Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence

[GreatestIam]

Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. Laïcité - Wikipedia

The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.

Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.

I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

 

[Pogo]

No. It would make it worse.

When we isolate or taboo-ize a totem, we invest it with Power. When we expose it and overexpose it, we drain that Power.

 

[ding]

Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. Laïcité - Wikipedia

The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.

Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.

I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

My thoughts are I’m not surprised that you would openly propose restricting religion. You’re a socialist. A materialist. That’s what they do.

 

[progressive hunter]

Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. Laïcité - Wikipedia

The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.

Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.

I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

and what inquisitions need to end???

I thought they ended centuries ago???

 

[ozro]

lost any support from me at the word "ban"

 

[Rambunctious]

Banning anything is an aggressive act...so one had better be sure to have a good acceptable reason for doing so....so banning drunk driving or murder and extortion is one thing but to ban religion is tyrannical and will make matters much worse....

 

[Ringel05]

Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. Laïcité - Wikipedia

The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.

Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.

I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

 

[Pogo]

Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. Laïcité - Wikipedia

The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.

Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.

I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

Well, the OP didn't specify where the ban would come from. I took it as a question of what the effect would be, assuming it were done --- on whatever level.

 

[BreezeWood]

Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. Laïcité - Wikipedia

The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.

Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.

I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...


howabout the purposeful first line you ignored rather than the mundane disclaimer you chose as for the intent of the article.

 

[Ringel05]

Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. Laïcité - Wikipedia

The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.

Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.

I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...


howabout the purposeful first line you ignored rather than the mundane disclaimer you chose as for the intent of the article.

Uummmm, because in this instance the government wouldn't be establishing a religion.......
Now we could argue till the end of time if atheism and secularism are religions in their own right........

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. Laïcité - Wikipedia

The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.

Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.

I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

Same thought I have whenever I read any of your posts, you're going to find great joy and happiness in the Lord

 

[Ringel05]

Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. Laïcité - Wikipedia

The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.

Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.

I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

Well, the OP didn't specify where the ban would come from. I took it as a question of what the effect would be, assuming it were done --- on whatever level.

Then you read it completely differently than I did.......

Key sentence:

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Take that in context with the rest of his anti-religion exposition and what else comes to mind?

 

[Pogo]

Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. Laïcité - Wikipedia

The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.

Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.

I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

Well, the OP didn't specify where the ban would come from. I took it as a question of what the effect would be, assuming it were done --- on whatever level.

Then you read it completely differently than I did.......

Key sentence:

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Take that in context with the rest of his anti-religion exposition and what else comes to mind?

I don't know of this exposition. All I know is what's in the OP.

Anyhoo, I answered on the basis of how the social dynamics would manifest. That's more interesting.

 

[Ringel05]

Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. Laïcité - Wikipedia

The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.

Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.

I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

Well, the OP didn't specify where the ban would come from. I took it as a question of what the effect would be, assuming it were done --- on whatever level.

Then you read it completely differently than I did.......

Key sentence:

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Take that in context with the rest of his anti-religion exposition and what else comes to mind?

I don't know of this exposition. All I know is what's in the OP.

Anyhoo, I answered on the basis of how the social dynamics would manifest. That's more interesting.

Whatever floats you boat. To me it's a moot point, to our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren it might be quite relative but by then we'll be long gone.

 

[Pogo]

Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. Laïcité - Wikipedia

The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.

Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.

I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

Well, the OP didn't specify where the ban would come from. I took it as a question of what the effect would be, assuming it were done --- on whatever level.

Then you read it completely differently than I did.......

Key sentence:

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Take that in context with the rest of his anti-religion exposition and what else comes to mind?

I don't know of this exposition. All I know is what's in the OP.

Anyhoo, I answered on the basis of how the social dynamics would manifest. That's more interesting.

Whatever floats you boat. To me it's a moot point, to our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren it might be quite relative but by then we'll be long gone.

I'm reading it as a psychology question based on a hypothetical. Takes a suspension of reality.

You don't know about reality suspension? Very popular these daze.

 

[BreezeWood]

Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. Laïcité - Wikipedia

The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.

Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.

I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...


howabout the purposeful first line you ignored rather than the mundane disclaimer you chose as for the intent of the article.

Uummmm, because in this instance the government wouldn't be establishing a religion.......
Now we could argue till the end of time if atheism and secularism are religions in their own right........

Uummmm, because in this instance the government wouldn't be establishing a religion.......
Now we could argue till the end of time if atheism and secularism are religions in their own right........

or whether any of the biblical congregations do not purposefully disguise their political agendas as religions and should not be included at all.

 

[Ringel05]

Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Some secular governments, led by the French of France and Quebec, are implementing bans on all religious iconography prayers and emblems and religious displays so as to ease religious tensions and violence. They call it laïcité, which translates to secularism. Laïcité - Wikipedia

The general secular population seems to dislike the one-upmanship that the religious practice on other religions, as well as those who do not follow a religion; even though statistics show that the less religion in a nation, the more peaceful and law abiding it is. Conversely, if we look at the Christian nation of the U.S., as an example; we see perhaps the least peaceful and law abiding nation on earth. This last aside, an example of this one-upmanship, would be Christian signage that tells us to turn to Jesus or be condemned and Muslim head gear and face covering that say that the wearer is more chastely than those who do not cover their heads and bodies.

Jesus said that we should pray in private so as not to be seen as trying to outdo each other in chastity, righteousness and other one-upmanship adjectives that you might think of. Yet most who say they respect Jesus do not follow his teachings of remaining private and insist on public displays of their perceived insult to others not of their brand.

I see the secular world as following Jesus’ advice on this while the so called religious ignore Jesus.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...


howabout the purposeful first line you ignored rather than the mundane disclaimer you chose as for the intent of the article.

Uummmm, because in this instance the government wouldn't be establishing a religion.......
Now we could argue till the end of time if atheism and secularism are religions in their own right........

Uummmm, because in this instance the government wouldn't be establishing a religion.......
Now we could argue till the end of time if atheism and secularism are religions in their own right........

or whether any of the biblical congregations do not purposefully disguise their political agendas as religions and should not be included at all.

That is a matter for the courts and still does not fall under Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion because congress does not technically ESTABLISH those as religions despite what the tax laws might say. Now I'm sure you will argue that point but everyone is entitled to their opinion....... As far as I'm concerned it's a matter for the courts to decide if any supposed religious entities are indeed churches or simply using the 1st Amendment to evade taxes.

 

[Ringel05]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Apparently you've never read the First Amendment........

Well, the OP didn't specify where the ban would come from. I took it as a question of what the effect would be, assuming it were done --- on whatever level.

Then you read it completely differently than I did.......

Key sentence:

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Take that in context with the rest of his anti-religion exposition and what else comes to mind?

I don't know of this exposition. All I know is what's in the OP.

Anyhoo, I answered on the basis of how the social dynamics would manifest. That's more interesting.

Whatever floats you boat. To me it's a moot point, to our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren it might be quite relative but by then we'll be long gone.

I'm reading it as a psychology question based on a hypothetical. Takes a suspension of reality.

You don't know about reality suspension? Very popular these daze.

Sure I do but this is a hypothetical subject that doesn't interest me and the OP is well know for his anti-religion stance, particularly anti-Christian religion stance. I view everything he posts concerning religion through that prism and I don't argue religion. As with "politics" it's mostly a waste of time.

 

[HaShev]

I've many times stated that a don't ask don't tell approach to religious ideology, which includes no medalions and symbols, would help society a lot, but hiding my Jewish nose is harder then hiding my Mezuzah. :--)

 

[Pogo]

Well, the OP didn't specify where the ban would come from. I took it as a question of what the effect would be, assuming it were done --- on whatever level.

Then you read it completely differently than I did.......

Key sentence:

We have to end inquisitions and jihads of all kinds, including the less lethal ones like homophobia and misogyny.

Take that in context with the rest of his anti-religion exposition and what else comes to mind?

I don't know of this exposition. All I know is what's in the OP.

Anyhoo, I answered on the basis of how the social dynamics would manifest. That's more interesting.

Whatever floats you boat. To me it's a moot point, to our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren it might be quite relative but by then we'll be long gone.

I'm reading it as a psychology question based on a hypothetical. Takes a suspension of reality.

You don't know about reality suspension? Very popular these daze.

Sure I do but this is a hypothetical subject that doesn't interest me and the OP is well know for his anti-religion stance, particularly anti-Christian religion stance. I view everything he posts concerning religion through that prism and I don't argue religion. As with "politics" it's mostly a waste of time.

OK whatever, I don't know about that "well-known" stuff so again I took it at face value.

Which I think is fair. I don't think OPs should come with baggage. I just take what it says up top. If he has an agenda, I'm sure he'll let us know.

Besides which, I don't see this as a thread about religion. I see it as an examination of how social dynamics work with "bans". Prohibition for example --- a thread on that would not be about drinking.