Why "freedom of religion" is an inane and outdated concept

[Unification]

I'd argue that the irreligious have proven themselves too devolved and degenerate to properly govern themselves without the guidance of, contrary to their deluded notions of "independence". Being given over less-evolved vices such as gluttony, sexual deviancy, porn addiction, and what not - the types of simplistic pleasures befitting of lesser evolved species they have more in common with than enlightened humans who are capable of creating and appreciating higher things such as arts, music, sciences, and spirituality - all which, of course are religious constructs and institutions.

Therefore it would be in the best interest of America and Europe's governments to administer religion to them and re-establish state religion in our schools, universities and media. America's "first Amendment" is something of an outdated holdover of a past area and can easily be amended or subverted; while America's founders were wise in many areas, they were foolish in others, such as in their decision to permit enslavement of Africans - I'd argue that their decision to grant freedom of religion, rather than establishing state religion was one of their foolies, and something which secularists have of course proven themselves incapable of handling responsibly.

As for how to implement this - the details vary. I'd argue that even giving secularists or atheists "human rights" at all is a luxury, but wouldn't see the need or effectiveness in actively arresting and imprisoning them for holding secular beliefs in the privacy of their own how. But ideally, publicly identifying as a "secularist" or "atheist" should be made socially acceptable in any civilized nation on par with publicly identifying as a pedophile, rapist, or Nazi, or otherwise, and this way they could passively be encouraged either to convert to religion or keep their deviant beliefs outside of civilized society.

 

[irosie91]

try not to share your ideas with the neighbors

 

[Unification]

try not to share your ideas with the neighbors

I'm not particularily concerned with that, my argument is that our politicians and executives should work to establish state religion, given that democracy has proven itself a failed experiment, which the lesser members of society have proven themselves incapable of managing.

Allowing secularism is therefore the equivalent of allowing mob rule, or giving chimpanzees the illusion that they can govern themselves without aid of their rulers.

 

[Taz]

Hey unif, welcome aboard. You can have my backing for religious control of America if you can answer me this one question: how did Noah get kangaroos from Australia and back again after the Flood?

 

[irosie91]

try not to share your ideas with the neighbors

I'm not particularily concerned with that, my argument is that our politicians and executives should work to establish state religion, given that democracy has proven itself a failed experiment, which the lesser members of society have proven themselves incapable of managing.

Allowing secularism is therefore the equivalent of allowing mob rule, or giving chimpanzees the illusion that they can govern themselves without aid of their rulers.

your idiot idea is THEOCRACY-------it has already been tried-----LOTS---
and fully discredited

 

[Unification]

Hey unif, welcome aboard. You can have my backing for religious control of America if you can answer me this one question: how did Noah get kangaroos from Australia and back again after the Flood?

The "deluge" is merely a mythical account from the Hebrew Bible, and the specifics are unimportant to modern religion, so your question is rather silly, and I don't think anyone cares other than perhaps that Kent Hovind fellow.

Silly arguments about the nature of mythical ancient floods are irrelevent - my argument is simply that democracy in the modern sense doesn't work, and that those who identify as secular consistently prove themselves too immoral, degenerate, misogynist or otherwise to govern themselves, so they have no "right" to freedom of religion - much as a felon has no "right" to gun ownership.

 

[Unification]

try not to share your ideas with the neighbors

I'm not particularily concerned with that, my argument is that our politicians and executives should work to establish state religion, given that democracy has proven itself a failed experiment, which the lesser members of society have proven themselves incapable of managing.

Allowing secularism is therefore the equivalent of allowing mob rule, or giving chimpanzees the illusion that they can govern themselves without aid of their rulers.

your idiot idea is THEOCRACY-------it has already been tried-----LOTS---
and fully discredited

Nay, I would have to argue differently - that all successful governments are either theocracies or quasi-theocracies.

America's founders, for example, were theocrats in everything but name, but merely caved to the secular 'rabble' which was popular during the era, and mistakenly included the "freedom of religion" clause in the 1st Amendment just to mollify them.

This was a mistake and should be corrected, much as their support of slavery of African's was a mistake.

 

[saveliberty]

Removing freedom of choice, free will, is not a religious concept.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'd argue that the irreligious have proven themselves too devolved and degenerate to properly govern themselves without the guidance of, contrary to their deluded notions of "independence". Being given over less-evolved vices such as gluttony, sexual deviancy, porn addiction, and what not - the types of simplistic pleasures befitting of lesser evolved species they have more in common with than enlightened humans who are capable of creating and appreciating higher things such as arts, music, sciences, and spirituality - all which, of course are religious constructs and institutions.

Therefore it would be in the best interest of America and Europe's governments to administer religion to them and re-establish state religion in our schools, universities and media. America's "first Amendment" is something of an outdated holdover of a past area and can easily be amended or subverted; while America's founders were wise in many areas, they were foolish in others, such as in their decision to permit enslavement of Africans - I'd argue that their decision to grant freedom of religion, rather than establishing state religion was one of their foolies, and something which secularists have of course proven themselves incapable of handling responsibly.

As for how to implement this - the details vary. I'd argue that even giving secularists or atheists "human rights" at all is a luxury, but wouldn't see the need or effectiveness in actively arresting and imprisoning them for holding secular beliefs in the privacy of their own how. But ideally, publicly identifying as a "secularist" or "atheist" should be made socially acceptable in any civilized nation on par with publicly identifying as a pedophile, rapist, or Nazi, or otherwise, and this way they could passively be encouraged either to convert to religion or keep their deviant beliefs outside of civilized society.

It would be in the best interest of USMB to not have so many troll threads, such as this one.

 

[Unification]

Removing freedom of choice, free will, is not a religious concept.

I digress, our Common Law, for example, prohibits atheistic practices such as rape, murder, pedophilia, and otherwise.

It therefore effectively prohibits the practice of atheism already and establishes "theocracy" on atheists, who would otherwise rape, murder, molest children without remorse much like the Marquis de Sade - so I see there's no reason why we shouldn't outright ban atheism in every civilized nation, rather than essentially ban it in everything but name by banning its "rites" such as murder and those mentioned.

If the nations of Europe, for example, ban the display of the Nazi flag, then I see no reason why banning the display of atheism or secularism in public places would be any different. Why should so-called "people" who really have no problem with rape, sodomy, and every other bestial pleasure conceived be given any "rights", when they have more in common with feral animals and mongrels than "people" to begin with.

 

[irosie91]

try not to share your ideas with the neighbors

I'm not particularily concerned with that, my argument is that our politicians and executives should work to establish state religion, given that democracy has proven itself a failed experiment, which the lesser members of society have proven themselves incapable of managing.

Allowing secularism is therefore the equivalent of allowing mob rule, or giving chimpanzees the illusion that they can govern themselves without aid of their rulers.

your idiot idea is THEOCRACY-------it has already been tried-----LOTS---
and fully discredited

Nay, I would have to argue differently - that all successful governments are either theocracies or quasi-theocracies.

America's founders, for example, were theocrats in everything but name, but merely caved to the secular 'rabble' which was popular during the era, and mistakenly included the "freedom of religion" clause in the 1st Amendment just to mollify them.

This was a mistake and should be corrected, much as their support of slavery of African's was a mistake.

try to cope-----bill of rights was added FUNCTIONATELY IMMEDIATELY to the constitution ------it was not a reaction to your IMAGINARY DEVELOPEMENTS

 

[Penelope]

try not to share your ideas with the neighbors

I'm not particularily concerned with that, my argument is that our politicians and executives should work to establish state religion, given that democracy has proven itself a failed experiment, which the lesser members of society have proven themselves incapable of managing.

Allowing secularism is therefore the equivalent of allowing mob rule, or giving chimpanzees the illusion that they can govern themselves without aid of their rulers.

your idiot idea is THEOCRACY-------it has already been tried-----LOTS---
and fully discredited

Nay, I would have to argue differently - that all successful governments are either theocracies or quasi-theocracies.

America's founders, for example, were theocrats in everything but name, but merely caved to the secular 'rabble' which was popular during the era, and mistakenly included the "freedom of religion" clause in the 1st Amendment just to mollify them.

This was a mistake and should be corrected, much as their support of slavery of African's was a mistake.

No this country was not found on Christianity or any religion except most of the founders were baptized as infants into Christianity, but to say they practiced it is absurd.

 

[Unification]

try not to share your ideas with the neighbors

I'm not particularily concerned with that, my argument is that our politicians and executives should work to establish state religion, given that democracy has proven itself a failed experiment, which the lesser members of society have proven themselves incapable of managing.

Allowing secularism is therefore the equivalent of allowing mob rule, or giving chimpanzees the illusion that they can govern themselves without aid of their rulers.

your idiot idea is THEOCRACY-------it has already been tried-----LOTS---
and fully discredited

Nay, I would have to argue differently - that all successful governments are either theocracies or quasi-theocracies.

America's founders, for example, were theocrats in everything but name, but merely caved to the secular 'rabble' which was popular during the era, and mistakenly included the "freedom of religion" clause in the 1st Amendment just to mollify them.

This was a mistake and should be corrected, much as their support of slavery of African's was a mistake.

try to cope-----bill of rights was added FUNCTIONATELY IMMEDIATELY to the constitution ------it was not a reaction to your IMAGINARY DEVELOPEMENTS

And so what? The Constitution can change, and there is no reason we can't remove or amend its "rights".

My argument essentially, is that Constitutional rights should exist only for the religious - I would stop at establishing a "single" religion, but I would argue that only those who acknowledge one God or higher power are deserving of rights, those who don't do not deserve those rights.

 

[Unification]

try not to share your ideas with the neighbors

I'm not particularily concerned with that, my argument is that our politicians and executives should work to establish state religion, given that democracy has proven itself a failed experiment, which the lesser members of society have proven themselves incapable of managing.

Allowing secularism is therefore the equivalent of allowing mob rule, or giving chimpanzees the illusion that they can govern themselves without aid of their rulers.

your idiot idea is THEOCRACY-------it has already been tried-----LOTS---
and fully discredited

Nay, I would have to argue differently - that all successful governments are either theocracies or quasi-theocracies.

America's founders, for example, were theocrats in everything but name, but merely caved to the secular 'rabble' which was popular during the era, and mistakenly included the "freedom of religion" clause in the 1st Amendment just to mollify them.

This was a mistake and should be corrected, much as their support of slavery of African's was a mistake.

No this country was not found on Christianity or any religion except most of the founders were baptized as infants into Christianity, but to say they practiced it is absurd.

I think establishing Christianity as the sole state religion would not be in the best interest.

But rather I think a pluralistic "theocracy" in which all major religions which acknowelge one God or HIgher Power, would be justified in being state-funded - while atheism and other 'degenerate' religions such as Wicca, "Satanism", etc would not and would be banned by the state.

This is due to the fact that if one is an atheist, then one cannot appreciate the concept of "humanism" or rights - and there is no reason for an atheist to have any aversion to murder, rape, or other beastly pleasures, much as the evil and perverted atheist Marquis de Sade admitted.

If one becomes an atheist, one therefore essentially demotes themselves to the status of "animal" rather than human, and much like animals in a zoo have no "rights", neither should an atheist unless they recant.

 

[Penelope]

I firmly believe in the Separation of Church and State.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Although the idiotic thread premise is the product of a ridiculous troll, it’s troubling to consider the fact that far too many on the right would agree with the thread’s idiotic premise.

 

[saveliberty]

And so what? The Constitution can change, and there is no reason we can't remove or amend its "rights".

My argument essentially, is that Constitutional rights should exist only for the religious - I would stop at establishing a "single" religion, but I would argue that only those who acknowledge one God or higher power are deserving of rights, those who don't do not deserve those rights.

... and just how would one prove they were religious? A little difficult to prove faith.

 

[Defiant1]

I firmly believe in the Separation of Church and State.

No you don't.

 

[dave p]

try not to share your ideas with the neighbors

I'm not particularily concerned with that, my argument is that our politicians and executives should work to establish state religion, given that democracy has proven itself a failed experiment, which the lesser members of society have proven themselves incapable of managing.

Allowing secularism is therefore the equivalent of allowing mob rule, or giving chimpanzees the illusion that they can govern themselves without aid of their rulers.

State religion are you insane?

 

[mdk]

This thread.