. Lets take an objective look here and ponder about the possibility that maybe groups and people within the government are working towards a one world religion government, fractionalizing the fundamentalist churches, and supporting those who are willing to lean in whatever direction is acceptable as a whole.

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

In God We Trust wasn't put on money until 1956

Originally posted by Jagermeister

Thank you for making your 1000th post dedicated to me, now I feel special

!

The question is, where is Government endorsing religion? The money is printed by a private bank. The schools you mention are funded by tax dollars through the people. Now I can agree with the court houses and the like, but private corporations or people do have a 1st ammendment right to freedom of speech regardless of which religion they choose to support.

You're welcome, I figured you needed something positive in your life.

.... Do you not have a concept of what a government is???

Hey, did you know that the signiture of the secretary of the treasury is found on the paper money? Amazing huh?

Originally posted by EnigmaticDill
reply to post by Jagermeister

 

Something I just thought about, who's to say that the founding father's even saw God as specifically the Christian God of the Bible, why is the word God even immediately have to be Christian, if a Christian is a fundamentalist Christian than that would mean that their God is the God of Christ and if you don't believe that your not a Christian, nowhere in any Government documentation does it mention anything about specifics of the Bible. Just the word God.

Once again we have the Atheists crying about the word God, and we have some religious people overtly pressing their belief's through use of the Government's strong arm which in all honesty, who can say that they really are doing anything that's in peoples interests other than satisfying whatever group has the greatest amount of political social following, whether it be religious or scientific. Lets take an objective look here and ponder about the possibility that maybe groups and people within the government are working towards a one world religion government, fractionalizing the fundamentalist churches, and supporting those who are willing to lean in whatever direction is acceptable as a whole.

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

The founders believed in God. It didn't matter which religion you followed. This is also a requirement to join the masons to this day. You have to believe in God. Does not matter which religion (if any) you belong to. And that's the real point here, you don't need to follow a religion to worship God - there can be a seperation between God and religion. With that said, it states right in the Bible that a one world government is the goal. In the end after Satan is banished man will walk with God in his Kingdom on Earth.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


Thats your whole point though is that the Government is intimately entwined with Christian theology. If you do any research into what the higher up people really believe, the ones that are making these kind of decisions are far from what most people would agree is God.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by Jagermeister

Thank you for making your 1000th post dedicated to me, now I feel special

!

The question is, where is Government endorsing religion? The money is printed by a private bank. The schools you mention are funded by tax dollars through the people. Now I can agree with the court houses and the like, but private corporations or people do have a 1st ammendment right to freedom of speech regardless of which religion they choose to support.

You're welcome, I figured you needed something positive in your life.

.... Do you not have a concept of what a government is???

Hey, did you know that the signiture of the secretary of the treasury is found on the paper money? Amazing huh?

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

It's even more amazing that the Government refuses to admit that the Federal Reserve is about as Federal as Federal Express. Government... my definition would be the biggest threat humanity has ever or will ever face. I mean, considering that the leading cause of death in the past 2000 years is Government, I would think that to be accurate.

You absolutely do not have freedom from religion. Your taxes subsidize the tax-exempt status of some religions. I say "some" because, contrary to the first amendment, the government chooses to grant tax-exemption to religions they deem to be legitimate. Either all are, or none are. The government cannot, by law, make the distinction between 'legitimate' religions. However, this happens every day. There is no reasonable argument that any one religion has more validity than the next.

Tax-exemption is granted to many non-profit organizations and charities. The difference is that religions are not held accountable in the same way as secular charities etc. They get special accommodation in their reporting (i.e. they don't have to report anywhere close to the detail that secular non-profits are required to provide, and are not audited). Fair? Shouldn't the religions be held to the same standards as other non-profit organizations?

Once tax-exemption is removed from religions, we will have a playing field that is a little more level.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


I comprehend your hate speech well its nothing new the same thing hittler said in the 30s and every other crazy man has said befor you.Your pouting about your poor beliefe that islam is any worse then christanity.Your finger pointing and lack of facts will not alow you to win this conversation so please go back to church and try to be a little more accepting of others religon have a swell day

Originally posted by NoGod
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

I comprehend your hate speech well its nothing new the same thing hittler said in the 30s and every other crazy man has said befor you.Your pouting about your poor beliefe that islam is any worse then christanity.Your finger pointing and lack of facts will not alow you to win this conversation so please go back to church and try to be a little more accepting of others religon have a swell day

Comparing other posters to Hitler never helps anyone to make a valid point. Ad-hom arguments are not acceptable.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Jagermeister

I can sit there in your class room and listen to you educate and ask you a question on the material and that would be acceptable, yet if I did the same when it comes to religion I'm labeled as an athiest, insane, or worse. In math, the educator could be wrong. In religion, the preacher is always right. See the difference?

No, I do not. The reason I do not is because you attribute only the best of human nature to one and only the worst of human nature to the other.

Have you never been in a classroom where the instructor did not like to answer questions and would not adequately explain concepts? I have, and no one learned anything. Preachers can be the same way. It has nothing to do with religion versus classrooms, because both are run by fallible humans.

Ignoring the semantic differences which have come to be seen to exist between "religion" and "faith", religion is a search for truth beyond what physics can accomplish. Physics deals with the repeatable, predictable, observable phenomena in our world. Religion deals with the eventful, the unknown, and the unseen principles that lie behind physics. There is no contradiction between true religion and true physics; there cannot be. If there is a contradiction, then one or both is inaccurate.

The biggest problem in learning about a religion is that a great deal of it lies in an overall understanding of some very basic tenets. Math, to continue the example, can be taught in small portions, each one building upon the last: calculus is a derived work from derivatives, which are derived from limits, which are derived from algebra. To understand a religious viewpoint, however, requires a much braoder knowledge base before the first lesson can be properly assimilated.

Religion can be seen as understanding the mind of God. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to understand the mind of another human, much less the mind of a god. Yet, because a task is impossible it does not follow it should not be pursued. It merely means we will have a much greater task to fulfill. Knowledge will still be the end result.

The logical fallacy of the "2000-year-old book" is this: in every discipline, you will come across fallible humans in positions of authority who are less than capable and cover that ineptitude with forcefulness. Attributing that attitude to all who read the book is to say that because your car broke down in reverse yesterday, all cars will break down if put into reverse.

The correct way to learn is to read... question... read again... experiment... read again... consider... and then read again. That is how one learns math. But when it comes to religion, the apparently acceptable way for most is read a little... listen to someone... find something that looks like an error... discount everything.

There are plenty of people who are ready and willing to teach if you have a desire to learn... myself included. Like me, however, they will not force feed it to you. Those who do the force-feeding are the ones you should not be listening to, because they have stopped learning.

Unfortunately, those are the ones most listen to, just before talking down about a 2000-year-old book they have no clue about.

TheRedneck

I comprehend your hate speech well its nothing new the same thing hittler said in the 30s and every other crazy man has said befor you.Your pouting about your poor beliefe that islam is any worse then christanity.Your finger pointing and lack of facts will not alow you to win this conversation so please go back to church and try to be a little more accepting of others religon have a swell day

reply to post by LeSigh


You calling Christopher Hitchens a hero/object of worship of yours makes him look a bit like an idiot based on your responses.
Be careful how you post. People will hold you accountable to the things you claim to represent.
I know that from personal experience.