Hypothetical: If world peace could magically be had sacrificing all religions would you support it?

[Correll]

If world peace could be had if we eliminated all public/overt practise of religion (took down all churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) banned it from tv/radio/internet and public speech, BUT you could still practice a given religion but must keep it private and in your home (can have friends over for 'home churches' or minyans, etc.) but some misdeamenor type charge would be levelled for breech of the laws restricting exercise of religion to private-only,

would you support such an idea?

Could have peace, no more wars, no civil violence, etc. and all you had to do was limit your practice of religion to your own homes. Would you?

Define what you mean by "exercise of religion to private-only,"

If a religious woman believes that sex outside of marriage is wrong, can she be prosecuted for refusing a sexual advance made in a public place?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If world peace could be had if we eliminated all public/overt practise of religion (took down all churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) banned it from tv/radio/internet and public speech, BUT you could still practice a given religion but must keep it private and in your home (can have friends over for 'home churches' or minyans, etc.) but some misdeamenor type charge would be levelled for breech of the laws restricting exercise of religion to private-only,

would you support such an idea?

Could have peace, no more wars, no civil violence, etc. and all you had to do was limit your practice of religion to your own homes. Would you?

Define what you mean by "exercise of religion to private-only,"

If a religious woman believes that sex outside of marriage is wrong, can she be prosecuted for refusing a sexual advance made in a public place?

Means as Jesus himself said, "when you pray go into your chamber and pray...don't pray loudly and inpublic like the hypocrites do."

Try reading your Bible instead of just waving it in the air all the time.

 

[Coyote]

If world peace could be had if we eliminated all public/overt practise of religion (took down all churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) banned it from tv/radio/internet and public speech, BUT you could still practice a given religion but must keep it private and in your home (can have friends over for 'home churches' or minyans, etc.) but some misdeamenor type charge would be levelled for breech of the laws restricting exercise of religion to private-only,

would you support such an idea?

Could have peace, no more wars, no civil violence, etc. and all you had to do was limit your practice of religion to your own homes. Would you?

No...because nothing is ever so simple. Freedom is messy, and for all it's drawbacks - I would rather have it then a peace created by subjugation.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If world peace could be had if we eliminated all public/overt practise of religion (took down all churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) banned it from tv/radio/internet and public speech, BUT you could still practice a given religion but must keep it private and in your home (can have friends over for 'home churches' or minyans, etc.) but some misdeamenor type charge would be levelled for breech of the laws restricting exercise of religion to private-only,

would you support such an idea?

Could have peace, no more wars, no civil violence, etc. and all you had to do was limit your practice of religion to your own homes. Would you?

No...because nothing is ever so simple. Freedom is messy, and for all it's drawbacks - I would rather have it then a peace created by subjugation.

So if you can't wear your faith on your sleeve as it were, you'd condemn however many to death in wars and street violence?

Could still be and practice your religion to your heart's content. Just have to keep it at home. Are people's affiliation with religion really more important to them than actually having peace?

 

[Correll]

If world peace could be had if we eliminated all public/overt practise of religion (took down all churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) banned it from tv/radio/internet and public speech, BUT you could still practice a given religion but must keep it private and in your home (can have friends over for 'home churches' or minyans, etc.) but some misdeamenor type charge would be levelled for breech of the laws restricting exercise of religion to private-only,

would you support such an idea?

Could have peace, no more wars, no civil violence, etc. and all you had to do was limit your practice of religion to your own homes. Would you?

Define what you mean by "exercise of religion to private-only,"

If a religious woman believes that sex outside of marriage is wrong, can she be prosecuted for refusing a sexual advance made in a public place?

Means as Jesus himself said, "when you pray go into your chamber and pray...don't pray loudly and inpublic like the hypocrites do."

Try reading your Bible instead of just waving it in the air all the time.

Practice of religion is not generally considered to be limited to prayer.

I am serious.

I have had many people complain about the idea that religious people have the right to vote according to their religious beliefs.

If a woman makes a personal decision ie rejecting a sexual advance, in public based on her religious beliefs, is that not public practice of religion?

I am not playing a silly gotcha game.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If world peace could be had if we eliminated all public/overt practise of religion (took down all churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) banned it from tv/radio/internet and public speech, BUT you could still practice a given religion but must keep it private and in your home (can have friends over for 'home churches' or minyans, etc.) but some misdeamenor type charge would be levelled for breech of the laws restricting exercise of religion to private-only,

would you support such an idea?

Could have peace, no more wars, no civil violence, etc. and all you had to do was limit your practice of religion to your own homes. Would you?

Define what you mean by "exercise of religion to private-only,"

If a religious woman believes that sex outside of marriage is wrong, can she be prosecuted for refusing a sexual advance made in a public place?

Means as Jesus himself said, "when you pray go into your chamber and pray...don't pray loudly and inpublic like the hypocrites do."

Try reading your Bible instead of just waving it in the air all the time.

Practice of religion is not generally considered to be limited to prayer.

I am serious.

I have had many people complain about the idea that religious people have the right to vote according to their religious beliefs.

If a woman makes a personal decision ie rejecting a sexual advance, in public based on her religious beliefs, is that not public practice of religion?

I am not playing a silly gotcha game.

Dunno how you got onto sex but guess that isn't all that surprising. Nor do I get the subjugation angle. Think people are so selfish and self-obsessed that if they can't scream about their religion louder than anyone else, and faced with having to keep it to themselves they'd sacrifice millions of innocent lives in order to keep shouting about God.

What's MOST surprising to me with this thread is no one got the 'keeping your faith private and getting everything you're always hoping for, or keeping public-religiousity and keeping hell' aspect. Instead it someone became about subjugation, atheism, and a lot of other stuff people inserted into things.

You all are the very worst representatives of your respective faiths. You would sacrifice millions just to keep being able to public express your religions when they're supposed to be between you and your gods. Should all be ashamed of yourselves.

 

[Correll]

If world peace could be had if we eliminated all public/overt practise of religion (took down all churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) banned it from tv/radio/internet and public speech, BUT you could still practice a given religion but must keep it private and in your home (can have friends over for 'home churches' or minyans, etc.) but some misdeamenor type charge would be levelled for breech of the laws restricting exercise of religion to private-only,

would you support such an idea?

Could have peace, no more wars, no civil violence, etc. and all you had to do was limit your practice of religion to your own homes. Would you?

Define what you mean by "exercise of religion to private-only,"

If a religious woman believes that sex outside of marriage is wrong, can she be prosecuted for refusing a sexual advance made in a public place?

Means as Jesus himself said, "when you pray go into your chamber and pray...don't pray loudly and inpublic like the hypocrites do."

Try reading your Bible instead of just waving it in the air all the time.

Practice of religion is not generally considered to be limited to prayer.

I am serious.

I have had many people complain about the idea that religious people have the right to vote according to their religious beliefs.

If a woman makes a personal decision ie rejecting a sexual advance, in public based on her religious beliefs, is that not public practice of religion?

I am not playing a silly gotcha game.

Dunno how you got onto sex but guess that isn't all that surprising. Nor do I get the subjugation angle. Think people are so selfish and self-obsessed that if they can't scream about their religion louder than anyone else, and faced with having to keep it to themselves they'd sacrifice millions of innocent lives in order to keep shouting about God.

What's MOST surprising to me with this thread is no one got the 'keeping your faith private and getting everything you're always hoping for, or keeping public-religiousity and keeping hell' aspect. Instead it someone became about subjugation, atheism, and a lot of other stuff people inserted into things.

You all are the very worst representatives of your respective faiths. You would sacrifice millions just to keep being able to public express your religions when they're supposed to be between you and your gods. Should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Christianity has rules about sex.

I am asking if making decisions based on religious inspired morals is "public practice of faith".

I need to know before answering your hypothetical.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If world peace could be had if we eliminated all public/overt practise of religion (took down all churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) banned it from tv/radio/internet and public speech, BUT you could still practice a given religion but must keep it private and in your home (can have friends over for 'home churches' or minyans, etc.) but some misdeamenor type charge would be levelled for breech of the laws restricting exercise of religion to private-only,

would you support such an idea?

Could have peace, no more wars, no civil violence, etc. and all you had to do was limit your practice of religion to your own homes. Would you?

Define what you mean by "exercise of religion to private-only,"

If a religious woman believes that sex outside of marriage is wrong, can she be prosecuted for refusing a sexual advance made in a public place?

Means as Jesus himself said, "when you pray go into your chamber and pray...don't pray loudly and inpublic like the hypocrites do."

Try reading your Bible instead of just waving it in the air all the time.

Practice of religion is not generally considered to be limited to prayer.

I am serious.

I have had many people complain about the idea that religious people have the right to vote according to their religious beliefs.

If a woman makes a personal decision ie rejecting a sexual advance, in public based on her religious beliefs, is that not public practice of religion?

I am not playing a silly gotcha game.

Dunno how you got onto sex but guess that isn't all that surprising. Nor do I get the subjugation angle. Think people are so selfish and self-obsessed that if they can't scream about their religion louder than anyone else, and faced with having to keep it to themselves they'd sacrifice millions of innocent lives in order to keep shouting about God.

What's MOST surprising to me with this thread is no one got the 'keeping your faith private and getting everything you're always hoping for, or keeping public-religiousity and keeping hell' aspect. Instead it someone became about subjugation, atheism, and a lot of other stuff people inserted into things.

You all are the very worst representatives of your respective faiths. You would sacrifice millions just to keep being able to public express your religions when they're supposed to be between you and your gods. Should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Christianity has rules about sex.

I am asking if making decisions based on religious inspired morals is "public practice of faith".

I need to know before answering your hypothetical.

No one's talking about sex in this theead except you.

I'm done. Said what was to be said exposing theist's selfish self-obsession with how their religions are more important to them than anything else. And how they'd happily sacrifice millions of people in order to go on public expressing their faith where they would forgo world peace but had to keep their faith private.

While not a surprise to me, it's still shocking to see it confirmed.

 

[Correll]

Define what you mean by "exercise of religion to private-only,"

If a religious woman believes that sex outside of marriage is wrong, can she be prosecuted for refusing a sexual advance made in a public place?

Means as Jesus himself said, "when you pray go into your chamber and pray...don't pray loudly and inpublic like the hypocrites do."

Try reading your Bible instead of just waving it in the air all the time.

Practice of religion is not generally considered to be limited to prayer.

I am serious.

I have had many people complain about the idea that religious people have the right to vote according to their religious beliefs.

If a woman makes a personal decision ie rejecting a sexual advance, in public based on her religious beliefs, is that not public practice of religion?

I am not playing a silly gotcha game.

Dunno how you got onto sex but guess that isn't all that surprising. Nor do I get the subjugation angle. Think people are so selfish and self-obsessed that if they can't scream about their religion louder than anyone else, and faced with having to keep it to themselves they'd sacrifice millions of innocent lives in order to keep shouting about God.

What's MOST surprising to me with this thread is no one got the 'keeping your faith private and getting everything you're always hoping for, or keeping public-religiousity and keeping hell' aspect. Instead it someone became about subjugation, atheism, and a lot of other stuff people inserted into things.

You all are the very worst representatives of your respective faiths. You would sacrifice millions just to keep being able to public express your religions when they're supposed to be between you and your gods. Should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Christianity has rules about sex.

I am asking if making decisions based on religious inspired morals is "public practice of faith".

I need to know before answering your hypothetical.

No one's talking about sex in this theead except you.

I'm done. Said what was to be said exposing theist's selfish self-obsession with how their religions are more important to them than anything else. And how they'd happily sacrifice millions of people in order to go on public expressing their faith where they would forgo world peace but had to keep their faith private.

While not a surprise to me, it's still shocking to see it confirmed.

YOu are not understanding the role group dynamics plays in religion.

 

[zaangalewa]

So to sum up, because people's religions are more important than people, you would continue having wars and violence just to be able to parade around publicly congratulating yourselves on your religious faith.

Hard to imagine why anyone might not like religion or religious people huh?

Could be more worse. He could shoot you down and I would applaude, if we would follow your idea to change our religion and become atheists like you. Maybe in this case the people would like your religion.

 

[zaangalewa]

If world peace could be had if we eliminated all public/overt practise of religion (took down all churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) banned it from tv/radio/internet and public speech, BUT you could still practice a given religion but must keep it private and in your home (can have friends over for 'home churches' or minyans, etc.) but some misdeamenor type charge would be levelled for breech of the laws restricting exercise of religion to private-only,

would you support such an idea?

Could have peace, no more wars, no civil violence, etc. and all you had to do was limit your practice of religion to your own homes. Would you?

Define what you mean by "exercise of religion to private-only,"

If a religious woman believes that sex outside of marriage is wrong, can she be prosecuted for refusing a sexual advance made in a public place?

If world peace could be had if we eliminated all public/overt practise of religion (took down all churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) banned it from tv/radio/internet and public speech, BUT you could still practice a given religion but must keep it private and in your home (can have friends over for 'home churches' or minyans, etc.) but some misdeamenor type charge would be levelled for breech of the laws restricting exercise of religion to private-only,

would you support such an idea?

Could have peace, no more wars, no civil violence, etc. and all you had to do was limit your practice of religion to your own homes. Would you?

Define what you mean by "exercise of religion to private-only,"

If a religious woman believes that sex outside of marriage is wrong, can she be prosecuted for refusing a sexual advance made in a public place?

Means as Jesus himself said, "when you pray go into your chamber and pray...don't pray loudly and inpublic like the hypocrites do."

Try reading your Bible instead of just waving it in the air all the time.

Near by, nearly ...

-----
So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops. And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my father who is in heaven.
-----

-----

 

[zaangalewa]

If world peace could be had if we eliminated all public/overt practise of religion (took down all churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) banned it from tv/radio/internet and public speech, BUT you could still practice a given religion but must keep it private and in your home (can have friends over for 'home churches' or minyans, etc.) but some misdeamenor type charge would be levelled for breech of the laws restricting exercise of religion to private-only,

would you support such an idea?

Could have peace, no more wars, no civil violence, etc. and all you had to do was limit your practice of religion to your own homes. Would you?

No...because nothing is ever so simple. Freedom is messy, and for all it's drawbacks - I would rather have it then a peace created by subjugation.

So if you can't wear your faith on your sleeve as it were, you'd condemn however many to death in wars and street violence?

Could still be and practice your religion to your heart's content. Just have to keep it at home. Are people's affiliation with religion really more important to them than actually having peace?

Everyone allows you to practice your [anti]religion at home, private. But religions are always communities of people and communities of people are existing in public. What you say means nothing else than to try to destroy the elementary human right "freedom of religion" and to force everyone to accept your atheism as the only correct truth in public opinion. But your atheism is also 'only' a belief.

 

[Correll]

If world peace could be had if we eliminated all public/overt practise of religion (took down all churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) banned it from tv/radio/internet and public speech, BUT you could still practice a given religion but must keep it private and in your home (can have friends over for 'home churches' or minyans, etc.) but some misdeamenor type charge would be levelled for breech of the laws restricting exercise of religion to private-only,

would you support such an idea?

Could have peace, no more wars, no civil violence, etc. and all you had to do was limit your practice of religion to your own homes. Would you?

No...because nothing is ever so simple. Freedom is messy, and for all it's drawbacks - I would rather have it then a peace created by subjugation.

So if you can't wear your faith on your sleeve as it were, you'd condemn however many to death in wars and street violence?

Could still be and practice your religion to your heart's content. Just have to keep it at home. Are people's affiliation with religion really more important to them than actually having peace?

Everyone allows you to practice your [anti]religion at home, private. But religions are always communities of people and communities of people are existing in public. What you say means nothing else than to try to destroy the elementary human right "freedom of religion" and to force everyone to accept your atheism as the only correct truth in public opinion. But your atheism is also 'only' a belief.

He does not want to know that.

There is a reason most leftists don't engage in substantial debate. Because following their logic to it's natural conclusions leads to questions like, mine about a woman refusing a sexual advance.

It is easy to say "separation of church and state" and to slam people who are voting against you.

But when you really think about where it leads, it breaks down pretty fast.

 

[Coyote]

If world peace could be had if we eliminated all public/overt practise of religion (took down all churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) banned it from tv/radio/internet and public speech, BUT you could still practice a given religion but must keep it private and in your home (can have friends over for 'home churches' or minyans, etc.) but some misdeamenor type charge would be levelled for breech of the laws restricting exercise of religion to private-only,

would you support such an idea?

Could have peace, no more wars, no civil violence, etc. and all you had to do was limit your practice of religion to your own homes. Would you?

No...because nothing is ever so simple. Freedom is messy, and for all it's drawbacks - I would rather have it then a peace created by subjugation.

So if you can't wear your faith on your sleeve as it were, you'd condemn however many to death in wars and street violence?

No. I'm not convinced your theory would end war...it's a hypothetical that has no real basis. So...I'm being asked to believe in something that is fictional in order to answer the question. It's kind of difficult.

Religion is a tool that is used to differentiate "us" from "no us". It's not the only tool. The "us" vs. "no us" tool box is chockful of handy tools: religion, ethnicity, sect, culture, race, nationality, tribe, political ideology. The only difference is the choice of symbols.

So...you force religion underground and private. For one thing, that would never work because proselytizing religions are required to proselytize and spread the word - so right there you are cutting off an important component. It would be driven underground and away from any sort of public scrutany or repudiation. In addition if you ban it from public speech - right there you are sharply curtailing free speech and creating a Stalinist society in which people can be reported to authorities for saying something religious in a public space - even if it's just an animated conversation with a friend in a coffee house or museum. A neighbor with a grudge can report a fictional account. I can't figure out how "world peace" could co-exist.

Could still be and practice your religion to your heart's content. Just have to keep it at home. Are people's affiliation with religion really more important to them than actually having peace?

To some people, their religion = world peace.

 

[Coyote]

Define what you mean by "exercise of religion to private-only,"

If a religious woman believes that sex outside of marriage is wrong, can she be prosecuted for refusing a sexual advance made in a public place?

Means as Jesus himself said, "when you pray go into your chamber and pray...don't pray loudly and inpublic like the hypocrites do."

Try reading your Bible instead of just waving it in the air all the time.

Practice of religion is not generally considered to be limited to prayer.

I am serious.

I have had many people complain about the idea that religious people have the right to vote according to their religious beliefs.

If a woman makes a personal decision ie rejecting a sexual advance, in public based on her religious beliefs, is that not public practice of religion?

I am not playing a silly gotcha game.

Dunno how you got onto sex but guess that isn't all that surprising. Nor do I get the subjugation angle. Think people are so selfish and self-obsessed that if they can't scream about their religion louder than anyone else, and faced with having to keep it to themselves they'd sacrifice millions of innocent lives in order to keep shouting about God.

What's MOST surprising to me with this thread is no one got the 'keeping your faith private and getting everything you're always hoping for, or keeping public-religiousity and keeping hell' aspect. Instead it someone became about subjugation, atheism, and a lot of other stuff people inserted into things.

You all are the very worst representatives of your respective faiths. You would sacrifice millions just to keep being able to public express your religions when they're supposed to be between you and your gods. Should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Christianity has rules about sex.

I am asking if making decisions based on religious inspired morals is "public practice of faith".

I need to know before answering your hypothetical.

No one's talking about sex in this theead except you.

I'm done. Said what was to be said exposing theist's selfish self-obsession with how their religions are more important to them than anything else. And how they'd happily sacrifice millions of people in order to go on public expressing their faith where they would forgo world peace but had to keep their faith private.

While not a surprise to me, it's still shocking to see it confirmed.

Wait a second - you started a great discussion and your done????

 

[Coyote]

The OP question reminds me of another hypothetical that is often ask:

If torture could prevent a mass killing - would you engage in it?

 

[Correll]

If world peace could be had if we eliminated all public/overt practise of religion (took down all churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.) banned it from tv/radio/internet and public speech, BUT you could still practice a given religion but must keep it private and in your home (can have friends over for 'home churches' or minyans, etc.) but some misdeamenor type charge would be levelled for breech of the laws restricting exercise of religion to private-only,

would you support such an idea?

Could have peace, no more wars, no civil violence, etc. and all you had to do was limit your practice of religion to your own homes. Would you?

No...because nothing is ever so simple. Freedom is messy, and for all it's drawbacks - I would rather have it then a peace created by subjugation.

So if you can't wear your faith on your sleeve as it were, you'd condemn however many to death in wars and street violence?

No. I'm not convinced your theory would end war...it's a hypothetical that has no real basis. So...I'm being asked to believe in something that is fictional in order to answer the question. It's kind of difficult.

Religion is a tool that is used to differentiate "us" from "no us". It's not the only tool. The "us" vs. "no us" tool box is chockful of handy tools: religion, ethnicity, sect, culture, race, nationality, tribe, political ideology. The only difference is the choice of symbols.

So...you force religion underground and private. For one thing, that would never work because proselytizing religions are required to proselytize and spread the word - so right there you are cutting off an important component. It would be driven underground and away from any sort of public scrutany or repudiation. In addition if you ban it from public speech - right there you are sharply curtailing free speech and creating a Stalinist society in which people can be reported to authorities for saying something religious in a public space - even if it's just an animated conversation with a friend in a coffee house or museum. A neighbor with a grudge can report a fictional account. I can't figure out how "world peace" could co-exist.

Could still be and practice your religion to your heart's content. Just have to keep it at home. Are people's affiliation with religion really more important to them than actually having peace?

To some people, their religion = world peace.

Religion is a tool to get none related people to work together and to behave in a socially constructive manner.

Part of the process is to be part of the group. To ban it from the public square is to ban religion.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

No. People should be allowed their simple and primitive beliefs in invisible beings, if it gives them comfort. The only problem is when they band together and try to force others to follow their primitive ideologies. To each their own.

 

[zaangalewa]

No. People should be allowed their simple and primitive beliefs in invisible beings, if it gives them comfort. The only problem is when they band together and try to force others to follow their primitive ideologies.

Yea - like the atheistic commies or the godless Nazis for example.

To each their own.