Wow, my knowledge of presidents' religions is really low... I know he isn't president, but I automatically assumed that Romney was religious because he's Mormon- but that's mostly me stereotyping, so I could be wrong.
My only problem with this is that the OP is right. The first amendment is being broken by allowing parents to force their religion on their children.
I think the only suitable outcome to this problem is to limit it on the age of mentality. Children should have to wait until they are 13 for instance, to be indoctrinated into their parents religion, and even then, be allowed to leave if they want to.
I hear you. But just as there is an age of sexual consent, do you not see how someone could wish for something along the same lines with religion? Born into it, it really can blindside and misdirect someone.
I can see your point, but I think if you are going to believe you will and if you are not then you won't. No matter how you were raised. All of the atheists I know were raised religious and many of the religious people I know were raised with no religion or a different religion than they are now.
Of course, but I still "explored" various religions when I was in my early twenties.
I like the community aspect that a lot of religions have, but I found everything else was a lot of nonsense. And most religions are extremely sexist which I find very repulsive.
community is certainly important in the point of view i identify with :) feeling connected to others is feeling connected to life, thus fertilizing the soul
Very true. I just think laws like this would kind of cut to the chase. And unfortunately, for as many free thinking humanitarians as there are, whether athiest or spiritual, there are tenfold religious zealots. Or so it seems to me. While some get out with their sanity, many are trapped for life to become veritable Dick Chenneys :O
i think many governments are religious in nature, and operate within every implication of a religious system.
note how closely our electoral and senatorial processes mirror the papal system at the vatican. even that aside, governments in the past several hundred years the world around have functioned like churches in periods of societal "awakenings".
political spectrums in nearly every nation are riddled with propaganda vying for every second of our attention at times close to an election of any significance. often voters are pushed from one point on a binary spectrum to another-- two "opposing" parties who are really just wrapped up with their respective competing buisnesses and firms. These "opposing" parties make trivial, societal white-elephants out of issues that shouldn't even be issues in truly just societies, such as racial integration, homosexuality, and contraceptive rights...just to distract populations from games involving big, big money. when one party wins out over the other, the primary flow of money just shifts. the winning party becomes mega-rich, while the losers become semi-mega-rich.
in the worst places, there are absolute regimes, so the common citizen does not even have the luxury of pretending that they have democratic power as would citizens of a politically binary country. when you look at these places, i think it is no coincidence that many are theocratic. and as im sure you know, many governments are OPENLY religious (as opposed to acting on religious principles and then shrouding the conversation of these acts with a politically correct language).
it seems these days that when we vote, we are always told to look to the future. deadlines are frequently moved, failed measures to "improve things" are replaced with more and more failing measures, every idea is a recycled one, and the whole time we hear--"It will get better if i win because _______".
to me this seems religious, because religions have taxes of tithes and promise ETERNALLY better, brighter futures. religion and politics even share a common body--ever the two-headed ceberus. the perfect afterlives in religion are conditional, often times actually based around the distracting white-elephant issues made up by bureaucrats (immigration, drug laws, homosexuality, contraceptive issues...i could go on :D ).
the thing is though, is the afterlife actually better? how many people reading my comment have died (and stayed dead--please no "i technically died" stories). the thing is, despite it all, we don't know if the afterlife is better until we have ACTUALLY DIED. we can have firm, even unshakable convictions that our religious beliefs are true, in the same way that a citizen of a nation state can have unfailing faith in their political systems. we've yet to *die* though, politically--we have yet to shed our entire past political life and do something that works. I don't think its trial and error, though--I think deep down every person knows what would truly work, but each individual has various amounts of fear attached to that knowledge.
It is my religious belief that every third Wednesday of every other June one baby should be sacrificed. Do you feel that a law should be made against my religion? Where is the line?
I'll tell you where the line is, in my opinion. I feel that the line should be drawn where a persons religion affects the rights of any other person..
In the case of parents raising their children religiously I feel that it is fine unless the child ever rejects the religion. No child should be forced to go to church.
It is already against the law to kill a human being.
They do allow for religious animal sacrifice and don't count it as animal cruelity.
That is right it should not affect another persons rights, I never said it should. I guess I thought it was implied, So if I have to make another freaking edit...
EDIT:
"I don't think that any law should be made against anyone's religion."
changes to:
I don't think that any law should be made against anyone's religion unless it affects another persons rights.
I wasn't thinking of human sacrifice when I made my first comment, silly me. We all know that happens all the time.
"I believe marriage to be a government isssue not a religious issue"
The institution of marriage belongs to the church lol. They invented it.
You just want to be tolerant of everything, nice to everyone while confusing that with "progress" , well sometimes one effects the other and you have to choose and not live up to the "brain dead, wishy washy" stereotype of an overly liberal person who doesn't think beyond surface value.
I'm not making fun, i'm just saying you're statments are conflicting. You are spitting in catholics faces and on their tradition by allowing gay marriage, something their religion considers evil. And as marriage is a part of their religion and not the gays you can see what i'm talking about if you "think"
They may have invented it but why does the government have to be involved to make it a legal marriage?
That makes it a government issue these days. A ton of non-religious people get married everyday.
I am not a liberal, I am sure you have little to know idea about American politics. In the same way I know little about Austrailian politics.
Anyway I am not a liberal, I am a libertarian leaning independent.
As you can see if you look, I made an edit to my first comment on this poll.
I will just copy and paste it here...
"I don't think that any law should be made against anyone's religion."
EDIT:
I don't think that any law should be made banning anyone's religion.
People have the right to believe whatever they want.
Not everyone is going to be happy all the time, you can't win every issue.
If that makes catholics sad I don't really care. They have bigger issues of their own to deal with besides two grown people of the same gender fucking each other. I think fucking kids is much worse.
IIN to think that parents raising their children religiously should...
← View full post
I believe in the separation of church and state.
I think the church should stay out of politics.
I think that government should stay out of the church.
I don't think that any law should be made against anyone's religion.
--
Squambly
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
anti-hero
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
Velancious
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
Captain_Kegstand
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
uPSIDEOFDOWn
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
tobealive
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Lynxikat
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-3
-3
Yes. Your so right. I'm dissapointed by the fact that people in America care about what religion a politician or president is.
--
anti-hero
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It is a bit stupid, because I don't think any of them are all that religious in the first place. Maybe Jimmy Carter.
--
Lynxikat
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Wow, my knowledge of presidents' religions is really low... I know he isn't president, but I automatically assumed that Romney was religious because he's Mormon- but that's mostly me stereotyping, so I could be wrong.
--
anti-hero
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I don't think he is the best Mormon but I don't know.
"I don't think that any law should be made against anyone's religion."
EDIT:
I don't think that any law should be made banning anyone's religion.
People have the right to believe whatever they want.
My only problem with this is that the OP is right. The first amendment is being broken by allowing parents to force their religion on their children.
I think the only suitable outcome to this problem is to limit it on the age of mentality. Children should have to wait until they are 13 for instance, to be indoctrinated into their parents religion, and even then, be allowed to leave if they want to.
I agree with you completely!
--
anti-hero
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Thank you kind sir.
I hear you. But just as there is an age of sexual consent, do you not see how someone could wish for something along the same lines with religion? Born into it, it really can blindside and misdirect someone.
--
anti-hero
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
I can see your point, but I think if you are going to believe you will and if you are not then you won't. No matter how you were raised. All of the atheists I know were raised religious and many of the religious people I know were raised with no religion or a different religion than they are now.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
uPSIDEOFDOWn
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I was raised atheist.
--
anti-hero
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Are you still atheist?
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
6
6
Of course, but I still "explored" various religions when I was in my early twenties.
I like the community aspect that a lot of religions have, but I found everything else was a lot of nonsense. And most religions are extremely sexist which I find very repulsive.
--
Squambly
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
See More Comments =>
-
uPSIDEOFDOWn
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
See More Comments =>
-
anti-hero
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Thats probably the reason why I felt so good when I was christian but I couldn't stand the fact that it made no good sense.
community is certainly important in the point of view i identify with :) feeling connected to others is feeling connected to life, thus fertilizing the soul
I see.
Very true. I just think laws like this would kind of cut to the chase. And unfortunately, for as many free thinking humanitarians as there are, whether athiest or spiritual, there are tenfold religious zealots. Or so it seems to me. While some get out with their sanity, many are trapped for life to become veritable Dick Chenneys :O
--
anti-hero
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
HAHA I still find laws and government to be worse for the world than religion. (In most cases).
--
Lynxikat
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
uPSIDEOFDOWn
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Agreed.
i think many governments are religious in nature, and operate within every implication of a religious system.
note how closely our electoral and senatorial processes mirror the papal system at the vatican. even that aside, governments in the past several hundred years the world around have functioned like churches in periods of societal "awakenings".
political spectrums in nearly every nation are riddled with propaganda vying for every second of our attention at times close to an election of any significance. often voters are pushed from one point on a binary spectrum to another-- two "opposing" parties who are really just wrapped up with their respective competing buisnesses and firms. These "opposing" parties make trivial, societal white-elephants out of issues that shouldn't even be issues in truly just societies, such as racial integration, homosexuality, and contraceptive rights...just to distract populations from games involving big, big money. when one party wins out over the other, the primary flow of money just shifts. the winning party becomes mega-rich, while the losers become semi-mega-rich.
in the worst places, there are absolute regimes, so the common citizen does not even have the luxury of pretending that they have democratic power as would citizens of a politically binary country. when you look at these places, i think it is no coincidence that many are theocratic. and as im sure you know, many governments are OPENLY religious (as opposed to acting on religious principles and then shrouding the conversation of these acts with a politically correct language).
it seems these days that when we vote, we are always told to look to the future. deadlines are frequently moved, failed measures to "improve things" are replaced with more and more failing measures, every idea is a recycled one, and the whole time we hear--"It will get better if i win because _______".
to me this seems religious, because religions have taxes of tithes and promise ETERNALLY better, brighter futures. religion and politics even share a common body--ever the two-headed ceberus. the perfect afterlives in religion are conditional, often times actually based around the distracting white-elephant issues made up by bureaucrats (immigration, drug laws, homosexuality, contraceptive issues...i could go on :D ).
the thing is though, is the afterlife actually better? how many people reading my comment have died (and stayed dead--please no "i technically died" stories). the thing is, despite it all, we don't know if the afterlife is better until we have ACTUALLY DIED. we can have firm, even unshakable convictions that our religious beliefs are true, in the same way that a citizen of a nation state can have unfailing faith in their political systems. we've yet to *die* though, politically--we have yet to shed our entire past political life and do something that works. I don't think its trial and error, though--I think deep down every person knows what would truly work, but each individual has various amounts of fear attached to that knowledge.
--
anti-hero
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I agree. I think a lot of government types abuse religion as a tool to get what they want, with no actual beliefs.
It is my religious belief that every third Wednesday of every other June one baby should be sacrificed. Do you feel that a law should be made against my religion? Where is the line?
I'll tell you where the line is, in my opinion. I feel that the line should be drawn where a persons religion affects the rights of any other person..
In the case of parents raising their children religiously I feel that it is fine unless the child ever rejects the religion. No child should be forced to go to church.
--
anti-hero
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It is already against the law to kill a human being.
They do allow for religious animal sacrifice and don't count it as animal cruelity.
That is right it should not affect another persons rights, I never said it should. I guess I thought it was implied, So if I have to make another freaking edit...
EDIT:
"I don't think that any law should be made against anyone's religion."
changes to:
I don't think that any law should be made against anyone's religion unless it affects another persons rights.
I wasn't thinking of human sacrifice when I made my first comment, silly me. We all know that happens all the time.
Completely agree.
"I don't think that any law should be made against anyone's religion."
So you're against gay marriage like me then as it was founded by the church?
--
anti-hero
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
I am not anti gay marriage. I don't think that is a government issue. There should be no law against it. I am a fan of personal liberty.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
Then your statement is contradictory as approving gay marriage will be a state law made against a religion.
It will be a law against the catholic church on one of their most sacred institutions.
"I am a fan of personal liberty"
Yeah, at the expense of an entire religions beliefs.
--
anti-hero
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
I believe marriage to be a government isssue not a religious issue.
I was talking about banning religion in general not bowing to everyone's personal beliefs.
Fuck catholics, you know another of their most sacred institutions? Having their so called holy men, fuck young boys in the ass.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"I believe marriage to be a government isssue not a religious issue"
The institution of marriage belongs to the church lol. They invented it.
You just want to be tolerant of everything, nice to everyone while confusing that with "progress" , well sometimes one effects the other and you have to choose and not live up to the "brain dead, wishy washy" stereotype of an overly liberal person who doesn't think beyond surface value.
I'm not making fun, i'm just saying you're statments are conflicting. You are spitting in catholics faces and on their tradition by allowing gay marriage, something their religion considers evil. And as marriage is a part of their religion and not the gays you can see what i'm talking about if you "think"
--
anti-hero
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
They may have invented it but why does the government have to be involved to make it a legal marriage?
That makes it a government issue these days. A ton of non-religious people get married everyday.
I am not a liberal, I am sure you have little to know idea about American politics. In the same way I know little about Austrailian politics.
Anyway I am not a liberal, I am a libertarian leaning independent.
As you can see if you look, I made an edit to my first comment on this poll.
I will just copy and paste it here...
"I don't think that any law should be made against anyone's religion."
EDIT:
I don't think that any law should be made banning anyone's religion.
People have the right to believe whatever they want.
Not everyone is going to be happy all the time, you can't win every issue.
If that makes catholics sad I don't really care. They have bigger issues of their own to deal with besides two grown people of the same gender fucking each other. I think fucking kids is much worse.