Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Do I have freedom FROM religion?

page: 16
36
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen23
 





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


Gays can marry and there could be no one to stop them from doing so. Gays, apparently need more than just marriage, they need a license to be married, and a license is permission to do that which would otherwise be illegal. Getting married is not illegal and no one, not heterosexuals, not homosexuals, not transsexuals, none of them need any license to be married.




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Yep, my bad. I hit post before rereading it.
You know how sometimes you type something that makes sense to you as you type it, then realize it can be taken different ways when someone else points it out.
Of course, I wasn't even clued in on this until it was past post edit for clarification...(makes sense why people thought I was being a bit insane).

When I said public, I was meaning official public places, like statues of the 10 commandments on display at courthouses...not some preacher on the side of a road.

Had I known this thread would become so hyped up, I would have no doubt spent far more time making sure every word was calculated so there is no doubt as to what I was saying.

Anyhow, ya...I take responsibility for the miscommunication that is this thread in its entirety and will use it as a lesson for future posts on how I need to reread before posting in order to clearly state my point...else ya, people will (rightfully) get the wrong impression on the stance in general.


I tried to get it through to them, sorry I couldn't help more
...if you had posted it on a Monday instead, chances are, the reception would have been very different



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightTide

Originally posted by Firewater

Originally posted by MidnightTide


I also happen to notice these types of threads are always anti-Christian, why is that? There is another religion a great deal more dangerous then Christianity these days.
edit on 27-5-2012 by MidnightTide because: (no reason given)


Is it correct to assume that you don't live in the US of A?


So what is your point?


My point is that a country with a religious monopoly is far more dangerous than any small group of radicals can ever be. All laws passed and decisions made are made by a single ideology. America thrived when there where those who questioned authority. Our country was truly free and for the people. It provided a balance. Now, with all the power belonging to the Christian right, we are no longer free. Question authority at the risk of being silenced permanently. It's coming to a head and it's not gonna be pretty.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash


I totally get that you are being sarcastic so my reply here isn't really to you Xtro but instead to anyone else who doesn't get your sarcasm.

Everyone has the freedom to speak in public or display their symbolism. However, we do not have the freedom to prevent them from doing so in public. This is a repression of freedom rather than promoting it.

By preventing others from exercising their beliefs in public, this is tyranny because it requires a crack-down.

However at the same time, public (government funded) institutions are not Constitutionally allowed to exercise any particular religious belief unless they are willing to show counter beliefs equally and without bias. They break these rules all the time and get away with it but I digress, it isn't technically legal.


Where is it constitutionally that religion cannot be a part of Government? The vast majority of our forefathers were very religious, Gorge Washington was extremely religious, so I don't think they wanted zero religion in the Government. If we vote a religious person into office they have a right to put their hand on a Bible, Koran, 1958 copy of playboy or whatever and to say so help me god... they also can vote as they see fit and religion will affect their vote most likely in a big way.

I also do not see a problem with a public statue with lets say a forefather holding a bible....if the bible was what that forefather used.

When we look at the separation of church and state that concept came from England having a state church that our forefather saw as limiting religious freedom, and so an idea of "freedom from religion" in the form of an atheist state or one void of any religion was just not their intent.

My sarcastic point was that ALL of us are influenced by something that affects our morals, values and personal beliefs, and it doesn't matter if you are religious or not for we all are affected. Because of this the majority will create restrictions in the form of laws and public opinion that affect us all whether we agree with them or not.

For someone to say they want freedom from religion influences on their life might as well wish that they want freedom from ALL influences on their life and for that to happen they need to live alone on an island.



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



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


True, and thus should be a civil issue not religious in nature.

personally I would Never marry,, but others deserve the license if they want it.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen23
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


True, and thus should be a civil issue not religious in nature.

personally I would Never marry,, but others deserve the license if they want it.


It is a civil issue which is what the whole gay's getting married thing is about, getting a license to get married, and that wasn't a religious deal that was a government deal.

Long before there were licensing schemes to get married there were religions marrying people, and of course, pagans got married too, all without any license to do so.

No one needs a license to exercise a right.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Firewater

If you found a guy standing on the street corner giving away $100 bills, would you not tell those you care the most about so they could share in the bounty? It happens to me all the time... if I see a sale going on in town, I let my daughter and my mother know. If I see a wreck that has closed a road, I let them know that too. I try to help them.


TheRedneck


Yes. But allow others to give away $100 bills, too. That guy shouldn't have his buddies standing/guarding all of the other corners in town. There are many other great sales in town. Only they are unable to advertise.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   

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.


So, what is worst politics or religion?

Only the very ignorant would believe that this is some kind of religious war. It is a war of different cultures and politics, but mostly a war of personal non-religious agendas to gather power. Religion is just one of MANY motivators and if we removed religion entirely all of this would still be go on.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by EarthCitizen23
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


True, and thus should be a civil issue not religious in nature.

personally I would Never marry,, but others deserve the license if they want it.


It is a civil issue which is what the whole gay's getting married thing is about, getting a license to get married, and that wasn't a religious deal that was a government deal.

Long before there were licensing schemes to get married there were religions marrying people, and of course, pagans got married too, all without any license to do so.

No one needs a license to exercise a right.


But the government wants to keep marriage between a man and woman
why?
Where did they get that idea from?

Are they using a specific religion (or set thereof) for legislation?
Isn't that establishing a religion?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Any smart gov will have the same view and you only need common sense for that...
Anyway, i didn't vote for Obama, so why should i be forced to call him my president???



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I've said it before (and I personally support gay marriage), but there are one or two rational reasons why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry:

Marriage is a bundle of rights designed to influence certain behaviors. I can't receive the same tax rate as a married person or bestow all the rights of marriage on my best platonic friend, etc, as a single person. So why isn't that discrimination based upon what I choose to do with my personal affairs? The question is, what is it that we're trying to reward/recognize/encourage.

1. If marriage is an attempt to reward or encourage certain kinds of loving, more than friendship, relationships than the government should probably stay out of it all together. Thus nobody should be 'married' in the state's eyes.

2. If marriage is an attempt to encourage procreation, than it makes sense to discriminate based on the sex of the people trying to become married. Fertility tests and actually getting into the nitty-gritty of who can physically have or who wants children would run afoul of the right to privacy so "marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman' makes sense as a nice, clean cut rule.

So that's two reasons why the government could disallow marriage of homosexuals. But of course only number 2 could be argued with a straight face. In my opinion marriage used to be about number 2 and has historically been about number 2, but it's obviously transformed more into a preferable type of monogamy that benefits people stability wise and financially, keeps the spread of disease down, etc. So, I see no reason why gays shouldn't get married.

But, again, that doesn't mean there isn't room for disagreement. And I would never assume somebody who believes marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman to be bigoted or ignorant on that fact alone.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


No, it is taking advantage of morons. No one is forcing anyone to go and get a license to get married. It is true that churches have agreed with the government licensing scheme and will not honor the sacred request of their parishioners, or laity until they acquiesce and get a civil license, but the wise understand that this is profane act by the church demanding that the sanctity of marriage need be licensed, and just as sure as the Catholic church can excommunicate me, I can excommunicate the Pope and decline to go along with their pathetic collusion with government.

Because a marriage license is obtained through application, it is a voluntary scheme, not a forced scheme, and further, the Establishment Clause is a restriction on Congress, but marriage licenses are a local matter.

It requires people simply opting out of the scheme and walking away from weak kneed churches that have stupidly granted government a higher authority than the God they claim to worship. The gay movement had a wonderful opportunity to inform and instruct people on what freedom means and explain to this country that no one needs to be licensed to get married, instead they created an issue that demanded they be given permission to marry, and they have done this for no better reason than to file jointly on tax returns.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


The most frustrating part of this, on the side of an atheist, is the realization that the thinking sides here do in essence understand the issue and conclusions.

When moral superiority leaves the argument, that is when understanding takes place. Pity it doesn't happen more.


So, we agree.but, how does one achieve this end? I say that allowing people to legally get married, due to equality, may indeed start a movement to remove religion from the state, and state from religion. Once you open the door, corruption flows both ways.

Wise people don't want church and state mixed..because the state has no interest in the exclusionary aspects of religion, and religion has no interest in the equality of state.

I wonder why there aren't more religious folks demanding the state butt out of their religion and demand the seperation..this effects them more than atheists actually in the long run if they are wanting to keep any sort of purity in the initial message.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Just what is the state sponsored religion you wish to abstain? Even atheism is a religion in it's own way. Your evangelism is the doctrine of removing religion. You are certainly free to worship as you please or not. To be free of religion just isn't going to happen any more than being free from racism. The first amendment allows freedom of expression, but try to elders yourself in verbal prayer in a public school and you will be suspended or worse. If those of a Christian faith (not all Christians are the same) cannot pray in school when they are guaranteed freedom of religion and freedom of expression, why the. Should you be a allowed be free from any religious expression? There are two sides to this coin and like most you are blinded by your own bigotry.

Rp



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

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 easy answer for an atheist is to say religion is bad, that religion corrupts...etc, but when we look at the vast majority of religions they have very good moral foundations, so what is the true answer here?

The truth is basically that Man is not very nice...at all. If anything it is Man that corrupts religion for very non-religious personal agendas. Never fear though for Man will corrupt anything and everything he can get his hands on for very personal agendas.

Why is it that communism looks good on paper but in practice it lead to 200 million killed across Russia and China with extreme control on all freedoms? This was a very non-religious event where Nationalism was used as the motivator, and so we can see what happens when Man uses a motivator with no real moral foundation as part of it, but Man will always have motivators of one kind or another.

When we look at what is going on in the Middle East "holy" has little to do with any of it. In Afghanistan you have warlords who want power and want to have total control in their areas, they want to treat women like cattle to trade, have many of, do with as they like etc...Most of this is just how bad Man can get and we have been like that for 200k years. Religion is just a pretence that really has very little influence in all this, though it is used all the time as the reason.

The bottom line is, with religion or without Man will still be Man and we tend to be really nasty at times.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Be careful want you want your government to do for you.




If we allow govt. to define religion, we have exalted that govt. to the status of GOD






posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by reluctantpawn
Just what is the state sponsored religion you wish to abstain? Even atheism is a religion in it's own way. Your evangelism is the doctrine of removing religion. You are certainly free to worship as you please or not. To be free of religion just isn't going to happen any more than being free from racism. The first amendment allows freedom of expression, but try to elders yourself in verbal prayer in a public school and you will be suspended or worse. If those of a Christian faith (not all Christians are the same) cannot pray in school when they are guaranteed freedom of religion and freedom of expression, why the. Should you be a allowed be free from any religious expression? There are two sides to this coin and like most you are blinded by your own bigotry.

Rp


Yep, my bad. I hit post before rereading it.
You know how sometimes you type something that makes sense to you as you type it, then realize it can be taken different ways when someone else points it out.
Of course, I wasn't even clued in on this until it was past post edit for clarification...(makes sense why people thought I was being a bit insane).

When I said public, I was meaning official public places, like statues of the 10 commandments on display at courthouses...not some preacher on the side of a road.

Had I known this thread would become so hyped up, I would have no doubt spent far more time making sure every word was calculated so there is no doubt as to what I was saying.

Anyhow, ya...I take responsibility for the miscommunication that is this thread in its entirety and will use it as a lesson for future posts on how I need to reread before posting in order to clearly state my point...else ya, people will (rightfully) get the wrong impression on the stance in general.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
So, here is a question I have then...I have freedom of religion in the United States...I can choose whatever I want, be it christianity, buddism, spaghetti'ism, etc.

But, do I have freedom from religion? Can I go to public places and not have my children or I indoctrinated into any form?


Oh, you mean like the gay pride parades in every city every year? How about you move those inside so that those of US who want freedom from rampant amorality don't have to have OUR children subjected to THAT?

Tell you what, you can have a word removed from a building they day your buddies agree to never have another parade again where the evening news pukes feel compelled to shove those perverse images in our faces.

Deal?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


The moment you start talking about "allowing" people to do this, or that, you are right back into licensing schemes. What is a right to do need not any allowance. Nor did I ever say the gay movement could "remove religion from the state" by simply choosing to get married without any church ritual, or government license, that is your fantasy.

The church and state collusion does indeed exist, but this is largely because churches have applied for "tax exempt" status, which is absurd since churches need no exemption, just like anyone else, from something they are not liable for to begin with.

Wise people should understand the profound problem with the IRS demanding churches apply for "tax exemption", and wise people within the church should be putting immense pressure on their churches to reject these 501c3's and other such nefarious forms of the IRS, and start obeying the Law of the Land which is laid out by Constitution.

When wise people begin rejecting churches for acting stupidly and demanding their laity surrender to the tyranny of the state, the churches will knock off their nonsense long before the government will.

I have often heard it said that if the leaders would only lead the people would surely follow, but I know better. What is inescapable is that when the people finally lead, the leaders will have no choice but to follow.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by snusfanatic

1. If marriage is an attempt to reward or encourage certain kinds of loving, more than friendship, relationships than the government should probably stay out of it all together. Thus nobody should be 'married' in the state's eyes.

2. If marriage is an attempt to encourage procreation, than it makes sense to discriminate based on the sex of the people trying to become married. Fertility tests and actually getting into the nitty-gritty of who can physically have or who wants children would run afoul of the right to privacy so "marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman' makes sense as a nice, clean cut rule.


I think there might be a third reason...

For the state to recognize marriage and give it special considerations they needed to set some kind of guidelines to what marriage should be. If not then I could marry my pet gold fish "fluffy" and get the special considerations, or 1000 people could marry each other and all get these special considerations, and so they needed to define marriage.

Maybe today, state recognized marriage has become an obsolete concept for we do not need to encourage procreation anymore.


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





new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join