Why "freedom of religion" is an inane and outdated concept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 America's "first Amendment" is something of an outdated holdover of a past area and can easily be amended or subverted; while America's founders were wise in many areas, they were foolish in others, such as in their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.

Hard for me to tell whether you are just trolling- or you really are the Fascist you make yourself out to be.....

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.

So in your mind- anyone who doesn't believe in your fairy tales is just the same as a rapist......

Thank 'god' we have a Constitution to protect us all from Fascists like you.

This troll that posted the OP is a typical religious hypocrite. He claims wants everyone to follow HIS religion, so we can have a moral and ethical world. And then he talks about cheating on his wife.

Is not cheating, silly willy - it is polyamory which is what I identify as. Wife should not care if I love other women unless she is ignorant bigot against my sexuality.

Yes, it DOES matter. It is the fundamental key to being poly. Everyone you are involved with should know.

Your "poly" rules are not recognized under common law.

According to law, you are infelicitous and it doesn't matter whether or not she "agrees" or knows, since "consent" does not matter as far as state is concerned, and state has right to declare behavior wrong or immoral whether or not people "consent" to it or not.

If she doesn't care after she knows, that is great. If she does care and you continue without allowing her to divorce you, it is cheating.

Can your wife go out and seduce men?

I not polyamorous, silly rabbit - I just make a point about your absuridty.

You're still doing the same physical act as cheating, so whether she "knowns" or not doesn't change it, and the state doesn't care whether or not she "consents" to it, they have leeway do declare behavior wrong even if done under consent.

If your wifey divorce you, for example, she can still use your record of infidelity against you in court whether or not she "consented" to the infidelity, since your private "agreement" isn't recognized under common law.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Hard for me to tell whether you are just trolling- or you really are the Fascist you make yourself out to be.....

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.

So in your mind- anyone who doesn't believe in your fairy tales is just the same as a rapist......

Thank 'god' we have a Constitution to protect us all from Fascists like you.

This troll that posted the OP is a typical religious hypocrite. He claims wants everyone to follow HIS religion, so we can have a moral and ethical world. And then he talks about cheating on his wife.

Is not cheating, silly willy - it is polyamory which is what I identify as. Wife should not care if I love other women unless she is ignorant bigot against my sexuality.

Yes, it DOES matter. It is the fundamental key to being poly. Everyone you are involved with should know.

Your "poly" rules are not recognized under common law.

According to law, you are infelicitous and it doesn't matter whether or not she "agrees" or knows, since "consent" does not matter as far as state is concerned, and state has right to declare behavior wrong or immoral whether or not people "consent" to it or not.

If she doesn't care after she knows, that is great. If she does care and you continue without allowing her to divorce you, it is cheating.

Can your wife go out and seduce men?

I not polyamorous, silly rabbit - I just make a point about your absuridty.

You're still doing the same physical act as cheating, so whether she "knowns" or not doesn't change it, and the state doesn't care whether or not she "consents" to it, they have leeway do declare behavior wrong even if done under consent.

If your wifey divorce you, for example, she can still use your record of infidelity against you in court whether or not she "consented" to the infidelity, since your private "agreement" isn't recognized under common law.

Consent doesn't matter?

If your wife does not consent to sex and you force her, it is rape. Consent most certainly matters.

You want your religious beliefs to be what everyone follows, whether they believe them or not. In the US, adultery is illegal in only 21 states. So the law allows it in the other 29 states.

 

[Unification]

Hard for me to tell whether you are just trolling- or you really are the Fascist you make yourself out to be.....

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.

So in your mind- anyone who doesn't believe in your fairy tales is just the same as a rapist......

Thank 'god' we have a Constitution to protect us all from Fascists like you.

This troll that posted the OP is a typical religious hypocrite. He claims wants everyone to follow HIS religion, so we can have a moral and ethical world. And then he talks about cheating on his wife.

Is not cheating, silly willy - it is polyamory which is what I identify as. Wife should not care if I love other women unless she is ignorant bigot against my sexuality.

Yes, it DOES matter. It is the fundamental key to being poly. Everyone you are involved with should know.

Your "poly" rules are not recognized under common law.

According to law, you are infelicitous and it doesn't matter whether or not she "agrees" or knows, since "consent" does not matter as far as state is concerned, and state has right to declare behavior wrong or immoral whether or not people "consent" to it or not.

If she doesn't care after she knows, that is great. If she does care and you continue without allowing her to divorce you, it is cheating.

Can your wife go out and seduce men?

I not polyamorous, silly rabbit - I just make a point about your absuridty.

You're still doing the same physical act as cheating, so whether she "knowns" or not doesn't change it, and the state doesn't care whether or not she "consents" to it, they have leeway do declare behavior wrong even if done under consent.

If your wifey divorce you, for example, she can still use your record of infidelity against you in court whether or not she "consented" to the infidelity, since your private "agreement" isn't recognized under common law.

Consent doesn't matter?

If your wife does not consent to sex and you force her, it is rape. Consent most certainly matters.

You want your religious beliefs to be what everyone follows, whether they believe them or not. In the US, adultery is illegal in only 21 states. So the law allows it in the other 29 states.

Nay, I'm pointing out that the state has a right to enforce morality on people even at times when they "consent". The idea that if a behavior is consentual, it magically removes the inherant immorality of it is rather silly. This be like argument of NAMBLA that if a young boy or girl says "yes" to the advances of an adult man, it is fine because they consented.

It is worse if no consent, but if the state determines a person's actions to be immoral and reckless, they still have a right to legislate against it even if it is consentual.

 

[WinterBorn]

This troll that posted the OP is a typical religious hypocrite. He claims wants everyone to follow HIS religion, so we can have a moral and ethical world. And then he talks about cheating on his wife.

Is not cheating, silly willy - it is polyamory which is what I identify as. Wife should not care if I love other women unless she is ignorant bigot against my sexuality.

Yes, it DOES matter. It is the fundamental key to being poly. Everyone you are involved with should know.

Your "poly" rules are not recognized under common law.

According to law, you are infelicitous and it doesn't matter whether or not she "agrees" or knows, since "consent" does not matter as far as state is concerned, and state has right to declare behavior wrong or immoral whether or not people "consent" to it or not.

If she doesn't care after she knows, that is great. If she does care and you continue without allowing her to divorce you, it is cheating.

Can your wife go out and seduce men?

I not polyamorous, silly rabbit - I just make a point about your absuridty.

You're still doing the same physical act as cheating, so whether she "knowns" or not doesn't change it, and the state doesn't care whether or not she "consents" to it, they have leeway do declare behavior wrong even if done under consent.

If your wifey divorce you, for example, she can still use your record of infidelity against you in court whether or not she "consented" to the infidelity, since your private "agreement" isn't recognized under common law.

Consent doesn't matter?

If your wife does not consent to sex and you force her, it is rape. Consent most certainly matters.

You want your religious beliefs to be what everyone follows, whether they believe them or not. In the US, adultery is illegal in only 21 states. So the law allows it in the other 29 states.

Nay, I'm pointing out that the state has a right to enforce morality on people even at times when they "consent". The idea that if a behavior is consentual, it magically removes the inherant immorality of it is rather silly. This be like argument of NAMBLA that if a young boy or girl says "yes" to the advances of an adult man, it is fine because they consented.

It is worse if no consent, but if the state determines a person's actions to be immoral and reckless, they still have a right to legislate against it even if it is consentual.

Consent for sexual matters is confined to adults, by law. States have an "Age of Consent". Your claims that it is immoral does not matter.

If you think you can create a world where no one has sex except with their state selected spouse, you are delusional.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

Do you realize that in a society without religious freedom, your religion would be one of those most likely to be banned or otherwise suppressed? Your religion is relatively small, and is widely perceived by the general public as a bizarre, and possibly-harmful cult.

 

[SweetSue92]

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.

Poe

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, Taz, I feel superior to you because I'm superior to you.

I also feel my beliefs are superior to your beliefs, but that's completely separate from me just being better than you.

You can't even find a church and your beliefs are better than mine? Are you on the same high horse that Jesus rode?

Found a church, moron. If you bothered to read what I say, rather than debating the Cecilie you imagine in your own head - and still losing! - you'd know that I've been attending the same church for a month now.

And yes, my beliefs are better than yours. Know how I can tell? Because you're a bitter, nasty, miserable person, and it's a direct result of your beliefs and worldview.

So what are my beliefs and worldview that they are so bad?

Utterly uninteresting to anyone but you, which is why every single thread you ever enter is forced to spend half its posts telling you to stop trying to make the conversation about you.

Ok, so you have no fucking clue. Why am I not surprised?

Learn the difference between "I don't have an answer" and "You aren't worth answering".

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you believe you are going to go to Hell, then that's your real belief. If you just say you believe it because the government tells you to say you do, then it's not a real belief.

Is that dumbed-down enough for you, or do I need to break out the Crayolas?

But you say it because otherwise you go to hell. So you're being threatened. Now you know.

But that's not what I was talking about. Now you know. Five seconds from now, you'll forget and have to be reminded, because you're a dumbass. But at this particular moment in time, you know.

FYI, your belief that Christians serve God because they're "scared of hell" and "being threatened" has exactly nothing to do with why they ACTUALLY serve God. One reason why your life's work of attacking Christians is such a miserable failure is that you project your own ignorance onto others, and then can't comprehend why they're not finding it the huge stumbling block you do.

No, I'm just asking question because I'm curious about why people believe, and if there is anything solid behind it. You appear threatened by that.

No, Taz, you're not. You tell this lie in every single thread, and it's never true. You're not the slightest bit curious about what people ACTUALLY believe, let alone why. You are absolutely, 100% always about "I hate God! You must talk about my hatred of God! Stop talking about anything but my obsession with hating God!"

And then you inevitably interpret the fact that everyone views you as the conversational equivalent of stepping in dog crap as you "accomplishing" something.

We've been through this a million times already.

See? You had another chance to tell me why you believe but chose to denigrate me instead, why? You afraid?

See, I wrote a three-post long answer to why I believe in another thread, and you proceeded to not read a single thing I wrote, and just dashed off two-sentence boilerplate responses that bore no relation to my posts. Why would I waste time repeating that effort for the same result?

THAT is why I "choose to denigrate you": because you've proven that you deserve nothing more than to be spit upon. The only fear you engender is the same fear any paranoid schizophrenic would.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And I would argue that you're making life more difficult for no good reason, just so that you can feel superior.

I don't feel superior to anyone and life is not difficult. Nice try.

Didn't say life was difficult. I said you're adding difficulty that has no purpose for being.

And you definitely should NOT feel superior to anyone.

Neither should you.

Wrong.

Yes, you are wrong.

Gosh, that's so clever. I'm left speechless by the incisive cut of your rapier wit.

Go hump someone else's leg now, Fido.

 

[buttercup]

I would argue that it is far more moral to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing, rather than doing the right thing for fear of what may or may not happen to you after you die.

Unification is right about one thing. In the materialistic/atheistic worldview, there is no objective moral basis for right or wrong. The very words "right" and "wrong" are meaningless unless there is an objective, fixed unchanging standard. Most atheists believe that morality is man-made, which makes it subjective. And what that boils down to is there is no such thing as a true right or wrong, in your worldview.

 

[Taz]

You can't even find a church and your beliefs are better than mine? Are you on the same high horse that Jesus rode?

Found a church, moron. If you bothered to read what I say, rather than debating the Cecilie you imagine in your own head - and still losing! - you'd know that I've been attending the same church for a month now.

And yes, my beliefs are better than yours. Know how I can tell? Because you're a bitter, nasty, miserable person, and it's a direct result of your beliefs and worldview.

So what are my beliefs and worldview that they are so bad?

Utterly uninteresting to anyone but you, which is why every single thread you ever enter is forced to spend half its posts telling you to stop trying to make the conversation about you.

Ok, so you have no fucking clue. Why am I not surprised?

Learn the difference between "I don't have an answer" and "You aren't worth answering".

You just answered so I'm worth answering, so all that's left is that you have no answer. As usual. Check, and mate. Now fuck off.

 

[Taz]

But you say it because otherwise you go to hell. So you're being threatened. Now you know.

But that's not what I was talking about. Now you know. Five seconds from now, you'll forget and have to be reminded, because you're a dumbass. But at this particular moment in time, you know.

FYI, your belief that Christians serve God because they're "scared of hell" and "being threatened" has exactly nothing to do with why they ACTUALLY serve God. One reason why your life's work of attacking Christians is such a miserable failure is that you project your own ignorance onto others, and then can't comprehend why they're not finding it the huge stumbling block you do.

No, I'm just asking question because I'm curious about why people believe, and if there is anything solid behind it. You appear threatened by that.

No, Taz, you're not. You tell this lie in every single thread, and it's never true. You're not the slightest bit curious about what people ACTUALLY believe, let alone why. You are absolutely, 100% always about "I hate God! You must talk about my hatred of God! Stop talking about anything but my obsession with hating God!"

And then you inevitably interpret the fact that everyone views you as the conversational equivalent of stepping in dog crap as you "accomplishing" something.

We've been through this a million times already.

See? You had another chance to tell me why you believe but chose to denigrate me instead, why? You afraid?

See, I wrote a three-post long answer to why I believe in another thread, and you proceeded to not read a single thing I wrote, and just dashed off two-sentence boilerplate responses that bore no relation to my posts. Why would I waste time repeating that effort for the same result?

THAT is why I "choose to denigrate you": because you've proven that you deserve nothing more than to be spit upon. The only fear you engender is the same fear any paranoid schizophrenic would.

You have nothing. Your concession is duly noted. Now fuck off.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Hard for me to tell whether you are just trolling- or you really are the Fascist you make yourself out to be.....

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.

So in your mind- anyone who doesn't believe in your fairy tales is just the same as a rapist......

Thank 'god' we have a Constitution to protect us all from Fascists like you.

I care not for dated secular Constitution, and if one is atheist they cannot claim constiution is "sacred", but rather just a goddamn piece of paper like George W Bush asserted.

I think the Constitution should be changed and no longer protect degeneracy under guise of "frees peach" or "freedom of religion", state should actively stamp out degeneracy - since modern Rome has proven itself too immoral and materialistic to handle democracy, a strong government is the answer.

The 1st Amendment was obviously a mistake, and if American founders had witnessed degeneracy of modern rome protecting ills such as porn, and degenerate "art" under pretense of "frees peach", I think they would have reconsidered it.

I really can't decide whether you are a troll or really are such a fascist as you portray yourself.

 

[saveliberty]

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

A belief that someone forces you to profess is not a real belief.

Another way of saying what I said.

 

[saveliberty]

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

A belief that someone forces you to profess is not a real belief.

You mean like god scaring people with hell into following a book?

You realize you just admitted there is a God.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The 1st Amendment was obviously a mistake, and if American founders had witnessed degeneracy of modern rome protecting ills such as porn, and degenerate "art" under pretense of "frees peach", I think they would have reconsidered it.

I really can't decide whether you are a troll or really are such a fascist as you portray yourself.

Apparently, he's a “Moonie”.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

A belief that someone forces you to profess is not a real belief.

Another way of saying what I said.

Yes, that's what one does when one is agreeing with someone.

 

[Taz]

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

A belief that someone forces you to profess is not a real belief.

You mean like god scaring people with hell into following a book?

You realize you just admitted there is a God.

Howz that?

 

[Taz]

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

A belief that someone forces you to profess is not a real belief.

Another way of saying what I said.

Yes, that's what one does when one is agreeing with someone.

To follow a religion is to give up your free will.