Neotrotsky
Council to Supreme Soviet
- Thread starter
- #21
So laws to believe something bother you
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
For the record, I DO NOT believe there should be a State Religion
and I believe most people do, as well.
Why is it "bad" or why do you think it is bad ?
But as Locke argued and as I believe,
the government lacked authority in the area of individual conscience.
and the social contract should avoid it....
How are you not free from religion ?
True freedom would allow for both to exist
believers and non believers, would it not?
For the record, I DO NOT believe there should be a State Religion
and I believe most people do, as well.
Why is it "bad" or why do you think it is bad ?
But as Locke argued and as I believe,
the government lacked authority in the area of individual conscience.
and the social contract should avoid it....
For the record, I DO NOT believe there should be a State Religion
and I believe most people do, as well.
Why is it "bad" or why do you think it is bad ?
But as Locke argued and as I believe,
the government lacked authority in the area of individual conscience.
and the social contract should avoid it....
How are you not free from religion ?
True freedom would allow for both to exist
believers and non believers, would it not?
A state religion would prevent that freedom...if not at first, eventually.
Theocracy is , no doubt a statist form of gov't
However, I see nothing wrong with local gov'ts or federal for that matter
putting up religious decorations that represent the different faiths.
I really do not view that as a "state" religion but more as a reflection of the political body.
If the people are upset by it then they can vote accordingly
Up to the mid 1800's, some states actually had an official state religion since
it was not allowed at the Federal level but that did not exclude states from doing it
I don't get why religious people want to force everyone else to follow their faith? nobody is stopping you from being a religious Muslim, Hindu, Baptist or whatever the hell you are in this country stop trying to shove your faith down my throat.
How about... the UK?Look at the countries that have a state religion, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc. see how fucked up things are there? no thank you.
Yes - lets look at these hell-holes:Why is a state religion a bad idea? Look at the countries who have them for your answer.
I don't get why religious people want to force everyone else to follow their faith? nobody is stopping you from being a religious Muslim, Hindu, Baptist or whatever the hell you are in this country stop trying to shove your faith down my throat.
Theocracy is , no doubt a statist form of gov't
However, I see nothing wrong with local gov'ts or federal for that matter
putting up religious decorations that represent the different faiths.
I really do not view that as a "state" religion but more as a reflection of the political body.
If the people are upset by it then they can vote accordingly
Up to the mid 1800's, some states actually had an official state religion since
it was not allowed at the Federal level but that did not exclude states from doing it
1. theocracy is anti-statist since it would be the church running things.
2. whose church? whose belief system? i say mine.... prove me wrong.
3. i don't think anyone objects to religious decorations if different beliefs are represented fairly. there is, however, a difference between a creche or a cross, and a christmas tree.
4. the position you take is counter to our first amendment, in any event, because the whole point was the majority would ALWAYS vote for their own religion. It was intended to protect the rest of us from that type of tyranny of the majority.
5. that being the case, you know the majority would never vote them out.
6. you wouldn't be taking the position you do if muslims were the majority.
so there ya go.
How are you not free from religion ?
True freedom would allow for both to exist
believers and non believers, would it not?
A state religion would prevent that freedom...if not at first, eventually.
I am not interested in having any form of religion forced upon me or to live in a nation that has a religious preference. I want religion to keep to itself and I will also.
1. theocracy is anti-statist since it would be the church running things.
2. whose church? whose belief system? i say mine.... prove me wrong.
3. i don't think anyone objects to religious decorations if different beliefs are represented fairly. there is, however, a difference between a creche or a cross, and a christmas tree.
4. the position you take is counter to our first amendment, in any event, because the whole point was the majority would ALWAYS vote for their own religion. It was intended to protect the rest of us from that type of tyranny of the majority.
5. that being the case, you know the majority would never vote them out.
6. you wouldn't be taking the position you do if muslims were the majority.
so there ya go.
1) Actually, the gov't would be running things in name of religion
It would be still be a statist form of gov't
2) sure
3) I don't think most reasonable people care about those things either
4) I would not agree; the 1st allows for free exercise of religion
and holiday decorations are not gov't establishing a religion
5) majority tends to rule; but one can not predict that behavior
6) How do what religion I am or for that matter what I really think?
But I can tell you this, if this was a Muslim dominated country
we would not be having this conversation
so there ya go
That has nothing to do with your OP, you are straying, please keep on subject.