It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do I have freedom FROM religion?

page: 9
36
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaploink



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


Recruitment. Religions need a constant influx of young members to keep the cash rolling in. If the youth become secular, organized religions face bankruptcy in the future as it's members die off from old age.


That's why "religions" have been so keen on easing up on their stance towards homosexuality. Their swiftness to pick up on the next big thing puts businesses to shame.




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Yes, I appreciate your point on not having Sharia Law thrust at us or some other such thing. But would you be the first to oppose the ban on Sharia that's just come on the scene in Kansas? I wonder....do you really walk the talk or just using a convenient argument because it works in some situations?
Some people feel that Sharia is unConstitutional.
edit on 27-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Turq1
 


Interestingly, In God We Trust is still stamped on money so there is not an attempt to put it back. But there may be an attempt by seculars to remove it....sounds like some are even here on this forum.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Difference being we all agree foul mouthed shouting is harmful. So we all agree it should be protected against. We do not all agree religion is harmful, in fact religion is found to have health benefits.

onfaith.washingtonpost.com...

You teach your kids what you like, hearing Bless You after a sneeze won't ruin their lives, since it really has no religious meaning nowadays and is completely contectual.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Couldn't be more wrong.
But, I am warming up to the whole islamification thing..not because I want even a little bit of power for them to be established..but if thats what it takes..the =threat= of islam gaining governmental power in order to get christians thinking about what they are doing by pushing more in the religion field, then perhaps thats whats needed.


So what I have gathered since you last responded was that you believe the Government is chalk full of Christians and they are pushing their dogma upon the everyday citizen? Is this in the ballpark?

And your solution is to swing it fully 180 degrees towards the extreme of another religion's dogma to bring the issue to light?


no, a secularist wants no religion held by the government..no christianity, no islam, no buddism, none of that...that is for churches, homes, restaurant conversations, etc


What religion is "held" by the Government? Last I checked, and backed up via numerous court opinions, the Government is secular.

Post Script:

As it should be ( you and I are not that different Saturn, it just differs that I feel no injury holding money in my pocket that declares "In God We Trust" nor find it offensive that the pledge states "under God"... It does nothing towards my beliefs nor those I teach towards my children.
edit on 27-5-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


May be what we need is freedom from all symbolism................everything.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


It's not possible to have complete freedom from any religion or ideology. There is always going to be some ideology fueling everything in the public square.

That's why if there is something being said, taught, or whatever that you don't agree with, you have the right to ignore it.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Keep in mind, the OP isn't saying complete freedom from being exposed to religion in any way, shape or form by the general public, it's by the GOVERNMENT itself.
All people, individuals, have the right to express their relgion, to share it, to speak of it openly. It's a limit on the GOVERNMENT speaking of religion. They should not endorse any religion at all. Not Christianity (even though that's the one I'd prefer to be endorsed), not Islam, not Judaism, not Scientology, not Buddhism, none of them.
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. It's fine if I'm standing there talking about God, about religion, about whatever non-harmful thing I want to talk about. It's even ok if the fella across the room wants to talk about Islam and the one beside him wants to talk about Judaism and even if Tom Cruise wants to go on TV and talk about scientology, but it's not ok for the government to do those things. The government represents ALL citizens, not just the majority. It represents each and every last citizen and owes each and every last citizen the same thing. ...it's the government and it's supposed to be a democracy (democratic republic actually) where all people have equal representation, rights and responsibilities.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Not no but HELL no (pun intended), especially here in the allegedly more "freedom-loving" US of A.

True freedom from religion can only occur if or when something comes along to REPLACE religion, not to be confused with spirituality. No mere words will ever make any difference. Or if religions can never be completely destroyed, at least they would have ZERO political influence, much less actual power. Pretty sure the only thing that could politically neutralize and take the wind out of the sails of religion is if the truth(s) about ETs (nonhumans, interdimensionals etc.) and higher, undefined science in general could be revealed, getting rid of the entire secrecy-BASED concept of government. How many of the religious, and particularly the Abrahamics, who are the most problematic globally, are equipped for that?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Really, do you have freedom from a speeding ticket = no
do you have freedom from a water bill = no
do you have freedom from the SUN harmful rays = no
do you have freedom from ....blah blah...

compared to the above let me know how a prayer is worse...please...its people like you that is the cause for PC garbage, putting stress on your children leading to their need for anti-depressants...

is there ONE atheist that is positive...? that does not complain about something...?

I bet you leave your house looking for things to get mad about...

Sniper



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   
You can't really separate religion from culture. Religion is like a codification of culture...the original "government" if you will.

Picture some far off place at some point after the last ice age. The tribespeople know that the woods to the north are sacred and the woods to the East should never be entered because of evil spirits. Now, the reasons for these beliefs are practical - for example, many generations ago, an elder spoke with the Earthmother (tripping on some wild mushroom that only grows in the North woods) and at the same time, another elder broke his leg and died on the rocky terrain of the East woods. Likewise, you can't hunt the large mammal in the area on a full moon could come from some fact that it will see you and the hunt will not be a success, but rather than do the math and figure that out, you codify it into your cultural belief system, where the supernatural explains the limits on your society.

Culture and religion are the same thing. The places where western cultures are the same relates to Christianity; the places where they are different relates to geography. Geography is a major factor in culture and thus, a major factor in pre-Christian cultural beliefs. Since Christianity is an imported dogma, it makes sense that there would be some amount of gradation between the native and the imported. Now, contrast that with the situation in the US, where cultural beliefs are manifold and the codified religious beliefs are parallel, yet tweaked ever so slightly from the different versions of Christianity coming out of different parts of Europe (not to mention the minority religions from other parts of the world).

So, no, you can't be free from Religions because they are codified rules that others have agreed to adopt as a mediating mechanism between each individual and the society at large. We can pretend that our constitution is secular, but in many ways it echoes a consensus of Christianity. Just because Christians can be hypocrites, doesn't meant that you aren't supposed to love thy neighbor (Welfare, pursuit of happiness, etc.).

The natural and social sciences and mathematics have - generally - broken down the otherwise witchcraft/superstition dependency of traditional religion. The "heavenly bodies" have been, at least rudimentarily, explained. Death is at least explainable in different categories. The only thing left really is the afterlife and there seems to be no way to explain that.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Turq1
 

It's not a swiftness to pick up the next big thing, it's something that has been talked about since before Judy Garland was arrested in a Gay Dive. Up until that point, the only stance was that it's a sin--that I've noticed. the different view points probably existed in small pockets before then.

1. Since then, you've got groups that challenge if the verses that include fornication are actually including homosexuality.

2. You've got groups that challenge the authority of Paul since he's the one in the NT that goes on about giving up the natural use of heterosexuality (notice, NOT that Gay's don't naturally prefer what they prefer, but giving up on procreation altogether, but since it is worded that way, those that follow the text assume that the homosexual is unnatural altogether, which is not quite what was stated). But Paul's not challenged just for this. Peter called Paul difficult to understand, but that he teaches the truth, just that some people warp what he states to their own agendas. So, instead of dealing with difficult, they want to throw his works out altogether. Which is sad because some of the best scriptures on Religious Tolerance are from that man's writings.

3. Then you have those who wish to edit the whole thing altogether: Here: is about the gay bible that's supposed to be released "later this year". From the Editor:

"There are 116 versions of the Bible, why is any of them better than ours?"
The only issue I have with this one is that where most translations are either trying to correct mistranslated sections, update language, paraphrase to get the gist, etc., this is the only 1 of 3 versions that's setting out to deliberately "lie" about what the original text states. (Other 2 are: occasionally, to suit the King, the KJV was transliterated (baptism (form Baptizo) should have been immersion, for one), and the Mormon's version, to better fit their Book of Mormon (only reason I know this is due to my father having both a copy of their version, and the Greek lexicon they use, and NEITHER matches each other on several verses).

There's more on the Princess Diana Bible out there.

4. Then you've got the viewpoint I live at. Yes PRACTICING homosexuality in deliberate rebellion is a sin. But to think you have any control on outsiders is nuts, as is to think it's the Sin of all Sins. Those who look at scripture and come to my conclusion? We get to have an argument with both sides of the issue. Neverending. It would be far easier to just hold a different stance.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:27 AM
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?

If yes, then why are some wanting to have teacher lead prayers back in school, under god in the pledge, or in god we trust stamped on the money? This is not freedom from religion..so, how is it constitutionally applicable. If paganism become mainstream again, do we then change the money to "In the gods we trust"? change the pledge to "Under The Gods"?

If no, then which religion specifically is the state sponsored religion (some constitutional references showing the imposition of religion on the citizens would be helpful for my understanding. My creator (aka, my mother) taught me that its good to get source material in order to back up a claim.


So, your thoughts...do we have freedom from religion?


You absolutely have the right to not practice any religion. As far as exercising that right in a public place, doing so i.e. insisting that you have no exposure to religion in the presence of others, is not possible because you cannot do so without infringing on the rights of other people TO practice their right of freedom of religion. Rather complicated. You cannot tell them to stop exercising that right, and they cannot tell you to believe what they choose to believe.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post 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?


Sure you do.

Just shield yourself and your kids from religious folks who you suspect are indoctrinating people....
you know, in the SAME EXACT WAY the religious folks shield themselves and their kids from atheists who they suspect are indoctrinating people. If these guys can do it, so can you.


I imagine most of the theists here can stroll through an atheist convention and leave with all their beliefs intact, without being influenced by whatever they hear from atheists. So...just why do you seem so concerned about indoctrination in public places... from religious people?





edit on 27-5-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Originally posted by ownbestenemy
So what I have gathered since you last responded was that you believe the Government is chalk full of Christians

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

This does relate to my previous post:
"Religion can be the greatest enemy of God, because it is Satan's greatest deception."


Humanity is Satanically Possessed

A Satanic cult has colonized the earth. This is the key to understanding history and avoiding the pitfalls of modern "cult--ure."

Our satanic possession is the product of a highly organized long-term conspiracy to establish a "New World Order." Today, the cancer has spread to all social institutions, public and private, including charities and the church. As a result, humanity has fallen into a coma, hardly able to recognize the sickness, let alone resist. Source


A Satanic Cult Rules the World

In conclusion, mankind is in the clutches of a diabolical multi generational conspiracy. A Satanic, criminal cartel has subverted all social institutions and is slowly crafting a brutal global dictatorship. Our political and cultural leaders are witting and unwitting pawns. They are fabricating a phony war between Islam and the West in order to accomplish the degradation of both.
I realize this vision seems incredibly bleak. The mass media holds us in a powerful illusion of normalcy. However, expecting the worst means you will never be disappointed. If you are wrong, you are relieved. If you are right, you are prepared. Source


The Illuminati bankers are Satanists, We are at the mercy of a multi-generational satanic conspiracy which is nearing consummation. Modern history, properly understood, is the story of this process of subversion. Humanity has been subverted and colonized by a vicious satanic cult, the Illuminati.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



Despite the obvious answer to your question, which you so eloquently pointed out with the examples in your OP, I think it's still a great question that needs to be discussed. Furthermore, I applaud you for posing the question as you did, utilizing the word "from" as opposed to "of." S&F to you!

Now to answer your title question; Hell No you don't have freedom from religion here in America and if the neo-con, bible thumping, right wing conservative movement gets their way, it will only get worse. Let's not forget the "Blue Laws," where they restrict our ability to purchase certain things on Sundays in order to enforce their religious standards on our masses? Why do you think it's against the law to purchase alcoholic beverages before noon, (at least here in Texas) on Sundays? What a Joke!

en.wikipedia.org...

A blue law is a type of law, typically found in the United States, Scandinavia and, formerly, in Canada, designed to enforce religious standards, particularly the observance of Sunday as a day of worship or rest, and a restriction on Sunday shopping. Most have been repealed, have been declared unconstitutional, or are simply unenforced; though prohibitions on the sale of alcoholic beverages or prohibitions of almost all commerce on Sundays are still enforced in many areas. Blue laws often prohibit an activity only during certain hours and there are usually exceptions to the prohibition of commerce, like grocery and drug stores. In some places blue laws may be enforced due to religious principles, but others are retained as a matter of tradition or out of convenience.[1]


IMO, our public schools are not the place to entertain the various praying practices of religion, our money is no place to post loyalty statements regarding deities, our courthouses are no place to post the ten commandments and healthcare is not religion etc...

While I do realize that the Constitution guarantees a person's right to practice their religion, it does not give these religious zealots the right to shorten my child's school day in order to make time for them to do so. Pray if you want, but the lesson goes on. If you can't pass the test at the end of the day, don't blame the school system because it was they who chose to pray as opposed to hearing the lesson.

IMO, religious worship belongs in church and to impose one's religion on others, whether it be by overt or covert methods, is one of the most repulsive attributes of organized religion today.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
If God gave all humans the right of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, then why is the history books filled with the opposite.


You guys keep repeating the same old "Religion causes wars. Therefore, if we get rid of religion, we will have peace and utopia on earth". Atheists/Communists have tried this experiment several times now, each time with worse results than the last.



No, God did not grant me my freedom...mankinds social evolution did.


Prior to religion there was barbaric violence and suffering everywhere. After religion there was still some but much, much less. Thats a fact no matter what culture or religion you look at. Without the intervention of moral codes and law there was no "social evolution".



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Difference being we all agree foul mouthed shouting is harmful. So we all agree it should be protected against. We do not all agree religion is harmful, in fact religion is found to have health benefits.

onfaith.washingtonpost.com...

You teach your kids what you like, hearing Bless You after a sneeze won't ruin their lives, since it really has no religious meaning nowadays and is completely contectual.




The reasons aren’t hard to find. No tobacco. No alcohol. No tea or coffee. These simple prohibitions are an integral and virtually universal part of the lifestyle of faithful members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.


Oh that is hysterical! So if anyone decides to live a life of No tobacco. No alcohol. No tea or coffee, does that make them a member of some religion?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
2 towers are missing from new york because of religious morality. Yay religious morals! please..teach us more..some of us are still breathing.


And then the usual logical distortion of guilt-by-association. The terrorists were not only muslims, they were also pilots...does that mean we have to condemn or get rid of piloting as well?

Some of the Nazis were nurses...does that mean we should ban all nurses symbols from public?

The 9/11 perpetrators were about as much "muslim" and the salem witch burners about as much "christian" as stalin represents atheism.

Your talking points are superficial and illogical.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   

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.




top topics



 
36
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join