Do I have freedom FROM religion?

Originally posted by lucid eyes
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

If you want to see nothing at all that has anything to do with religion, move to atheist paradises such as North Korea. Many parts of Russia are still atheist-zones after the Soviets destroyed churches.

A school option would be to have those who wish to start the day with a prayer have a specially designated room for it. Banning prayer at school is one of the main reasons in decline of school performance in the U.S.

Not sure if your misunderstanding is purposeful or if your simply lacking the cognative ability to process the point.

I am not saying tear down churches..I am not saying government should decide to counter religion with some sort of angry anti-religion...I am saying why are they pushing it to begin with..why not be completely neutral?

Look at northern europe..areas like sweden, denmark, etc...secular societies, but your allowed to erect churches, pray to 1, 2, a hundred, or zero gods if you want..the government is absolutely neutral.

And..care to back up your ascertation on how declining school preformance = lack of teachers instructing prayer? what utter nonsense. You can say removal of segregation is the cause, or rock music, or the more likely scenario that we spend more focus on military excellence than student excellence.

Now
To use your absurd talking point against you..
If you want god in the statehood, why don't you move to saudi arabia, or afghanistan? they are quite happy with pushing religion on you...

See how incredibly stupid that sounds?

Personally, I enjoy visiting cathedrals, churches, graveyards, etc. Quite often there is a lot of history there, and I enjoy the architecture put into the buildings. I would find the loss of these religious icons dotting the landscape to be quite upsetting. Like burning art.

Ready for your mind to be blown? When I enter into a cathedral, I do the sign of the cross and say the our father.
Why? because that is the custom in those places. I love ceremonies. I also will follow other ceremonies if I know them and it is of my own free will.

Tradition, ceremony, honoring, etc...all great stuff..and all stuff I will do on my own without state guiding. and I am a rather pushy anti-religious agnostic/atheist.

My personal view is if a religion requires a government to push it, then the religions message is lacking...
My public view is, keep religion out of public policy.

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

1). You have freedom from religion in the sense you are allowed to not be religious.

Yet you must abide by religious rules, watch any movie and observe cut scenes or bleeped out words. Censorship is religious related, all in the guise of protecting the children.

2). You have freedom from religion in the sense the government is not allowed to make laws forcing to you follow or endorse any religion.

Yet we have quite a few laws based on religious teachings, I already mentioned censorship, but there are also dry counties and or blue laws across the nation not to mention new anti gay marriage laws.

3). You do NOT have freedom from religion in the sense you are entitled to never be exposed to anything pertaining to religion ever again.

In some countries its not legal to teach kids about religion as its labeled indoctrination.

Here is a similar thread:
ATS Thread

Edit to add: No you don't have freedom from religion, if enough religious get together and decide to outlaw something your powerless and the government will not protect you. They have hijacked school boards, and have participated in book banning and burnings.

The single fallacy in your argument, OP, is that you seem to think the government is not comprised of people. Accepting a job from the government does not in any way reduce the government agent's inalienable right to freedom of their religion. That means they have the right to follow the deity of their choosing, as you have the right to follow no deity. That means they have the right to practice their religion just as you have the right to practice none. That means they have the right to express their religion to others just as you have the right to express your disapproval of their religion.

Your rights do not trump the rights of others.

You do have the right to demand that you or your children not be required to pray in any government-sanctioned event. You do not have the right to demand that others be prohibited from praying in a similar circumstance. If, for instance, a teacher says a prayer in front of the class, that is the teacher's right. If a teacher demands that your child repeat after them, then that violates your right. So far as I know, nowhere in the US does a public school allow such.

It's the same old argument that I hear from people who are so upset that they have to hear others talking about their religion. No one has a right to force others to be silent! Everyone has the right to say what they think about the matter.

Now that I've covered the right, let's talk about simple tolerance. Can you not tolerate someone else having the same rights you do? Can you not tolerate someone asking you attend church with them? Why is that such a heinous thing? I don't attend a formal church, but I am constantly asked if I would like to go to church with someone... I simply smile and say "Thank you, but I'm not much of a church-goer". If they press on too far, I either leave or tell them to please drop it. I do not try to deny them their right to speak because I do not wish to be denied the right to speak.

Anger and resentment, which both cannot exist unless the person feeling chooses to allow them to exist, lead to bitterness and segregation. Bitterness and segregation lead to injustice and bigotry. Bigotry leads to subjugation and abuse. These then lead to misery and suffering.

Acceptance and tolerance lead to respect. Respect leads to equality. Equality leads to happiness for all.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The single fallacy in your argument, OP, is that you seem to think the government is not comprised of people. Accepting a job from the government does not in any way reduce the government agent's inalienable right to freedom of their religion.

People in government can believe whatever they want to believe. Be it in god, fairys, or nothing. I have no issues with that. The issue is taking their job, where I pay their wages through taxes, and pushing their system of belief on the public.

Your rights do not trump the rights of others.

My rights are not enforced by law.

Its not a case of, don't like "under god", then don't say it.
Its also, don't like "in god we trust", then don't use money
don't like the 10 commandments at court? then don't go to court.
etc
it is a government enforcement to push deitys on you. Not some politician praying to his base...thats fine...but when a law or requirement enforces something not of your personal belief, how is that anything less than theocratic tyranny?

You do have the right to demand that you or your children not be required to pray in any government-sanctioned event. You do not have the right to demand that others be prohibited from praying in a similar circumstance. If, for instance, a teacher says a prayer in front of the class, that is the teacher's right. If a teacher demands that your child repeat after them, then that violates your right. So far as I know, nowhere in the US does a public school allow such.

The teacher is there to teach, not lead in prayer.
If she goes back to her desk while the kids are doing their thing and bows her head quietly..arguably nobody would care...but if she is putting a prayer rug down in the middle of math class and doing her islamic prayers...on my tax dollars...so the whole class can watch and learn...that is very different and is indoctrination.

It's the same old argument that I hear from people who are so upset that they have to hear others talking about their religion. No one has a right to force others to be silent! Everyone has the right to say what they think about the matter.

I don't mind people talking about religion..I enjoy a good discussion (for obvious purposes).
My dislike is for me to pay tax dollars so some government paid person can teach my children about how the god Loki is a great god to follow because of his magics.

Now that I've covered the right, let's talk about simple tolerance. Can you not tolerate someone else having the same rights you do? Can you not tolerate someone asking you attend church with them? Why is that such a heinous thing? I don't attend a formal church, but I am constantly asked if I would like to go to church with someone... I simply smile and say "Thank you, but I'm not much of a church-goer". If they press on too far, I either leave or tell them to please drop it. I do not try to deny them their right to speak because I do not wish to be denied the right to speak.

None of this was at all in the ops, nor even in my mind. This is a complete strawman argument your making up...not sure if it is on purpose for low hanging fruit to attack, or your just skimming over the points and misunderstanding the debate here.

When someone asks me to go to church with them...I actually do go. (asked usually for weddings or funerals). I have no issues here.
If the government tells me to go, I will give them my point of view on that..typically involving the point of a single finger in their general direction.
The government stamps deitys and false statements on the currency, they push to have -teachers leading prayers to students-.
This is not about me being intolerant, this is about the state pushing a pure system of belief (no evidence whatsoever) and a point of view on the belief at that which doesn't even fit those that do believe.

Some believe we should simply trust in a good god
Some believe we should fear and obey a god..trust is irrelevant
Why not put that segment then of believers on our money "In God we fear"
I mean..its not even pushing a general theism on the country...its a specific mindset at that.

1. The problem is that for you to have the right not to hear, you have to take away from the freedom of speech. For the same reason that I can state that Obama is a communist of that Bush is a warmonger, I have the right to say that there is a God and he is watching you. You don't have to like it. you can give up too much of yourself in an emotional reaction to it, but doing anything about stopping talking but for slander is nuts.

2. The problem with taking people's rights to free speech away from them when they are in public positions is that we miss that it was NEVER the state's job to teach our kids how they should think--they're only supposed to be teaching information. There's some things that parents should have to take care of in their own homes. If we really want the state to be the sole care-giver of our children, we really ought to keep pushing in this direction.

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
1. The problem is that for you to have the right not to hear, you have to take away from the freedom of speech. For the same reason that I can state that Obama is a communist of that Bush is a warmonger, I have the right to say that there is a God and he is watching you. You don't have to like it. you can give up too much of yourself in an emotional reaction to it, but doing anything about stopping talking but for slander is nuts.

2. The problem with taking people's rights to free speech away from them when they are in public positions is that we miss that it was NEVER the state's job to teach our kids how they should think--they're only supposed to be teaching information. There's some things that parents should have to take care of in their own homes. If we really want the state to be the sole care-giver of our children, we really ought to keep pushing in this direction.

1) Does the POTUS have the right to state "It is the official position of the United States of America that Republicans are dumb
Because thats what this is...a subjective view is being pushed as an objective stance for all.
There is no difference here. Your opinion is yours, until you make laws to push your views onto me..which is what this is about.

Lets stamp the money with "Republicans are dumb". You have the right not to agree with it of course...you have the right to not use money
While we are at it, lets tack on to the end of the pledge One nation, under god, republicans are dumb, indivisible, with liberty...etc"

You of course don't have to have your kids not say that part
freedom of speech, right?

You are saying ideological views are perfectly fine to push on a governmental level...so surely you will have no objection to this freedom of speech thing going on, right?
opposing views will not be allowed incidently..just one side..republicans are dumb..lets get the money printing going.

2) Peoples rights needs to be preserved
like corporations, governments are not people. they are governments..representative of all people, not just some, not most..all. Equality is not negotiable, and not up to majority rule on who should be dismissed..be it jews, blacks, atheists, etc.
Your point is fine on people, but not on governments.

Originally posted by SaturnFX 1) Does the POTUS have the right to state "It is the official position of the United States of America that Republicans are dumb

1. If that's all he states, and has nothing do back it up? Then I ignore him as grandstanding. He writes laws to put Republicans in mental wards due to being retarded, and we've got another game afoot.
2. Even though I stated I could call Obama a Communist, if I did that, and did not have proof, we're in the realm of slander. That's why I brought it up--there's enough "facts" out there to make it stick, while many wouldn't agree with it. If Obama had proof that ALL Republicans are stupid, I couldn't do anything about it anyway. Although it would certainly upset some people.
3. If the Potus got up on a stage and stated: "Not I, as POTUS, using the might of this country, but I as POTUS have the personal opinion that Republicans are dumb." He'd be within his rights. The thing is that those who are religious, in school positions, are not given even the right to separate themselves from their public titles to be themselves.

Because thats what this is...a subjective view is being pushed as an objective stance for all.

*snorts* There's no such thing as fully objective.

There is no difference here. Your opinion is yours, until you make laws to push your views onto me..which is what this is about.

Problem is that the LAW is already in place. Don't crumble other people's freedom of speech--any power! If you don't like it, go change the law. Until then, your viewpoint of not wanting to even hear it is not a right that you have.

Lets stamp the money with "Republicans are dumb". You have the right not to agree with it of course...you have the right to not use money

No problem with it.

While we are at it, lets tack on to the end of the pledge One nation, under god, republicans are dumb, indivisible, with liberty...etc"

Still no problem.

You of course don't have to have your kids not say that part freedom of speech, right?

If my kids ever gave a reason to not say it AS IT STAND NOW, I'd not make them. But I wouldn't take away other's right to say all the parts. There's Christians who won't say it because they don't think they should pledge any sort of Oath, which is what it is.

You are saying ideological views are perfectly fine to push on a governmental level...so surely you will have no objection to this freedom of speech thing going on, right?
opposing views will not be allowed incidently..just one side..republicans are dumb..lets get the money printing going.

I do have a problem with this aspect of it, but I didn't address this at all. I addressed the stopping of others from expressing theirs. That is all. Frankly, I agree with a lot of the uber conservatives I know--why should they teach God in the public schools? They're going to get it wrong and make our job of raising our kids harder. And Technically, there's only 2 main things taught in schools: Secular Humanism or Christianity. And both are taught disjointedly and poorly, so neither is given a reasonable platform to be objectively viewed--as far as objectivity can happen.

like corporations, governments are not people.

Actually Corporation laws are set up in such a way as to protect the individual human when they deliberately go against someone else's rights. I'm not for that. Governments, when it comes to the individual, should have as little as possible rights.

They are governments..representative of all people, not just some, not most..all. Equality is not negotiable, and not up to majority rule on who should be dismissed..be it jews, blacks, atheists, etc.
Your point is fine on people, but not on governments.

Sorry, I don't agree with this. Part of making the Government BIG enough to protect every little corkscrew instead of some basic tenants, is that the Government eventually gets too big for the individual to be protected. So, it can start out as this great Ideal: Oh, I shouldn't have to hear it!" into "let's prevent people from protesting".

reply to post by SaturnFX

The issue is taking their job, where I pay their wages through taxes, and pushing their system of belief on the public.

Perhaps the difference in our views is the definition of "pushing". For instance, I have no issue with a teacher stating "We are going to have a moment of silence for those who wish to to pray", but I would have an issue with spreading a prayer rug and praying aloud in the middle of the classroom as well.

So far as I know, no one in the nation is doing this (except for possibly religious schools, but that is a separate argument). If you know of instances where this is happening, please inform us all.

My rights are not enforced by law.

Ummm... yes they are! You are able to file suit for civil rights violations,

Its not a case of, don't like "under god", then don't say it.
Its also, don't like "in god we trust", then don't use money
don't like the 10 commandments at court? then don't go to court.

You (or your child) can simply omit the words "under God" when saying the Pledge of Allegiance... that is assuming your reference is to the Pledge (which has been removed from schools here).

Handling something with the words "In God We Trust" on it no more makes you a member of a religion than me typing on this computer makes me Chinese.

The Ten Commandments is not law. Please show me one decision made in any US court in the last twenty years where a conviction was handed down based on the Ten Commandments.

...but when a law or requirement enforces something not of your personal belief, how is that anything less than theocratic tyranny?

I am going to need more information on this, as I do not know what instance you are referring to. It is unconstitutional for the US government to enforce any religious dogma on anyone. It sounds to me like you are seeing this action where it does not exist.

Again, you do not have the right to never have to hear anyone else's speech. You do not have the right to tell others they cannot recite the Pledge of Allegiance, you do not have the right to determine what the configuration of the money is, and you do not have the right to never see a copy of the Ten Commandments.

People have the right to state their beliefs openly, the government has the right to determine what is printed on the money it issues, and a judge has the right to display the Ten Commandments just like anyone else.

The teacher is there to teach, not lead in prayer.

The teacher is there to teach, yes; he/she is also there to supervise the children. That by necessity includes certain duties that fall outside the narrowest definition of teaching. Around here, kindergartners get to take a nap during the day... that is not teaching. If a child acts up, it becomes the responsibility of the teacher to restore order... that is not teaching. If a child is sick, it is the responsibility of the teacher to see that the child receives the needed attention... that is not teaching.

I already mentioned that I have an issue with teachers leading children in prayer. But this is the opposite of what is now happening in schools around here! Teachers are terrified of using any religious reference whatsoever, and thus are prohibited from the exercise of their freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I would love for my kids to be able to silently pray in the morning, but that moment of quiet is absolutely banned because it might be religious in nature. I know of children who have been reprimanded verbally for wearing religious-themed t-shirts or religious jewelry.

Where is this place where teachers are telling children they are required to pray?

I don't mind people talking about religion..I enjoy a good discussion (for obvious purposes).

As do I. I just don't understand where all this religious indoctrination is supposed to be happening. The exact opposite... demanding that children not be allowed to express themselves religiously in the slightest way... is what I see.

None of this was at all in the ops, nor even in my mind. This is a complete strawman argument your making up...not sure if it is on purpose for low hanging fruit to attack, or your just skimming over the points and misunderstanding the debate here.

I will admit that was based on an assumption I had made that you simply wanted nothing whatsoever to do with any religion whatsoever, and were one of those individuals who wanted a law that outlawed all religion. There are those out there.

If I misinterpreted your intent, accept my apology.

~continued~

~continued~

Yet, again, it seems your argument is the strawman. I repeat, I know of nowhere that these things are happening in America; I do know of plenty of places where the exact opposite is happening. I know teachers who are not allowed to wear a necklace because it contains a cross. I know of schools where religious expression by the children is cause for disciplinary action. I know of Judge Roy Moore, who was never accused of basing a decision on anything but the law, but who was attacked for hanging a wall plaque of the Ten Commandments. I know of locations where Christmas lights are allowed, but only as long as they have no religious meaning.

Where is this place you speak of?

TheRedneck

LOL do you use the US dollar?

in western world we are saturated with Messianic pagan religious symbols--you cant escape it.

If you have a problem with others religion being forced apon you, I would start there.

Originally posted by lucid eyes
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

A school option would be to have those who wish to start the day with a prayer have a specially designated room for it. Banning prayer at school is one of the main reasons in decline of school performance in the U.S.

Canada does not have prayer in the schools, it hasn't for decades. Generally, Canada isn't very religious at all.
Look at the education rankings per country, and look at where it ranks.

Probably half of the countries that rank higher than the US, don't have school prayers. The list doesn't include China, which usually is ranked at the top spot.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Lack of prayer, is not the reason the US has had a decline in school performance. I've even heard some people say that religion is getting in the way of science......

I just looked at my money, it doesn't mention God anywhere

reply to post by snowspirit


Canada is a Crown Colony. It does not fit the description of "Western world."

reply to post by rainbowbear




I prefer to think of Canada as part of the northern world..

I think you misunderstand the word "Freedom".

There is nothing free about it.

You are free to ignore Religion.

Not free to stop other's expression of it.

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel

Lets stamp the money with "Republicans are dumb". You have the right not to agree with it of course...you have the right to not use money

No problem with it.

While we are at it, lets tack on to the end of the pledge One nation, under god, republicans are dumb, indivisible, with liberty...etc"

Still no problem.

Read through your post.
I was going to line by line retort until I came to this

There is no possible way any words will overcome this perspective gap..we are simply on different wavelengths all together. I put the most radical concept out there that even the most rabid democrat would disagree with fully due to the consequences of child indoctrination..and you accept it.

So, ya...done with you on this subject...I cannot comprehend your mind (unless your trolling, then damn did you get me..well done)

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by SaturnFX

The issue is taking their job, where I pay their wages through taxes, and pushing their system of belief on the public.

Perhaps the difference in our views is the definition of "pushing". For instance, I have no issue with a teacher stating "We are going to have a moment of silence for those who wish to to pray", but I would have an issue with spreading a prayer rug and praying aloud in the middle of the classroom as well.

Well, then we are on the same page. I am a fan of a moment of silence. It can be explained from day one that the moment of silence can be quiet contemplation, prayer, thinking about the days events, meditation, etc..whatever you want it to be, just shut up during it and be respectful

My big beef, and that of many atheists is that there is desire to put prayer..teacher lead prayer and instruction to pray, into the class..

As far as dress code...I feel the idea of someone representing the school wearing a cross the same as someone else would feel wearing a upside down cross, or a "republicans are dumb" necklace.
Its distracting, it is -not- part of a religion (show me a bible instructing people to wear golden crosses on their neck for all to see). It serves no purpose outside of a distraction.
Tuck it under your shirt if you must wear a crusified person around your neck, or a star and crescent moon, or the upside down pentagram..the school classroom is not a place where you need to express your individuality, and at best, you will have most of your class whom are following you on instruction to either agree with your personal view, or be neutral...but someone whom finds it offensive will suffer because of the distraction it creates.

A Christian should also want this to be covered by instructors (let students wear what they want)..Christianity may not be the only religion a teacher is allowed one day. Their are satanist teachers (the upside down cross or upside down pentegram). Do you want your child exposed to this rather nice person with this, in potentially your opinion, demonic indoctrination by an authority figure?

Outside of class..sure, teacher can do whatever he/she wants. My history teacher also lead a christian youth group...pretty wild seeing him there considering you wouldn't have assumed anything about him...he knew where to leave religion and school though.

As far as the 10 commandments, I was talking about the literal stuff.
10 commandment statues
I wonder if the people demanding there should be commandments of a religion at a courthouse feel about shariah law posted also...
Its ok..so long as its your (their) religion is the overall theme...

Christianity may not be the top dog one day in the US...in 300 years, it may be fully islamic..what we do today ripples throughout the nations course...and we invite very dangerous outcomes out of short sightedness.

Personally, I have no major gripe with the US christian church..I mean, I do, but I don't. Their meddling and desires to churchify the legislation has some horrible consequences..not just on the short term, not just for our grandkids, but for the people 300 years from now whom look back and point the finger on a history book saying..this is what allowed it..those short sighted fools.

I want them to look at this time and think..wow, we dodged a theocratic bullet there. Removing the influence of religion from the state, and removing state influence on religion serves both best..then cement it over so that no matter what wacky religion comes down the pipeline tomorrow...it won't be changing our basic values of equality and liberty.

reply to post by SaturnFX


You have nothing to worry about.

The stated goal of global dominance is to eliminate religion altogether (well, except for worshipping the intelligence of Man)

It seems you will be well received and your ideals fit nicely.

reply to post by SaturnFX

My big beef, and that of many atheists is that there is desire to put prayer..teacher lead prayer and instruction to pray, into the class..

There is desire to make meat illegal.
There is desire to institute Sharia Law.
There is desire to reform the Third Reight.
There is desire to make those of a darker skin hue slaves again.
There is desire to implement Karl Marx's Communist principles.
Heck, somewhere someone wants to require all government buildings to be painted pink and have live ballet dancers performing outside 24/7!

We live among a great many individuals, and any sufficiently large group of individuals will contain a certain number of... shall we say, colorful individuals. The trick is to not allow the narrow-mindedness of a small inconsequential group to cause one to demonize a much larger group. The whole point of the First Amendment is to prohibit the Federal government from either establishing a national religion or interfering with the religious practices of individuals.

Most states have something similar in their respective constitutions to prohibit the same at the state/local level.

That means it is not possible, as long as we honor the Constitution, for what you fear to come about. So why would you (or any atheist) stretch the limits of the Constitution by trying to squelch freedom of religion and freedom of speech for others? If you succeed in that goal, you fail in your quest.

Now I know you don't think you are doing that, but really, aren't you? Try looking at the situation through your opponent's eyes. Once there was teacher-led prayer in some schools... not many, as most teachers understood their responsibilities, but some... and that was outlawed as is proper. It wasn't even that hard to accomplish. Then we went to a moment for silent prayer, but that was outlawed as well because it was still 'religious'. Then enough Christians stood up to get that overturned so we can now have a moment of 'silence'.

The Pledge of Allegiance, which is a pledge to the country itself, not to a deity, has been removed completely from schools. My children never had to say it and can't repeat it even today. All because it has two words in it, phrased in such a way as to be optional to the meaning.

We used to have gorgeous Christmas lights in town every year. All different colors, many many different shapes, some of that Jewish candelabra thingy (sorry, don't know what the name is), some of Jesus or of angels, some of Santa Claus, some of presents, some of snowmen, some of icicles... today, most have been retired because of threats of lawsuits.

I remember seeing Nativity scenes on the Courthouse square every Christmas. I thought they were beautiful! They were created every year out of love by members of the community and cost the county nothing. Today, few churches even have them, for fear someone will cause a legal stink about them.

Atheism is not under attack from Christianity. Christianity is under attack from Atheism if anything!

As far as dress code...I feel the idea of someone representing the school wearing a cross the same as someone else would feel wearing a upside down cross, or a "republicans are dumb" necklace.
Its distracting, it is -not- part of a religion (show me a bible instructing people to wear golden crosses on their neck for all to see). It serves no purpose outside of a distraction.

It does serve a purpose: self expression. Is there any other purpose to any jewelry?

Ironically, I would not even bother to notice of someone was wearing a pentagram as a necklace. I guess maybe that's because I'm not worried about it. I would be more concerned about how well they did their job as a teacher. Now I would have a problem with that teacher trying to recruit my child into their belief, just as I would expect you to have a (legitimate) problem with a teacher trying to recruit your child into Christianity.

So why is it that the Christian in this debate has no issues with other religions, but the atheist does?

As far as the 10 commandments, I was talking about the literal stuff.

As was I. This is exactly a the issue I was mentioning.

Why does it matter so much to you? It was not erected by the government; it was erected by individuals! So you say they have no right to express their beliefs on public property? What about the First Amendment? What about their rights? Again, you do not have the right to never see the Ten Commandments!

TheRedneck

reply to post by jiggerj


here is my experience. atheism is a religion with preachers same as any other. its the one anti god religion we have, and they want to push it upon innocent minds and indoctrinate our children.

hmmm... freedom from religion should be free from anti god religions also!

well I am not "free" from any advertising, I am not a "coca colaist" or a "mcdonaldists", however, as a consequence of a free society they are free to ply their wares and try to convince me of their worth.

You cannot filter religion out of human existence, I believe Pol Pot tried that, and failed, butchering a million along the way- dramatic I know, but you get the drift