Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
type: channel
description: C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
items: Freedom of Religion?
items: Re: Freedom of Religion?

Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: another of spoony's "had a thought..." moments; strap yourself in, because it might be a bumpy ride. it should be fairly evident that i'm a secularist. now, the first thing secularists usually say when advancing their arguments is something along the lines of "of course have freedom of religion, but..." here's a question. why is it freedom of religion? why isn't it opinion or belief? let's start from the assumption that in any society that wants to call itself modern and free, you can't have thoughtcrime. orwell put the name to what must be the most extreme form of totalitarianism and dictatorship; the idea that you can be convicted because of what you think, what you privately want. that must be inalienable. (i could digress and say that several religions do teach that thoughtcrime is indeed a crime, Islam and Christianity being the most obvious examples... once again one side of the chess game says you aren't allowed to move on his side of the board... but that's besides the point. actually, no, it isn't) but religion isn't just what you think; it's generally a combination of thoughts AND actions. sometimes those actions are clearly in violation of laws and what are generally considered to be morals... i'll just pluck the islamic commandment to kill homosexuals as an example, it's as good as any. well, if we have freedom of religion... don't we have to allow them to do so? oh dear... so why isn't it freedom of opinion or of belief rather than freedom of religion? you cannot allow religious freedom without severely hampering a whole bunch of human rights and democratic principles...
creator: Spoony
date: 2008-10-12T14:25:07-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: Although I disagree with your beliefs, I agree that it should be freedom of beliefs. I mean shit, should we allow someone to eat someone else because it's "part of their religion"?
creator: GEORGE ZIMMER
date: 2008-10-12T14:32:22-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: which of my beliefs do you disagree with?
creator: Spoony
date: 2008-10-12T14:36:37-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: Now I just think you're going off on a stupid tangent, Spoony. Why is it "freedom of religion"? Simple. Just like Americans have the right to own guns, the right to free speech, the right to vote, the right to deny unwarranted searches, etc... that doesn't mean you have to exercise the right. I believe, "freedom of opinion" is covered by free speech, anyway. However, say that it WAS freedom of "opinion" rather than "religion". What do we end up with? We end up with state religions, but the ability to disagree with them. Think of it as a slightly less violent version of Constantine forcing Romans to be Christian. Therefore, nobody's given the choice to practice differently. It'd be just like work. You are forced to protocol, and you can bitch about it, but in this case you don't have the ability to quit. Edit: As for allowing people to eat others because of their religion... that's just stupid. That's a clear impediment of another's rights and it would never be legalized even under the guise of "religion".
creator: cheesesoda
date: 2008-10-12T14:39:56-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: you've got a point.. I'd like to point out though that America certainly lost the "freedom of religion" right when you put "In God We Trust" on your money. imma' stating the obvious..
creator: Ryu
date: 2008-10-12T14:41:05-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 09:39 Now I just think you're going off on a stupid tangent, Spoony. Why is it "freedom of religion"? Simple. Just like Americans have the right to own guns, the right to free speech, the right to vote, the right to deny unwarranted searches, etc... that doesn't mean you have to exercise the right. that's just nonsense. The right to own a gun is not the same as the right to shoot somebody; in exactly the way as the right to personally believe whether there is a god is not the same as to use your beliefs to interfere with other peoples' lives. cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 09:39 I believe, "freedom of opinion" is covered by free speech, anyway. However, say that it WAS freedom of "opinion" rather than "religion". What do we end up with? We end up with state religions, but the ability to disagree with them. Think of it as a slightly less violent version of Constantine forcing Romans to be Christian. Therefore, nobody's given the choice to practice differently. It'd be just like work. You are forced to protocol, and you can bitch about it, but in this case you don't have the ability to quit. secularism means you don't end up with a state religion... cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 09:39 Edit: As for allowing people to eat others because of their religion... that's just stupid. That's a clear impediment of another's rights and it would never be legalized even under the guise of "religion". Just to take one example, would you not agree that circumcision is a clear impediment of another's rights? Shouldn't a person have the right to decide for yourself, once you've reached an age where you're capable of making and expressing an informed decision, whether you want a scalpel taken to your genitalia? Why's it even allowed? Religion. Why do authorities turn a blind eye to the thousands of girls who are victims of the female version (and like I said before in other threads, if there is anything more disgusting and ba…
creator: Spoony
date: 2008-10-12T16:23:15-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: You're clearly not understanding what the fuck I'm talking about. I'm not making an argument for religion. Like you, I hate religion. I am fully aware of the horrors that go about under the guise of religion. You don't have to convince me that religion is dangerous, but that's not the point I'm making. As I said, the reason why it's freedom of "religion" instead of "beliefs" or "opinion" is simple. The founding fathers worded that intentionally. Using the second amendment right as an example that you misinterpreted... just because you have the right to bear arms does not mean you're forced to own a gun. You can choose to waive that right to own a gun. You, again, have the right to freedom of speech. You can shout to the high heavens, or you can censor yourself. You can choose to be a part of a religion, or you can choose to ignore religion completely. If they had used the word opinion or beliefs, that still opens the doors widely for a state religion. Good luck trying to get everybody to believe in secularism, and good luck getting politicians to abandon their beliefs when their constituents are too fucking stupid to vote for a candidate that renounces religion. There's a reason why neo-cons have been trying to label Obama as a Muslim... because Christianity is held in high regard by both liberals and conservatives. What if the founding fathers said you had a right to protect yourself instead of the right to bear arms? You'd see gun-hating liberals trying to get rid of guns because guns aren't the only thing that is needed to protect one's self. If they said the right to beliefs or opinion, they would still say that you have the right to believe what you want as long as you're a part of the state religion. Don't think state religions are unusual or improbable because history would laugh in your face.
creator: cheesesoda
date: 2008-10-12T16:48:39-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: Quote: As I said, the reason why it's freedom of "religion" instead of "beliefs" or "opinion" is simple. The founding fathers worded that intentionally. founding fathers?
creator: Herr Surth
date: 2008-10-12T17:03:34-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: I'm talking about the "freedom of religion" in the U.S. Constitution. The founding fathers are the few men that pretty much led the charge against the British and signed the Declaration of Independence and drafted the U.S. Constitution.
creator: cheesesoda
date: 2008-10-12T17:07:51-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 18:07 I'm talking about the "freedom of religion" in the U.S. Constitution. The founding fathers are the few men that pretty much led the charge against the British and signed the Declaration of Independence and drafted the U.S. Constitution. Yes, but by 'state' religion, spoony means the 'official' religion of a country, not a specific state in America...so how the founding fathers worded it dosn't affect the entire world. I'm mostly against religion, as their idea of right and wrong can get so twisted it's unbelieveable. What's annoying is when Religion dictates media, or so to speak. By that, i mean TV can't show a specific thing just because it's against a certain religion...or any belief actually, not just religion.
creator: futura83
date: 2008-10-12T18:54:36-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: *facepalm* You've completely missed the point. Even if I DID mean individual states having religions, that's beside the fucking point. My whole argument was about how "freedom of religion" makes more sense than "freedom of opinion" and "freedom of beliefs". Then I made a comment about how, at least for America, the wording was intentional and makes sense.
creator: cheesesoda
date: 2008-10-12T19:12:57-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: You're supporting "freedom to religion" implying that anyone can believe in any religion, but you're also saying they can't practice it. Big contradiction there, and since they can't practice it, there is no freedom to religion.
creator: jnz
date: 2008-10-12T19:55:41-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: Nobody has said that. Nobody has implied that. You two have absolutely no fucking clue what you're talking about.
creator: cheesesoda
date: 2008-10-12T20:34:18-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: Alright, you asked for it: cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 15:39 Why is it "freedom of religion"? Simple. Just like Americans have the right to own guns, the right to free speech, the right to vote, the right to deny unwarranted searches, etc... that doesn't mean you have to exercise the right. You start that paragraph off like you might be going someone then don't. Quote: I believe, "freedom of opinion" is covered by free speech, anyway. However, say that it WAS freedom of "opinion" rather than "religion". What do we end up with? We end up with state religions, but the ability to disagree with them. Think of it as a slightly less violent version of Constantine forcing Romans to be Christian. Therefore, nobody's given the choice to practice differently. It'd be just like work. You are forced to protocol, and you can bitch about it, but in this case you don't have the ability to quit. How would that work out? I mean, you say changing it to 'freedom of opinion' would make it a state religion where, essentially, people would be forced to believe whatever the highest authority believes....i see contradiction there mate. Quote: Edit: As for allowing people to eat others because of their religion... that's just stupid. That's a clear impediment of another's rights and it would never be legalized even under the guise of "religion". Nobody here said that was right.
creator: futura83
date: 2008-10-12T21:24:41-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: Holy shit, you're an idiot. I really didn't want to have to result to insults, but holy shit. The first thing you quoted is all that really needed to be said. Changing it from freedom of "religion" to freedom of "opinion" or "beliefs" opens up the law for the government to establish a state religion. Trust me, if you give the government an inch of power, they'll take a mile. It's just how government is. It's evil, and it will always be evil. It's power-hungry, and if you give it a chance to seize power and control the people, it will. You don't seem to get it, at all. Having the freedom to think differently is not the same as having the freedom to practice differently. If the government controls your actions, having the ability to think differently really doesn't mean shit.
creator: cheesesoda
date: 2008-10-12T21:30:41-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 22:30 Holy shit, you're an idiot. I really didn't want to have to result to insults, but holy shit. I notice you do that alot anyway. Quote: The first thing you quoted is all that really needed to be said. Changing it from freedom of "religion" to freedom of "opinion" or "beliefs" opens up the law for the government to establish a state religion. Trust me, if you give the government an inch of power, they'll take a mile. It's just how government is. It's evil, and it will always be evil. It's power-hungry, and if you give it a chance to seize power and control the people, it will. You don't seem to get it, at all. Having the freedom to think differently is not the same as having the freedom to practice differently. If the government controls your actions, having the ability to think differently really doesn't mean shit. You could say they control us now anyway. I mean, i'm 17 so can't legally drink yet if i wanted too, which is the government controlling me. There are some 'religious practises' people would find inhumane, and i still don't see how your reductio ad absurdum is right...
creator: futura83
date: 2008-10-12T21:37:30-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: How in the Hell is that reductio ad absurdum? History is a great teacher, and all throughout history we can see how willing government is to force people to adhere to religious practices that it deems correct. When did I ever imply that the government doesn't already control us? I'd argue to the contrary. Which is why freedom of religion was established in the first place to help keep the government from controlling every aspect of one's life. Besides, one of the main reasons why America was colonized in the first place, besides fur trade, was to get away from state religion.
creator: cheesesoda
date: 2008-10-12T21:41:50-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 22:41 How in the Hell is that reductio ad absurdum? History is a great teacher, and all throughout history we can see how willing government is to force people to adhere to religious practices that it deems correct. Hisotry might say that, but in these modern times there would be alot more civil unrest as there is one hell of alot more varieties in how people think. We aren't living in a time where a leader's will is law, there are alot more complications than that and control over us at the level you say would always have far too much opposition.
creator: futura83
date: 2008-10-12T21:46:00-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: Ryu wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 10:41 you've got a point.. I'd like to point out though that America certainly lost the "freedom of religion" right when you put "In God We Trust" on your money. imma' stating the obvious.. "imma" stating the obvious? What's good, my nigga?
creator: Aircraftkiller
date: 2008-10-12T21:47:38-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: insert_name_here wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 17:46 cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 22:41 How in the Hell is that reductio ad absurdum? History is a great teacher, and all throughout history we can see how willing government is to force people to adhere to religious practices that it deems correct. Hisotry might say that, but in these modern times there would be alot more civil unrest as there is one hell of alot more varieties in how people think. We aren't living in a time where a leader's will is law, there are alot more complications than that and control over us at the level you say would always have far too much opposition. You're assuming this because we're already living in a society with these precautions as law. What if freedom of religion was never given? --------------- The whole idea that we allow inhumane activities because of religion is a little absurd. In fact, allowing freedom of religion actually helps to protect people from this. Ignoring the subject of circumcision, you're not allowed to sacrifice your neighbor for the sake of your religion because that would be forcing him to adhere to your religion's practices. That wouldn't be allowed under freedom of religion. As for circumcision, it's no longer a practice of religion, for the most part. It's so common that it would still exist even as Christianity dwindles. It's a prime example of tradition of religion becoming a societal norm without the religion having any influence over the act.
creator: cheesesoda
date: 2008-10-12T21:49:21-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 22:49 insert_name_here wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 17:46 cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 22:41 How in the Hell is that reductio ad absurdum? History is a great teacher, and all throughout history we can see how willing government is to force people to adhere to religious practices that it deems correct. Hisotry might say that, but in these modern times there would be alot more civil unrest as there is one hell of alot more varieties in how people think. We aren't living in a time where a leader's will is law, there are alot more complications than that and control over us at the level you say would always have far too much opposition. You're assuming this because we're already living in a society with these precautions as law. What if freedom of religion was never given? That's a good question. What could have happened is: Religion was very strict, and people lived in fear, which would cause more country rivalries as they have different beliefs and there could be wars....so basiclly how it was before freedom of speech. But saying that, i'll admit i don't know what truly came first; freedom of religion or freedom of speech. I'd say that (in America) it was freedom of speech, as i know in the 1800s Mormons were prosecuted for their beliefs (namely marrying multiple women...the term of which slips my mind) whereas freedom of speech was done by the founding fathers years before.
creator: futura83
date: 2008-10-12T21:58:20-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: One thing you have to realize is that the government doesn't always listen to law, too. Unfortunately, you can only put things in law, regulating government in hopes that government officials adhere to the laws. In America, we've seen the Constitution become less and less important. Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech, in America, came hand-in-hand with the Constitution. However, as I said above, that doesn't mean the government obeys the restrictions it's given... as you referenced with the persecution of Mormons, and as we see with the persecution/prejudice of Islam.
creator: cheesesoda
date: 2008-10-12T22:06:46-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: Oh, fuck. Here we go again...
creator: Canadacdn
date: 2008-10-13T02:50:15-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: I really don't understand the point and meaning of the question of this topic. Freedom of opinion is the right to express yourself and think what you want, see the 1st Amendment. Religion is just another word for belief. The word "religion" just means an idea or basis for believes. A religion does not have to be some "holy, I believe in god" thing... a religion is just something you believe in. Now the reason why it doesn't say freedom of belief over religion is because: 1. Beliefs are forms of opinions which are already granted to us when it says "freedom of speech" and what not. 2. Beliefs can range from anything... be it choosing if someone is lying or not, choosing what you think happened at a certain event, or choosing an idea for were humans came from. Religion is more or less limited to a specific belief. 3. When you break it down, "religion" and "beliefs" really are the same thing... so when it comes down to it, saying "religion" instead of "beliefs" is just a matter of word selection.
creator: R315r4z0r
date: 2008-10-13T05:37:46-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 11:48 Using the second amendment right as an example that you misinterpreted... just because you have the right to bear arms does not mean you're forced to own a gun. You can choose to waive that right to own a gun. You, again, have the right to freedom of speech. You can shout to the high heavens, or you can censor yourself. You can choose to be a part of a religion, or you can choose to ignore religion completely. your complete lack of understanding of this entire thread is very nicely illustrated by this paragraph. Read each post from me again until you get it. I am talking about the automatic deference we seem to give to religion to interfere in other people's lives, when no secular excuse would be allowed. I am talking about the fact that while letting someone believe there is a God is okay because the Bible says so, letting someone kill homosexuals because the Bible says that too is not okay. What's the difference? Not religion, clearly. cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 11:48 If they had used the word opinion or beliefs, that still opens the doors widely for a state religion. Good luck trying to get everybody to believe in secularism, and good luck getting politicians to abandon their beliefs when their constituents are too fucking stupid to vote for a candidate that renounces religion. There's a reason why neo-cons have been trying to label Obama as a Muslim... because Christianity is held in high regard by both liberals and conservatives. The first sentence in this paragraph is the really puzzling one. Freedom from religion would open the door to a state religion... okiedokie. Freedom from religion is the POLAR OPPOSITE. cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 12 October 2008 11:48 If they said the right to beliefs or opinion, they would still say that you have the right to believe what you want as long as you're a part of the state religion. When you pay taxes and extraordinary amounts of money go to undeserved religious ca…
creator: Spoony
date: 2008-10-13T11:27:52-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 13 October 2008 00:37 I really don't understand the point and meaning of the question of this topic. Freedom of opinion is the right to express yourself and think what you want, see the 1st Amendment. Religion is just another word for belief. The word "religion" just means an idea or basis for believes. A religion does not have to be some "holy, I believe in god" thing... a religion is just something you believe in. Now the reason why it doesn't say freedom of belief over religion is because: 1. Beliefs are forms of opinions which are already granted to us when it says "freedom of speech" and what not. 2. Beliefs can range from anything... be it choosing if someone is lying or not, choosing what you think happened at a certain event, or choosing an idea for were humans came from. Religion is more or less limited to a specific belief. 3. When you break it down, "religion" and "beliefs" really are the same thing... so when it comes down to it, saying "religion" instead of "beliefs" is just a matter of word selection. You are correct about only one thing in this paragraph... namely the first sentence. Religion is not just an 'opinion'. If it was, the world would be an infinitely better place. It also tends to be a set of actions that are instructed (or forbidden), and the problem comes when they're imposed on others (and this absolutely does include children). Stay with me here. If your religion makes you believe God made the world 6000 years ago, that's fine with me (just don't teach it in science class to innocent, unformed minds). If your religion instructs you to kill homosexuals... this is clearly a different scenario, but the difference between the two is NOT RELIGION. The justification for both the two is religious. The only difference is the difference between thinking something for yourself while doing no harm to anyone, and actively taking away the rights of others. If you permit the one under the pretext of religion, you surely have t…
creator: Spoony
date: 2008-10-13T11:35:33-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: TL;DR: Spoony is saying if religion is forcing you to harm others because they don't share the same beliefs or remove body parts that you can't get back and you're forced to believe/ carry out certain acts/ forced acts upon yourself without full understanding because the religion you believes in says so, that's sick to the bone and someone should do something about it? I'm onto a winner here, yes?
creator: Ryu
date: 2008-10-13T11:50:13-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: Spoony your complete lack of understanding of this entire thread is very nicely illustrated by this paragraph. Read each post from me again until you get it. I am talking about the automatic deference we seem to give to religion to interfere in other people's lives, when no secular excuse would be allowed. I am talking about the fact that while letting someone believe there is a God is okay because the Bible says so, letting someone kill homosexuals because the Bible says that too is not okay. What's the difference? Not religion, clearly. I already made it clear what I'm talking about. I was arguing the choice of wording. I'll admit, I didn't fully read your post, so I went on what I read of your last paragraph. However, I did make an edit to a later post that addressed the atrocities being permitted by "freedom of religion". The law doesn't allow for that. The government may look the other way, as it does time and time and time and time and fucking time again, but it's not because of any sloppy wordage used, at least, in the U.S. Constitution. Spoony The first sentence in this paragraph is the really puzzling one. Freedom from religion would open the door to a state religion... okiedokie. Freedom from religion is the POLAR OPPOSITE. Read it again. I said freedom of BELIFS or OPINION (without freedom of religion) would open the door for a state religion. I guess we're both guilty of ignoring what the other has said. Spoony you pay taxes and extraordinary amounts of money go to undeserved religious causes, when religions are allowed to get away in court with the kind of crimes no secular organisation would... you are part of the state religion. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. Err, when did I ever disagree with that? I refer to my first point of this post... just because it's law doesn't change a fucking thing, unfortunately. One can only hope and pray that a government follows the restrictions its given. Obviously, it doesn't. My only point…
creator: cheesesoda
date: 2008-10-13T13:49:50-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: Spoony wrote on Mon, 13 October 2008 07:35 You are correct about only one thing in this paragraph... namely the first sentence. Religion is not just an 'opinion'. If it was, the world would be an infinitely better place. It also tends to be a set of actions that are instructed (or forbidden), and the problem comes when they're imposed on others (and this absolutely does include children). Stay with me here. If your religion makes you believe God made the world 6000 years ago, that's fine with me (just don't teach it in science class to innocent, unformed minds). If your religion instructs you to kill homosexuals... this is clearly a different scenario, but the difference between the two is NOT RELIGION. The justification for both the two is religious. The only difference is the difference between thinking something for yourself while doing no harm to anyone, and actively taking away the rights of others. If you permit the one under the pretext of religion, you surely have to permit the other. That's why "freedom of religion" is nonsense; you'd have to allow all sorts of atrocities. Which, of course, we do. I'm still not understanding.. Why do you think that? It makes no sense? You're basically saying something like "freedom to choose a car" should be "freedom to choose a vehicle." Just because there are different types of vehicles doesn't mean it still isn't a car. That just doesn't make sense. Different religion is a different religion, a different belief. You can't say freedom of belief because belief is an opinion that is granted for anything you care to believe in. A religion is a specific kind of belief. Just like saying you can't say freedom to choose a vehicle over a car because there are other such vehicles out there other than cars, be it planes, boats, trains, ect. Someone believing in 1 religion and someone believing in another are two different religions, or two different beliefs. Just because they are both a specific type of belief, doesn't mean they ar…
creator: R315r4z0r
date: 2008-10-13T16:36:12-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 13 October 2008 09:49 Read it again. I said freedom of BELIFS or OPINION (without freedom of religion) would open the door for a state religion. But you already have one, as do we... the only difference is yours is 'unofficial', but more influential. cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 13 October 2008 09:49 My only point has been that freedom of "opinion" and "beliefs" would make state religion legal. Listen to what you're actually saying. We can't allow people true freedom from religion because if we do, they won't have freedom from religion. Well, admittedly it's hard to debunk an argument like that, if only because it isn't an argument. cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 13 October 2008 09:49 No. I'm not advocating any terrifying action that's put under the guise of religion. That's just fucking absurd. By now, you should know what I meant. yet you still seem strangely unmoved by either of the two examples I gave, and you claimed that no such thing is happening at all, bizarrely. cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 13 October 2008 09:49 Spoony You already have several state religions. You just can't see them. I never meant for that to imply that the law is being followed. I was just talking about what the law was MEANT to prevent. Well, if it's obviously failing utterly, what's the harm in getting rid of it and replacing it with something infinitely more sensible and less open to exploitation? R315r4z0r wrote I'm still not understanding.. Why do you think that? It makes no sense? You're basically saying something like "freedom to choose a car" should be "freedom to choose a vehicle" because just because there are different types of vehicles doesn't mean it still isn't a car. That just doesn't make sense. Different religion is a different religion, a different belief. You can't say freedom of belief because belief is an opinion that is granted for anything you care to believe in. A religion is a specific kind of belief. Just like saying you can't say freedom to choose a …
creator: Spoony
date: 2008-10-13T16:54:51-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: Spoony But you already have one, as do we... the only difference is yours is 'unofficial', but more influential. I'm sure I agreed to this in my replies... Spoony Listen to what you're actually saying. We can't allow people true freedom from religion because if we do, they won't have freedom from religion. Well, admittedly it's hard to debunk an argument like that, if only because it isn't an argument. If you give people freedom of religion, you're theoretically giving them freedom from religion. Obviously, that doesn't always work out the way it should, but that's the case for any "freedom of" regarding beliefs and opinions. Spoony yet you still seem strangely unmoved by either of the two examples I gave, and you claimed that no such thing is happening at all, bizarrely. I claimed it's not being protected under "freedom of religion". It's being protected by governments blindly following illegal state religions. Spoony Well, if it's obviously failing utterly, what's the harm in getting rid of it and replacing it with something infinitely more sensible and less open to exploitation? How is it less open to exploitation? I already explained why it would open up the possibility of a LEGAL state religion. Government will exploit whatever loophole it has, and the southern states here in America would be quick to ban evolution from being taught in school, put the Ten Commandments all throughout courthouses and block any and all social progress while doing it under the name of God.
creator: cheesesoda
date: 2008-10-13T17:13:26-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: Consequences for doing something are not one in the same with the freedom allowed to do that something. You can follow a religion that takes you to kill 100 people, but you would be arrested for breaking the law of killing someone... not following your religion. Just like how many of my teachers in school used to say "You are allowed to fall asleep in my class, but you are expected to put in just as much effort into everything as everyone else." So you have the freedom to do what you want, but the consequences are still standing. Like I said before, you are free to kill someone if you wanted to, be it for religion or your own personal gain, but does that mean you are immune to the consequences? No. So if there is a religion that requires you to kill a bunch of people, you are free to believe in it, however that doesn't mean you wont be punished for it.
creator: R315r4z0r
date: 2008-10-13T17:30:48-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: dam spoony kicked cheesesoda's ass LMAO fuk religion
creator: Rocko
date: 2008-10-14T02:35:18-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: Rocko wrote on Mon, 13 October 2008 22:35 dam spoony kicked cheesesoda's ass LMAO fuk religion Care to actually add something to the conversation, or are you content being a troll?
creator: cheesesoda
date: 2008-10-14T04:51:25-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: R315r4z0r wrote Consequences for doing something are not one in the same with the freedom allowed to do that something. You can follow a religion that takes you to kill 100 people, but you would be arrested for breaking the law of killing someone... not following your religion. Just like how many of my teachers in school used to say "You are allowed to fall asleep in my class, but you are expected to put in just as much effort into everything as everyone else." So you have the freedom to do what you want, but the consequences are still standing. Like I said before, you are free to kill someone if you wanted to, be it for religion or your own personal gain, but does that mean you are immune to the consequences? No. So if there is a religion that requires you to kill a bunch of people, you are free to believe in it, however that doesn't mean you wont be punished for it. Read my post about female genital mutilation. I was somewhat gobsmacked at cheesesoda's lack of response to it, so I very carefully repeated it and highlighted it. I would rank this practice, which is happening IN THIS COUNTRY, TODAY, as the most awful and barbaric practice currently happening in the world. We overlook it for one reason: religion. I'll keep repeating this until you notice it, if you like. cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 13 October 2008 12:13 How is it less open to exploitation? I already explained why it would open up the possibility of a LEGAL state religion. Government will exploit whatever loophole it has, and the southern states here in America would be quick to ban evolution from being taught in school, put the Ten Commandments all throughout courthouses and block any and all social progress while doing it under the name of God. So in a nutshell, your argument is: we should continue to allow freedom of religion despite its massive flaws, because if we don't it'll permit a state religion even though you have one anyway.
creator: Spoony
date: 2008-10-14T20:31:48-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: Spoony wrote on Tue, 14 October 2008 16:31 Read my post about female genital mutilation. I was somewhat gobsmacked at cheesesoda's lack of response to it, so I very carefully repeated it and highlighted it. I would rank this practice, which is happening IN THIS COUNTRY, TODAY, as the most awful and barbaric practice currently happening in the world. We overlook it for one reason: religion. I'll keep repeating this until you notice it, if you like. I find it horribly disgusting as well, but no matter how disturbed we may think it is, we can't outlaw something because we don't like it. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it should be banned, no matter if you are right or wrong. Quite honestly, there really isn't any law saying they can't do that, and that's why they are allowed to do it.
creator: R315r4z0r
date: 2008-10-14T20:49:37-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 14 October 2008 15:49 I find it horribly disgusting as well, but no matter how disturbed we may think it is, we can't outlaw something because we don't like it. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it should be banned, no matter if you are right or wrong. Quite honestly, there really isn't any law saying they can't do that, and that's why they are allowed to do it.[/color] oh my. i'm gonna be really generous and assume you don't actually know what the process is. the process is the surgical removal of the clitoris and the labia, and then the vagina being completely sewn up with twine, to stay stitched up until the girl is married, and her husband will have the priviledge of breaking it. anyone reading this thread; consider this act (if you can do so without being physically sick, cos I nearly was when I first heard about it), then read the following two quotes: R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 14 October 2008 15:49 no matter how disturbed we may think it is, we can't outlaw something because we don't like it. R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 14 October 2008 15:49 Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it should be banned, no matter if you are right or wrong. my word... you think the reason i'm outraged about this is because I don't like it? uh no, I don't like it but it's not that. it's because I have the odd feeling THE INNOCENT DEFENCELESS VICTIM doesn't like it. still, you must be right; how can we outlaw this? we must allow sick, evil men to mutilate defenceless young girls (when they almost certainly have no choice in the matter) in a way that is undoubtedly incredibly painful, extremely humiliating, and destructive to their future sex life, and probably leaves them mentally scarred for life. Doesn't mean it should be banned! this is the 21st century. this is england, one of the most advanced nations in the world, and supposedly one of the nations which most values human rights and freedoms. AND WE ALLOW THIS. sometimes I liter…
creator: Spoony
date: 2008-10-14T21:06:21-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: Just because you think it is sick, disturbing and evil doesn't mean it is and it doesn't mean we should outlaw it. The victim may not like it either but it is still the same as above. Because one person doesn't like it doesn't make it illegal. If they don't want it to happen to them, then they just have to change religions. They follow a religion in which that is practiced. The act of actually doing it is not illegal and the right for them to practice it for religious purposes is legal, therefore they are allowed to do it and if you don't follow their religion, you have no legitimate say on whether it is right or not. You can express your disgust with it because of the first amendment, but it wont be taken seriously because you don't follow said religion. Welcome to America!
creator: R315r4z0r
date: 2008-10-14T22:05:40-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: Spoony So in a nutshell, your argument is: we should continue to allow freedom of religion despite its massive flaws, because if we don't it'll permit a state religion even though you have one anyway. I don't see how changing it is going to do anything. We both agree that the U.S. has a state religion, even though it's clearly illegal thanks to the Constitution. No matter what we do, local and state governments will overlook religious atrocities because of blind faith. You're not going to fix a broken cell phone by replacing the battery. Honestly, religion is ingenious. They teach their followers to put their faith first in their life, so that whenever the religious control is questioned, the loyal followers get all offended and dig in their heels.
creator: cheesesoda
date: 2008-10-14T22:16:46-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 14 October 2008 17:05 Just because you think it is sick, disturbing and evil doesn't mean it is and it doesn't mean we should outlaw it. The victim may not like it either but it is still the same as above. Because one person doesn't like it doesn't make it illegal. If they don't want it to happen to them, then they just have to change religions. They follow a religion in which that is practiced. The act of actually doing it is not illegal and the right for them to practice it for religious purposes is legal, therefore they are allowed to do it and if you don't follow their religion, you have no legitimate say on whether it is right or not. You can express your disgust with it because of the first amendment, but it wont be taken seriously because you don't follow said religion. Welcome to America! First, he is not in America; he is in the UK: a country that is getting invaded from within. You are completely missing Spoony's point. This is clearly an example of when a religion is automatically immune to scrutiny. A young child cannot change religions to escape circumcision which is made through the decision of the parents. What Spoony wants (or what I think he wants) is some sort of secular rule or just a solid thought that decrees and overides any religious/cultural norms with a stance that every human being has the right of choice and that the basic human anatomy be preserved and as such PARENTAL CONSENT be outlawed in decisions that negatively scars the body AND/OR reduces/deprives any function of any part of the human body. And that life-long changes to the physical body be made ONLY through SELF-CONSENT of the person in question when of mature responsible age UNLESS otherwise parental consent is necessary in some cases to avert other risks. Female circumcision is a bastardly act and is even more hideous and damaging than a male circumcision. A circumcised male would have difficulty masturbating due to loss of foreskin (he can still use lub…
creator: Starbuzzz
date: 2008-10-15T04:01:53-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: You should of stopped at the word "risks." Because up until there I can agree with you. But the rest of your post just went downhill. I don't like it as much as you don't like it, if not more, but I respect other's rights, as well as my own, enough to not question their actions or reasons. But anyway, back onto the actual topic. It is a bit of a dilemma. The reason why there is a freedom of religion is because people from other countries were persecuted for following different religions. America is supposed to be a place were someone can take any religion and practice it any way they want without being discriminated against. However, some times religions can lead to breaking the law. But if someone is arrested for doing something like that, then that means the right "freedom of religion" is a lie. So which is why I think that instead of religion requirements, the right of freedom of religion and any laws they might conflict with be completely separate. What I mean is this: you are free to practice any religion you want without being discriminated or persecuted. However, if you are caught doing something illegal, whether you are following your religion or not, you would be arrested. You would be arrested for breaking the law, and breaking the law alone. The fact you were following your religion would have nothing to do with it. To put it into a perspective: If you follow a religion in which it involves dismemberment of human parts, you cannot be arrested or persecuted for doing so. If you literally act and follow through with the dismemberment of human parts, then for that you can be arrested, as something that has nothing to do with religion. Doing such allows the freedom of religion and still guarantees it, but it also upholds such laws and rights of the individual without conflicting between the two rights. Like I said above, actions are not one in the same with consequences. You are free to do what you like, but consequences can and will be implied if needed.
creator: R315r4z0r
date: 2008-10-15T04:26:55-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 14 October 2008 21:26 You should of stopped at the word "risks." Because up until there I can agree with you. But the rest of your post just went downhill. I don't like it as much as you don't like it, if not more, but I respect other's rights, as well as my own, enough to not question their actions or reasons. I don't write posts to look cool. People are generally shy and coy when it comes to talking about sexuality. I hold nothing back and use plain language. Besides you seem to be a bit insensitive to circumcision and it's adverse effects (so why I included detailed description). You cannot agree with the first part of my post and disagree with the rest unless otherwise you meant you were disturbed by the down-to-earth plain language explanation of circumcision. Anyway, moving on, how can you respect someone's rights if that very same person is taking away the right of someone else? I don't understand! It's like knowingly letting a thief steal just because the thief is your friend but ignoring the fact he stole from an innocent man. As much as you respect others to let them follow their religion, you are ignoring the fact they are destroying someone else (their OWN child) in the process of upholding the religion. R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 14 October 2008 21:26 But anyway, back onto the actual topic. It is a bit of a dilemma. The reason why there is a freedom of religion is because people from other countries were persecuted for following different religions. America is supposed to be a place were someone can take any religion and practice it any way they want without being discriminated against. Very true but AFAIK, this was applied to religion and worship and any rituals. So, a Hindu can immigrate to the United States, buy a plot of land, build a giant colorful statue, cover it with garlands, start a massive candlefest, firecrackers ftw, and begin chanting away into the night. Oh yes, THAT is allowed and SHOULD be allowed. I should be allow…
creator: Starbuzzz
date: 2008-10-15T06:08:52-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 14 October 2008 23:26 Just because you think it is sick, disturbing and evil doesn't mean it is and it doesn't mean we should outlaw it. The victim may not like it either but it is still the same as above. Because one person doesn't like it doesn't make it illegal. If they don't want it to happen to them, then they just have to change religions. They follow a religion in which that is practiced. The act of actually doing it is not illegal and the right for them to practice it for religious purposes is legal, therefore they are allowed to do it and if you don't follow their religion, you have no legitimate say on whether it is right or not. You can express your disgust with it because of the first amendment, but it wont be taken seriously because you don't follow said religion. Let me isolate the massive flaw. They follow a religion in which that is practiced. If they don't want it to happen to them, then they just have to change religions. Here's another example of the elephant in the room, the emperor's new clothes. We are talking about CHILDREN here. When you refer to a 'Muslim child' (or a 'Christian child') for that matter, what you actually mean is 'a child who has been brought up in a Muslim family' (same for Christian). It is absurd to label a child according to the religious beliefs of their parents; any more than you would call a child a 'Republican child', a 'Marxist child' or, indeed, an 'atheist child' because their parents were. A child, no matter their intelligence, doesn't have their ideas about religion worked out yet, just like they haven't decided where they stand on economics or foreign policy. The problem is further complicated by the obvious difficulty a child would have if they DID want to 'change their religion'. In Islam, apostasy (i.e. renouncing your religion) is punishable by death. And it is enforced all the time. Imagine yourself to be a 'Muslim girl' who either doesn't really buy the whole Allah business or think…
creator: Spoony
date: 2008-10-15T15:10:45-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: Spoony With Christianity it isn't quite so brutish, but there's still clearly a big problem in society for those who want to say they don't really feel a part of the religion they've been brought up into. I'm glad I don't have that problem. I proudly admit that I'm no longer a Christian, and I argue with Fundamentalist Christians all of the time.
creator: cheesesoda
date: 2008-10-15T15:55:25-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: pawkyfox wrote on Wed, 15 October 2008 02:08 I don't write posts to look cool. People are generally shy and coy when it comes to talking about sexuality. I hold nothing back and use plain language. Besides you seem to be a bit insensitive to circumcision and it's adverse effects (so why I included detailed description). You cannot agree with the first part of my post and disagree with the rest unless otherwise you meant you were disturbed by the down-to-earth plain language explanation of circumcision. Anyway, moving on, how can you respect someone's rights if that very same person is taking away the right of someone else? I don't understand! It's like knowingly letting a thief steal just because the thief is your friend but ignoring the fact he stole from an innocent man. As much as you respect others to let them follow their religion, you are ignoring the fact they are destroying someone else (their OWN child) in the process of upholding the religion. I didn't imply it didn't "look cool." Nor did I imply that I was "generally shy and coy when it comes to talking about sexuality." What I mean by "going downhill" is that you sounded smart in the first half of your post and the next half just sounded like baseless facts that you were shooting out that had nothing to do with the topic. "Besides you seem to be a bit insensitive to circumcision and it's adverse effects (so why I included detailed description)." What?! There are no major upfront effects at all. Apparently, since you already seem to know so much about me, I guess I don't need to tell you that I am circumcised! I have absolutely no problem with either circumcision or no circumcision at all. pawkyfox wrote on Wed, 15 October 2008 02:08 I should be allowed to put a giant cross in my front yard EVEN if it causes an eyesore to the Atheist nextdoor. Those rights cannot be taken away. If my religion demands I buy a dog and beat it to the point of death on Friday mornings with a stick in my front yard, and you we…
creator: R315r4z0r
date: 2008-10-15T16:12:35-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 15 October 2008 11:12 What?! There are no major upfront effects at all. Apparently, since you already seem to know so much about me, I guess I don't need to tell you that I am circumcised! I have absolutely no problem with either circumcision or no circumcision at all. oh my. how many times must either pawky or myself repeat the brutish details of female circumcision in the space of one thread? it involves the excision of the clitoris and the labia (sometimes with a sharp stone). it's irreversible, undoubtedly extremely painful, humiliating in a way that is barely possible to imagine, destructive to the girl's future sex life, and probably hazardous with regard to childbirth. but still, there are 'no major upfront effects'. I really do feel like punching you. as for the male version, it's not anywhere near as horrific and barbaric as the female version, but it's still immoral to do it to someone else without their informed consent (and a child is not capable of giving that). But oh, you were circumcised and you don't mind it, so obviously it's fine for everyone else too. Listen, asshole, if as an informed adult you wanna take a scalpel to your own genitalia, or sign something saying a doctor can do it for you, you go ahead for all I care. It is IMMORAL AND CRIMINAL (in the moral sense, if not perhaps the legal) to do it to someone else without their informed consent. R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 15 October 2008 11:12 Again, you are just going on end, ignoring everything else, and saying things. This will be the 3rd time I'm saying this in this thread: ACTIONS are not the same as the CONSEQUENCES that are implied. You are FREE TO DO WHAT YOU WANT, whether you break a law or not, whether you're following a religion or not, you are free to do what ever you want, but if what you do breaks a law, regardless if you had the freedom to do the action, you will still suffer the consequences. If someone follows a religion that requires them to beat up dogs, …
creator: Spoony
date: 2008-10-15T17:49:45-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: Go over my thread again and tell me once were I said "female" circumcision. I'm not talking about female circumcision, I'm talking about male circumcision, hence me replying to pawky who was talking about male circumcision. Not to mention the fact that I'm not a female and I said I was circumcised. And also, I don't know why you are arguing with me, we have the same opinion, it just took me a while to understand what you were trying to say. (Hence my proposal that I've already explained twice) However, I will explain myself one more time. Note this is a COMPROMISE OF WHAT SHOULD BE not WHAT IS. If you are arrested, you are arrested for breaking the law. No matter what reasons you had for breaking the law, you broke the law. So if you kill someone because it is apart of your religion... then, religion aside, you are being arrested for murder. As long as mention of religion is not included in the reason for arresting you, then you are not being denied your freedom of religion. However, I do not see how changing it to "freedom of belief" will change anything. You are free to follow a religion that asks you to mutilate someone. But you can also simply just believe in mutilating someone for some cause. Either way, it's the same situation and result. Which brings me back to my ignorant first post; why even bother?
creator: R315r4z0r
date: 2008-10-16T00:12:41-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: religion is kinda like lettin a monkey loose in the doctors office with a stapler
creator: Rocko
date: 2008-10-16T02:24:18-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: Female circumsision sounds awful. Aside from that this is what Spoony believes in...THOUGHT POLICE. Read 1984.
creator: Muad Dib15
date: 2008-10-16T03:30:57-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 16 October 2008 02:12 Go over my thread again and tell me once were I said "female" circumcision. I'm not talking about female circumcision We were, because you said that we weren't allowing people to commit atrocious acts under the pretext of religion. Female genital mutilation is about as shocking an example to the contrary as I can think of. R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 16 October 2008 02:12 I'm talking about male circumcision, hence me replying to pawky who was talking about male circumcision. Not to mention the fact that I'm not a female and I said I was circumcised. Yet my point still stands. You were circumcised and you don't mind it; fine. When you go on to say there's nothing wrong with the practice because of that, that's where you're an idiot. R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 16 October 2008 02:12 However, I do not see how changing it to "freedom of belief" will change anything. You are free to follow a religion that asks you to mutilate someone. But you can also simply just believe in mutilating someone for some cause. Either way, it's the same situation and result. Which brings me back to my ignorant first post; why even bother? sigh one last time because (typically) religions are not just beliefs, they're also actions. Muad-Dib wrote Aside from that this is what Spoony believes in...THOUGHT POLICE. Read 1984. !facepalm read this extract from the very first post in the thread: let's start from the assumption that in any society that wants to call itself modern and free, you can't have thoughtcrime. orwell put the name to what must be the most extreme form of totalitarianism and dictatorship; the idea that you can be convicted because of what you think, what you privately want. you say you've read 1984, so surely it's evident to you that I am specifically talking about thoughtcrime and saying it cannot be enforced in any free society. I go on to make another point on the same topic... i could digress and say that several religions do teach that…
creator: Spoony
date: 2008-10-16T12:19:06-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: Spoony wrote on Thu, 16 October 2008 08:19 Yet my point still stands. You were circumcised and you don't mind it; fine. When you go on to say there's nothing wrong with the practice because of that, that's where you're an idiot. What are you talking about?! I never even said that! In fact I've said quite the opposite MANY times in this thread! Spoony wrote on Thu, 16 October 2008 08:19 sigh one last time because (typically) religions are not just beliefs, they're also actions. Who said they weren't? I said a religion can lead you to do something because you believe something will happen. But you can also just get rid of religion completely and just believe something will happen if you do something. What's the difference between killing a bunch of people for your religion so you can co go heaven and killing a bunch of people because you think something good will happen to you?
creator: R315r4z0r
date: 2008-10-16T19:23:39-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: Americans are entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These 3 liberties override any rights given to citizens including freedom of religion. This ensures that people can't do any damn thing they desire.
creator: Quackpunk
date: 2008-10-19T00:20:40-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: Freedom of religion arguably falls under all three categories of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
creator: Ryan3k
date: 2008-10-19T01:25:30-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: Ryan3k wrote on Sat, 18 October 2008 20:25 Freedom of religion arguably falls under all three categories of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. But life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the naturally born, unalienable rights given to man which exclude any outside category, such as religion.
creator: Quackpunk
date: 2008-10-22T05:26:06-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: Spoony wrote on Thu, 16 October 2008 07:19 bearing everything I just said in mind about religious thoughtcrime, do YOU believe in thoughtcrime, muad_dib? Or instead do you pick and choose which of your religion's teachings you think are valid?
creator: Spoony
date: 2008-11-11T17:47:05-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: spoony got abused by a priest when he was a child
creator: Hitman
date: 2008-12-11T15:45:23-00:00

Re: Freedom of Religion?
type: item
description: Well, I would probably argue that telling a child that they can suffer an eternity of the most horrific torment imaginable merely for what they think, as though this were a fact and not a guess, is indeed child abuse. But this came from teachers, not priests.
creator: Spoony
date: 2008-12-11T16:02:31-00:00