It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 19
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in


posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:11 PM
I'm Christian. I am going to open a pandora's box.

But the arguments brought up something interesting to me:

We have freedom in a "country" - yet that freedom is limited - because of the need of others within society to work and live alongside you and me.

If we were to be truly neutral, we should accept whatever anyone says as being a freedom of speech. (A teacher who has freedom of speech could then explain or ask anything of their students - but not enforce it).

However, if we are truly neutral, we should accept that teaching others the same as we believe is also potentially indoctrination - for instance, the students don't have a choice but to listen to the beliefs of the teacher who teaches - what is neutral? Just take any issue on ATS - say global warming - true neutrality is to present all the beliefs, and people have to be detached from the results - presenting everyone's potential permutations and combinations of views - to not step on a minority's rights.

My question is: Don't we all have freedoms that can potentially infringe on the other's freedom, even at the level of speech? So, to be truly free, is to join a group of geographically (or if we are on the computer all the time, locked in cyberspace), conformists to our personal tastes?

Are the freedoms that we exercise at some of the finest levels, just not choices that we expose others to - and therefore, they are lines drawn in the sand?

I say this without trying to introduce historical significance of choices. We are making history here now too.

In order to be able to "live with" each other, we would have to segregate into groups that practice "this combination of tolerance" or "that combination of tolerance". It isn't limited to God and religion.

BTW: (Re: In God We Trust) I find it interesting that some people who are atheist say they feel sorry for those who believe in God - and so the words on the dollar is insignificant. Yet, there are those who say they feel sorry for themselves, so the words on the dollar is significant. There are yet those who say they feel sorry for the atheists and say that the words on the dollar is significant.

If we truly are neutral about God, then one other thing that can be neutrally discussed is the idea that putting trust in others to decide other factors that affect your life is like putting yourself in the hands of "Gods". If control is the issue behind biblical/Islamic/Judeaic/Hindu etc... who is to be given control and hence called "God". Do, for instance, Christians not suffer from an economic downturn? OR does an economic downturn affect only the blacks and hispanics or muslims etc..? And if an economic downturn is caused by deliberate support of the few over the many? Or does religious teaching avoid any particular part of your lives? If religious people don't have uniformity of belief - how can God not be manipulated? Would this not constitute a wonderful thing for the atheists - as it is no different from being "atheist"?

If we are one in our views - how controlled are we? If we are diverse in our views - how little control do we have? How can one live in a rules filled society - which is a necessity for a greater than cave dweller situation - if we stand too far apart, or what if we stood too close together for comfort? How can we be forced to be the same and have "freedom". How can we be forced to be different, and have collective interests served? Is there not some minimum realistic activity? What is reality? Is it 100% provable - if not whose proof do we live with? Is it a merely a learned proof of convenience? Over time in any society then, does this not represent ageing and inflexibility that leads to death - especially since we are a money-driven society? (money makes no rules in and of itself - smash and grab is perfectly acceptable, if you can manipulate perception, or live purely on might is right, which is getting harder for modern countries)

Will we fall apart, just on this premise - and then be forced to choose - each man a little more for himself - but closer to the cave dweller - I know scriptures alleges this... (maybe I can dig up the passage for you).

I was curious if I could bring agreement amongst people. It is something I've worked on often in the past as leader of some volunteer organizations. Thankfully, though I am Christian, I haven't had to bring up the subject of God in my volunteer leadership... - God in and of itself is not well defined - and so it is a moot point to have advertising here and there about it. Otherwise, there would be no freedom under God either. What freedom is it that people are fighting for with the use of God? Is it universal?

It seems that everything are simply lines in the sand... yet so few hard fast rules we can stick to, to agree and work together again.

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:19 PM
reply to post by facelift

Now, I just need to find one that drinks beer, and then my plan can go forward..!

Careful... The CIA might mistake "plan" for a terrorist action! Then MK Ultra your snip and turn you into a born again Christian!

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:54 PM

Originally posted by Murgatroid
Surely you CAN"T be serious? PLEASE tell me it aint so! If the Government is chalk full of ANYTHING, it would be satanists.

Granted it is an open forum, but that was a specific question toward the person I replied to. It was an inquiring question of their thoughts and reasoning based on what they have written. It wasn't making a claim nor accusing, it was just inquiry based off past responses.

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:14 PM

Careful... The CIA might mistake "plan" for a terrorist action! Then MK Ultra your snip and turn you into a born again Christian!


You read all my previous posts and zeroed in on MK ULTRA?!!!

Any one with a plan that might work is a threat, aren't they? Because TPTB can't control anything, if their life depended on it..

There was recently a show on TV (named something like "swimming with the sharks") - it is a show about a bunch (5 VCs) of venture capitalists who were looking at various ideas for software etc.. and making deals with various individuals on their investments. For eg: One individual brought in software that was used in schools all over Canada, and wanted to go to the US - One venture cap offered 1/4 million dollars and 51% of controlling shares, in exchange for her expertise in marketing. Another competitor said he'd have to pitch the software to his trusted buddies and would have an answer in 48 hours.

The point is that they spoke to one guy who came in asking for money and help building different types of software, and the response the kid got was along this line: "Google has a satellite fitted with a laser that will fry little people like you, if you try to create successful software, so don't even try to go there".
edit on 29-5-2012 by sensibleSenseless because: put in quote

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 02:31 PM
reply to post by sensibleSenseless

How is freedom oppressing you?? if you mean do you still have to see it going on.. well yes... I have to put up with all sorts of different expressions or beliefs other than religion so i don't know what you expect out of this discussion.

It sounds like a smartypants little kid argument i would hear in a highschool

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 01:47 AM
reply to post by sensibleSenseless

You read all my previous posts and zeroed in on MK ULTRA?!!!

What the...

Check it out...I`d be careful what posts you take credit for, or you may have to dig yourself out of a hole.

Or, just level-up on the attention to detail...

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:08 AM
The "chrisitans" here at ATS have convinced me of something.... I will no longer refer to myself as a Christian because I do not want to be grouped with their ilk. I'm still a follower of Christ but am, in no way, shape or form one of "them". I renounce that description of my belief system (and have a strong feeling that Christ would do the same).

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 01:43 PM

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
The "chrisitans" here at ATS have convinced me of something.... I will no longer refer to myself as a Christian because I do not want to be grouped with their ilk. I'm still a follower of Christ but am, in no way, shape or form one of "them". I renounce that description of my belief system (and have a strong feeling that Christ would do the same).

Yes - - I know some people who say "I am a follower of Christ's teachings"

They don't want to be associated with negative bible dogma.

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:57 PM
reply to post by votan

I'm not sure I catch your drift.

My point was that there are plenty of lines drawn in the sand with regards to people stepping on each other's rights - so it really isn't a cut and dry discussion. Some will stand on one side and others on the other. For me, it is less clear cut - and there are always exceptions to rules.

As for the MKULTRA - it is not "MKULTRA", it's "MKULTRA radar hearing" - big difference. I actually mixed direct energy weapons with "MKULTRA radar hearing" - they're not the same.

I've also made an association with "MKULTRA radar hearing" and a tool I like to call fork - some description of MKULTRA radar hearing on the Internet - that I read on the net, coincided with the description. So, I'm not actually sure of the name.

But, it works for me. I prefer to call it a "fork tool". It is responsible for a whole lot that a lot of people are unaware of - but you will eventually figure it out.

In any case I was impressed by the author of the bit below mine - as he seemed to make an effort - or so I would assume - it could be coincidental - to read up on my other posts.

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:59 PM
reply to post by facelift

I agree with you 100%.

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 07:35 AM
First of all, let me say that I am in basic agreement with the OP on this issue, although I sometimes feel that it is not necessarily a battle that should be engaged in the current ideological climate. I am sympathetic with the goals of people like Anne Nicol Gaylor, Annie Laurie Gaylor and her husband Dan Barker at the Freedom From Religion Foundation but suspect that their methods only harden the opposition into an even more unthinking position and invite an unproductive backlash. You can see that sort of backlash here in this thread.

Maybe I should proceed with more caution here because I am fairly new to ATS and just feeling my way around, but here goes. I am new enough that they will not won't allow me to start a new thread yet, but if I could, I think I would try to explore the question of "Why do people so, so, miss the original meaning of a post when they respond?" Are they not reading? Not understanding? Or is it just a willful alteration of the intent of a post in order generate a straw-man or to vent a rant? SaturnFX, you don't have to apologize to me for your use of the word public, it was clear to me from the context of your posts that you were not trying to shut down all possible displays of religion, just questioning those sponsored by various institutions of government. And PurpleChiten, what can I say? The misreads of your posts make me wonder if some of these people are new to the country and haven't mastered the language yet. There are many more examples of misreads here in this thread, on both sides of the debate.

PurpleChiten, even though I do not believe in the existence of God, I am with you on this issue. I would be just as offended if the money said "There is no God" as I am by the current slogan. It is just not the role of the government to be passing judgement on this topic. For those of you who think this supports the position that atheism is just another religion, think again. Atheism is just another religion in the same sense that OFF is just another TV channel.

I'm old enough to remember when they put "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance. I had already learned how to mindlessly recite it one way and then had to remember to say it with the change. I remember thinking at the time, (3rd grade for me) that this was probably a good thing, but even then I wondered if it wasn't a conflict of interest on the part of the government. My beliefs had been handed to me by my parent's fundamentalist, bible inerrant church and I thought that it was good to recognize the United States was a Christian nation, but I was still conflicted, even at that age, about the appropriateness of dropping the official neutrality. How could a public figure like President Eisenhower fully represent everyone in the nation while using his office to promote his personal religious beliefs? Since then I have come to the opinion that God is just the adult version of Santa Clause and Satan the adult version of the monster under my bed. I have become a member of the unrepresented minority that I worried about as a child.

For those of you who would claim that I am just being too sensitive, that they are only words and I am free to ignore them like anybody else, I would argue that for myself and for anybody that has a well defined belief about God, you are right. I can ignore it, I have desensitized myself to the words. I can spend the money anyway or omit the passage in the pledge. But there is a large body of the public, especially the youth, who are letting their beliefs be influenced, even dictated by the public culture in which they are imbedded. They are influenced by these words. The words do have power over people when they are just going along with what they think is common knowledge, especially when endorsed by the government. If you don't think the words have power, just imagine the outcry if the money really did say "There is no God."

Another example of the power of such words is that they serve to open the door for further incursions of religion into government such as regularly scheduled White House prayer meetings where attendance is not mandatory but job evaluation is still influenced by involvement. And then there are all of the faith-based initiatives where tax money is handed out to religious organizations with little supervision or accountability. Of course these funds are not just limited to the prevailing faith only, but who is to say there isn't a bias or that there are adequate safeguards in place to protect against future abuses.

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:20 PM

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by SaturnFX

Hey SaturnFX we also have to swear on a holy book in our court systems.
edit on 29-5-2012 by karen61057 because: (no reason given)

Karen, did you know that you can refuse to swear on the bible? Who goes to court but criminals and those who don't trust God who says "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay." Jesus said not to swear AT ALL.

new topics

top topics

<< 16  17  18   >>

log in