| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Metal Atheist x" |
| Date: |
31 Aug 2007 03:23:19 AM |
| Object: |
Freedom from or of religion? |
Ok, here goes, a crude attempt at a logical argument.
Religious people claim that we have freedom "of" religion, not freedom
"from" religion. This is a favorite of Newt Gingrich. However, I don't
understand how that would work.
Is a Catholic required to pray to Mecca?
Is a Muslim required to draw a pentagram and pray to the four winds?
So, doesn't freedom "of" religion require freedom "from" religion at its
core? How could you really have freedom of religion if we are not free from
other people's religions.
Christians in the US like to tout the idea that we are a "Christian nation".
Actually we are a nation of religious freedom.
Well, unless Jr. Bush has finally gotten around to just outright suspending
the Constitution... (wow. there's a nasty epitaph for the U.S. Got rid of
one King George at the start and ended with another one..).
"Truth first, believe later."
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
31 Aug 2007 11:38:03 AM |
|
|
"Metal Atheist" <x> wrote in message
news:46d7cff6$0$18951$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Ok, here goes, a crude attempt at a logical argument.
Religious people claim that we have freedom "of" religion, not freedom
"from" religion. This is a favorite of Newt Gingrich. However, I don't
understand how that would work.
Is a Catholic required to pray to Mecca?
Is a Muslim required to draw a pentagram and pray to the four winds?
It doesn't mean that. What it means is that if there is a muslim praying to
Mecca in your hearing, you can't tell him to stop just because it annoys
you.
I reluctantly agree with that.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
31 Aug 2007 02:11:42 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> writes:
"Metal Atheist" <x> wrote in message
news:46d7cff6$0$18951$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Ok, here goes, a crude attempt at a logical argument.
Religious people claim that we have freedom "of" religion, not freedom
"from" religion. This is a favorite of Newt Gingrich. However, I don't
understand how that would work.
Is a Catholic required to pray to Mecca?
Is a Muslim required to draw a pentagram and pray to the four winds?
It doesn't mean that. What it means is that if there is a muslim praying to
Mecca in your hearing, you can't tell him to stop just because it annoys
you.
I reluctantly agree with that.
I don't. My telling him to stop that is also free speech.
He, of course, can ignore me or tell me to pray or tell me
I'm a bigot or whatever.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
01 Sep 2007 08:37:00 PM |
|
|
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:13dgpvecuuhqne6@corp.supernews.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> writes:
"Metal Atheist" <x> wrote in message
news:46d7cff6$0$18951$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Ok, here goes, a crude attempt at a logical argument.
Religious people claim that we have freedom "of" religion, not freedom
"from" religion. This is a favorite of Newt Gingrich. However, I don't
understand how that would work.
Is a Catholic required to pray to Mecca?
Is a Muslim required to draw a pentagram and pray to the four winds?
It doesn't mean that. What it means is that if there is a muslim praying
to
Mecca in your hearing, you can't tell him to stop just because it annoys
you.
I reluctantly agree with that.
I don't. My telling him to stop that is also free speech.
He, of course, can ignore me or tell me to pray or tell me
I'm a bigot or whatever.
Argh. Alright, I stand corrected. What I meant to say is that you can't MAKE
him stop just because it annoys you.
My bad.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
31 Aug 2007 04:15:07 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 19:11:42 -0000, Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
I don't. My telling him to stop that is also free speech.
He, of course, can ignore me or tell me to pray or tell me
I'm a bigot or whatever.
Your telling him to stop is not free speech. You are denying HIS free speech.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
31 Aug 2007 04:13:34 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 11:38:03 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"Metal Atheist" <x> wrote in message
news:46d7cff6$0$18951$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Ok, here goes, a crude attempt at a logical argument.
Religious people claim that we have freedom "of" religion, not freedom
"from" religion. This is a favorite of Newt Gingrich. However, I don't
understand how that would work.
Is a Catholic required to pray to Mecca?
Is a Muslim required to draw a pentagram and pray to the four winds?
It doesn't mean that. What it means is that if there is a muslim praying to
Mecca in your hearing, you can't tell him to stop just because it annoys
you.
I reluctantly agree with that.
You should do so happily.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
01 Sep 2007 08:38:41 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:g31hd31mn4g7cput37ad7k5npjd4ffb46q@4ax.com...
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 11:38:03 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"Metal Atheist" <x> wrote in message
news:46d7cff6$0$18951$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Ok, here goes, a crude attempt at a logical argument.
Religious people claim that we have freedom "of" religion, not freedom
"from" religion. This is a favorite of Newt Gingrich. However, I don't
understand how that would work.
Is a Catholic required to pray to Mecca?
Is a Muslim required to draw a pentagram and pray to the four winds?
It doesn't mean that. What it means is that if there is a muslim praying
to
Mecca in your hearing, you can't tell him to stop just because it annoys
you.
I reluctantly agree with that.
You should do so happily.
You don't appear to be happy when you object to what we say.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
08 Sep 2007 11:47:30 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 19:38:41 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:g31hd31mn4g7cput37ad7k5npjd4ffb46q@4ax.com...
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 11:38:03 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"Metal Atheist" <x> wrote in message
news:46d7cff6$0$18951$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Ok, here goes, a crude attempt at a logical argument.
Religious people claim that we have freedom "of" religion, not freedom
"from" religion. This is a favorite of Newt Gingrich. However, I don't
understand how that would work.
Is a Catholic required to pray to Mecca?
Is a Muslim required to draw a pentagram and pray to the four winds?
It doesn't mean that. What it means is that if there is a muslim praying
to
Mecca in your hearing, you can't tell him to stop just because it annoys
you.
I reluctantly agree with that.
You should do so happily.
You don't appear to be happy when you object to what we say.
Puke is its usual hypocritical self.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
31 Aug 2007 06:51:32 AM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Metal Atheist wrote:
Ok, here goes, a crude attempt at a logical argument.
Religious people claim that we have freedom "of" religion, not freedom
"from" religion. This is a favorite of Newt Gingrich. However, I don't
understand how that would work.
Is a Catholic required to pray to Mecca?
Is a Muslim required to draw a pentagram and pray to the four winds?
So, doesn't freedom "of" religion require freedom "from" religion at its
core? How could you really have freedom of religion if we are not free from
other people's religions.
Christians in the US like to tout the idea that we are a "Christian nation".
Actually we are a nation of religious freedom.
Well, unless Jr. Bush has finally gotten around to just outright suspending
the Constitution... (wow. there's a nasty epitaph for the U.S. Got rid of
one King George at the start and ended with another one..).
"Truth first, believe later."
Well, they like to use the First Amendment to claim "freedom of
religion", even though those words do not appear anywhere in the document.
Here's a little word play that generally gets them into a lather. I've
used it a couple of times and it causes many a migraine and creased brow.
Them: You have to believe in something, after all we have freedom of
religion, not from religion.
Me: Okay, so where is your gun?
Them: What does that have to do with anything?
Me: The Second Amendment of the Constitution says you have the freedom
of arms, not the freedom from arms. Following your logic, you are in
violation of the Constitution because you are not carrying a gun.
Them: rants, screams of "heretic", attempts to change the subject,
offers to "pray for you", shouts of "terrorist", threats of hell, and my
all time favorite, "if you don't like it leave, this is a CHRISTIAN
NATION". (emphasis always on those last two words)
Ain't fundies fun? I just love mess'n with their little empty heads.
- --
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.secularity.com/ktayloraz
A.A #1143 http://azhotops.blogspot.com/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFG2ADEyVHkPfVtX8URAgRuAKCo4XheQMOm1PX1wMm1eO5j9tzXugCfZAKQ
/TwkfdLLvFjuYBO6JZEAOUw=
=yd+z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
08 Sep 2007 11:44:12 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 04:51:32 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Metal Atheist wrote:
Ok, here goes, a crude attempt at a logical argument.
Religious people claim that we have freedom "of" religion, not freedom
"from" religion. This is a favorite of Newt Gingrich. However, I don't
understand how that would work.
Is a Catholic required to pray to Mecca?
Is a Muslim required to draw a pentagram and pray to the four winds?
So, doesn't freedom "of" religion require freedom "from" religion at its
core? How could you really have freedom of religion if we are not free from
other people's religions.
Christians in the US like to tout the idea that we are a "Christian nation".
Actually we are a nation of religious freedom.
Well, unless Jr. Bush has finally gotten around to just outright suspending
the Constitution... (wow. there's a nasty epitaph for the U.S. Got rid of
one King George at the start and ended with another one..).
"Truth first, believe later."
Well, they like to use the First Amendment to claim "freedom of
religion", even though those words do not appear anywhere in the document.
Here's a little word play that generally gets them into a lather. I've
used it a couple of times and it causes many a migraine and creased brow.
Them: You have to believe in something, after all we have freedom of
religion, not from religion.
Me: Okay, so where is your gun?
Them: What does that have to do with anything?
Me: The Second Amendment of the Constitution says you have the freedom
of arms, not the freedom from arms. Following your logic, you are in
violation of the Constitution because you are not carrying a gun.
Them: rants, screams of "heretic", attempts to change the subject,
offers to "pray for you", shouts of "terrorist", threats of hell, and my
all time favorite, "if you don't like it leave, this is a CHRISTIAN
NATION". (emphasis always on those last two words)
Ain't fundies fun? I just love mess'n with their little empty heads.
Barrel. Fish. Dynamite.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
31 Aug 2007 10:38:28 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 04:51:32 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote:
Them: rants, screams of "heretic", attempts to change the subject,
offers to "pray for you", shouts of "terrorist", threats of hell, and my
all time favorite, "if you don't like it leave, this is a CHRISTIAN
NATION". (emphasis always on those last two words)
Ain't fundies fun? I just love mess'n with their little empty heads.
Why don't you take on a REAL challenge - like proving that a dime is
worth more than a nickel? Messing with a fundy's vacuum is easier
than blinking in a sandstorm.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
31 Aug 2007 07:21:56 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 04:51:32 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote:
Them: rants, screams of "heretic", attempts to change the subject,
offers to "pray for you", shouts of "terrorist", threats of hell, and my
all time favorite, "if you don't like it leave, this is a CHRISTIAN
NATION". (emphasis always on those last two words)
Ain't fundies fun? I just love mess'n with their little empty heads.
Why don't you take on a REAL challenge - like proving that a dime is
worth more than a nickel? Messing with a fundy's vacuum is easier
than blinking in a sandstorm.
OH, sorry Al. I think the whole, "10 pennies = 1 dime, 5 pennies = 1
nickel, 2 nickels = 1 dime and 2 dimes and 1 nickel = 1 quarter or 25
pennies" is just a bit over their heads this season.
Hell, getting some of them to count past 10 requires them to be barefoot.
Of course, since their god can't seem to handle money very well, what
makes us think his followers could either?
- --
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.secularity.com/ktayloraz
A.A #1143 http://azhotops.blogspot.com/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFG2LCkyVHkPfVtX8URAvI9AJ0Ye5AIYjcXeiXm1lrZIUIhzzut4gCg8W42
ePTaIpmOGwIw3wWPvKJ8iG0=
=C7vQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
31 Aug 2007 12:15:09 PM |
|
|
On Aug 31, 1:23 am, "Metal Atheist" <x> wrote:
Ok, here goes, a crude attempt at a logical argument.
Religious people claim that we have freedom "of" religion, not freedom
"from" religion. This is a favorite of Newt Gingrich. However, I don't
understand how that would work.
Is a Catholic required to pray to Mecca?
Is a Muslim required to draw a pentagram and pray to the four winds?
So, doesn't freedom "of" religion require freedom "from" religion at its
core? How could you really have freedom of religion if we are not free from
other people's religions.
Christians in the US like to tout the idea that we are a "Christian nation".
Actually we are a nation of religious freedom.
Well, unless Jr. Bush has finally gotten around to just outright suspending
the Constitution... (wow. there's a nasty epitaph for the U.S. Got rid of
one King George at the start and ended with another one..).
"Truth first, believe later."
The real issue is, that you can't have freedom of religion, if your
government uses your taxes and it's power that it gains from you, to
promote one religion.
Freedome of religion, requires a government that is completely free of
religion, including athiesm.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
08 Sep 2007 11:48:56 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:15:09 -0700, Kate <Kate@twoangryliberals.com>
wrote:
On Aug 31, 1:23 am, "Metal Atheist" <x> wrote:
Ok, here goes, a crude attempt at a logical argument.
Religious people claim that we have freedom "of" religion, not freedom
"from" religion. This is a favorite of Newt Gingrich. However, I don't
understand how that would work.
Is a Catholic required to pray to Mecca?
Is a Muslim required to draw a pentagram and pray to the four winds?
So, doesn't freedom "of" religion require freedom "from" religion at its
core? How could you really have freedom of religion if we are not free from
other people's religions.
Christians in the US like to tout the idea that we are a "Christian nation".
Actually we are a nation of religious freedom.
Well, unless Jr. Bush has finally gotten around to just outright suspending
the Constitution... (wow. there's a nasty epitaph for the U.S. Got rid of
one King George at the start and ended with another one..).
"Truth first, believe later."
The real issue is, that you can't have freedom of religion, if your
government uses your taxes and it's power that it gains from you, to
promote one religion.
Freedome of religion, requires a government that is completely free of
religion, including athiesm.
Atheism isn't a religion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "les_on_usenet" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
31 Aug 2007 12:35:26 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:15:09 -0700, Kate <Kate@twoangryliberals.com>
wrote:
On Aug 31, 1:23 am, "Metal Atheist" <x> wrote:
Ok, here goes, a crude attempt at a logical argument.
Religious people claim that we have freedom "of" religion, not freedom
"from" religion. This is a favorite of Newt Gingrich. However, I don't
understand how that would work.
Is a Catholic required to pray to Mecca?
Is a Muslim required to draw a pentagram and pray to the four winds?
So, doesn't freedom "of" religion require freedom "from" religion at its
core? How could you really have freedom of religion if we are not free from
other people's religions.
Christians in the US like to tout the idea that we are a "Christian nation".
Actually we are a nation of religious freedom.
Well, unless Jr. Bush has finally gotten around to just outright suspending
the Constitution... (wow. there's a nasty epitaph for the U.S. Got rid of
one King George at the start and ended with another one..).
"Truth first, believe later."
The real issue is, that you can't have freedom of religion, if your
government uses your taxes and it's power that it gains from you, to
promote one religion.
Freedome of religion, requires a government that is completely free of
religion, including athiesm.
I what way is the absence of belief that claimed gods exist a
religion? Such claims are merely anothers unjustified belief.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
01 Sep 2007 10:31:05 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:35:26 +0100, les_on_usenet
<delete-unread@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:15:09 -0700, Kate <Kate@twoangryliberals.com>
wrote:
On Aug 31, 1:23 am, "Metal Atheist" <x> wrote:
Ok, here goes, a crude attempt at a logical argument.
Religious people claim that we have freedom "of" religion, not freedom
"from" religion. This is a favorite of Newt Gingrich. However, I don't
understand how that would work.
Is a Catholic required to pray to Mecca?
Is a Muslim required to draw a pentagram and pray to the four winds?
So, doesn't freedom "of" religion require freedom "from" religion at its
core? How could you really have freedom of religion if we are not free from
other people's religions.
Christians in the US like to tout the idea that we are a "Christian nation".
Actually we are a nation of religious freedom.
Well, unless Jr. Bush has finally gotten around to just outright suspending
the Constitution... (wow. there's a nasty epitaph for the U.S. Got rid of
one King George at the start and ended with another one..).
"Truth first, believe later."
The real issue is, that you can't have freedom of religion, if your
government uses your taxes and it's power that it gains from you, to
promote one religion.
Freedome of religion, requires a government that is completely free of
religion, including athiesm.
I what way is the absence of belief that claimed gods exist a
religion? Such claims are merely anothers unjustified belief.
Atheism is an opinion on gods, which should not be promoted either by
a government. So on that level, it has the same standing as theism.
Government should have no opinion on Gods and not even address the
subject. Gods and religion should be as invisible as far as
Government is concerned.
.
|
|
|
| User: "les_on_usenet" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
02 Sep 2007 04:20:39 AM |
|
|
On 1 Sep 2007 22:31:05 -0500, (Kate ) wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:35:26 +0100, les_on_usenet
<delete-unread@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:15:09 -0700, Kate <Kate@twoangryliberals.com>
wrote:
On Aug 31, 1:23 am, "Metal Atheist" <x> wrote:
Ok, here goes, a crude attempt at a logical argument.
Religious people claim that we have freedom "of" religion, not freedom
"from" religion. This is a favorite of Newt Gingrich. However, I don't
understand how that would work.
Is a Catholic required to pray to Mecca?
Is a Muslim required to draw a pentagram and pray to the four winds?
So, doesn't freedom "of" religion require freedom "from" religion at its
core? How could you really have freedom of religion if we are not free from
other people's religions.
Christians in the US like to tout the idea that we are a "Christian nation".
Actually we are a nation of religious freedom.
Well, unless Jr. Bush has finally gotten around to just outright suspending
the Constitution... (wow. there's a nasty epitaph for the U.S. Got rid of
one King George at the start and ended with another one..).
"Truth first, believe later."
The real issue is, that you can't have freedom of religion, if your
government uses your taxes and it's power that it gains from you, to
promote one religion.
Freedome of religion, requires a government that is completely free of
religion, including athiesm.
I what way is the absence of belief that claimed gods exist a
religion? Such claims are merely anothers unjustified belief.
Atheism is an opinion on gods, which should not be promoted either by
a government. So on that level, it has the same standing as theism.
Government should have no opinion on Gods
Claimed gods.
There is no gods per-se only claimed gods none of which
have been shown to be true.
and not even address the
subject. Gods and religion should be as invisible as far as
Government is concerned.
I would agree with you there. Government should concern itself
with governing and nothing else. (which should include the recognition
and protection of human rights for all before the law)
Les Hellawell
Greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
08 Sep 2007 11:55:07 AM |
|
|
On 1 Sep 2007 22:31:05 -0500, (Kate ) wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:35:26 +0100, les_on_usenet
<delete-unread@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:15:09 -0700, Kate <Kate@twoangryliberals.com>
wrote:
On Aug 31, 1:23 am, "Metal Atheist" <x> wrote:
Ok, here goes, a crude attempt at a logical argument.
Religious people claim that we have freedom "of" religion, not freedom
"from" religion. This is a favorite of Newt Gingrich. However, I don't
understand how that would work.
Is a Catholic required to pray to Mecca?
Is a Muslim required to draw a pentagram and pray to the four winds?
So, doesn't freedom "of" religion require freedom "from" religion at its
core? How could you really have freedom of religion if we are not free from
other people's religions.
Christians in the US like to tout the idea that we are a "Christian nation".
Actually we are a nation of religious freedom.
Well, unless Jr. Bush has finally gotten around to just outright suspending
the Constitution... (wow. there's a nasty epitaph for the U.S. Got rid of
one King George at the start and ended with another one..).
"Truth first, believe later."
The real issue is, that you can't have freedom of religion, if your
government uses your taxes and it's power that it gains from you, to
promote one religion.
Freedome of religion, requires a government that is completely free of
religion, including athiesm.
I what way is the absence of belief that claimed gods exist a
religion? Such claims are merely anothers unjustified belief.
Atheism is an opinion on gods, which should not be promoted either by
a government. So on that level, it has the same standing as theism.
There's no reason for superstition to even come up.
Government should have no opinion on Gods and not even address the
subject. Gods and religion should be as invisible as far as
Government is concerned.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "V" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
31 Aug 2007 09:54:20 AM |
|
|
On Aug 31, 4:23 am, "Metal Atheist" <x> wrote:
Ok, here goes, a crude attempt at a logical argument.
Religious people claim that we have freedom "of" religion, not freedom
"from" religion. This is a favorite of Newt Gingrich. However, I don't
understand how that would work.
Is a Catholic required to pray to Mecca?
Is a Muslim required to draw a pentagram and pray to the four winds?
So, doesn't freedom "of" religion require freedom "from" religion at its
core? How could you really have freedom of religion if we are not free from
other people's religions.
Christians in the US like to tout the idea that we are a "Christian nation".
Actually we are a nation of religious freedom.
Well, unless Jr. Bush has finally gotten around to just outright suspending
the Constitution... (wow. there's a nasty epitaph for the U.S. Got rid of
one King George at the start and ended with another one..).
"Truth first, believe later."
Like all things human, imperfection is injected into the equation.
We have religious freedom and freedom from religion...just not perfect
religious freedom and perfect freedom from religion.
Perfection is the nature of the gods...imperfection is the nature of
humans.
This is a good example why atheists fail in their search for inner
peace.
Atheists seek only perfection and discards anything that is not
perfect.
Each religion contains perfection's as well as imperfections. It is up
to the practitioner or end user to use the tools in the right way.
The problem is not the wisdom that is defective. The problem lies with
religious practitioners who are defective in their practice of this
wisdom. The wisdom works - we don't work the wisdom.
So the poor atheists can never find anything 'perfect enough' to latch
onto in their journey to find inner peace.
.....my discussion of this topic from an earlier post.
Andrealphus writes:
"Historically, whenever Christians say that "We offer peace and
charity to all mankind", everyone else knows that it's time to hide
the cattle."
V writes:
"Sure, you are right Andrealphus that actions speak louder than
words...but the words are a start as they define the actions."
Andrealphus writes:
"I see no historical precedence for this among Christians. A holier
than thou attitude does not automatically indicate "right" anything.
I'd just as soon see the actions, and have them keep the words to
yourself. It's the best of both worlds, good actions, and peace and
quiet.-"
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
You are right and you are wrong Andrealphus.
I would sperate your subjective views from the argument to get at the
bottom of 'what is allowed and what is not allowed' as a general rule
for living within society.
Once we do this, we can see how much of the argument balances on our
personal prejudices Andrealphus.
Sure actions must match words and you are within your rights to hate
Christians, Jews, Muslims or whatever other group you wish to.
Evaluating the 'hatred quotient' is always a good tool to use to see
when an argument is ego based or truth based.
See:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=627.0
For instance, would an all good, all loving, all perfect God promote
the use of calling others 'dirty infidels' or 'filthy heathens'.
Or in the case of those free from the God delusion...religious
fucktards?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tasteless.jokes/browse_frm/thread/85cfd9a2f508980/52c7a003b2e2027d?lnk=gst&q=religous+fucktards&rnum=1&hl=en#52c7a003b2e2027d
No, these are all man-made creations that stem from bigotry, personal
prejudices and hatred.
And once injected into the mind of man, they sprout and grow and
become cries of 'kill the infidels'...'destroy the filthy atheists'
and 'burn down the churches of the religious fuckatrds.'
http://www.churcharson.com/act_now/
You are within your rights Andrealphus to not hear a word from another
person...as long as you can figure out where to live so you never run
into another human.
But it is also within a persons rights to ask you if you are feeling
OK, are lost or offer you some water if you looked parched.
The problem arises when they force medicine on you, force you to go in
their direction or force you to drink.
You see, everyone is not up to snuff with living a life at peace and
some of us need some help.
Of course, not all atheists agree with me on this point...as Enkidu
wrote:
"You (V) have nothing to say that we haven't heard before, nothing to
say that hasn't been say better by others, and nothing to say that was
worth hearing when said better by others. Your pathetic little turds
of truth are unoriginal, irrational, ill-conceived, ill-received, and
devoid of value." (condensed)
Enkidu's gifted eloquence notwithstanding - if he and other atheists
know all there is to know about everything under the sun...what is
stopping them from living a life at peace?
They cannot claim that theists stop them, for as soon we blame our
lack of peace on another we don't even have the basics of peace
program to pay lip service to?
Yet atheist claim they already know it all?
See:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=613.0
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/125b41aa8fd2b87b/cf400bdf88ba1701?lnk=gst&q=conundrum&rnum=7&hl=en#cf400bdf88ba1701
Now, my own philosophy differs quite bit from Enkidu, as I believe the
business of humanism is 'all our business' if we with to live life at
peace.
And in fact, I have a vested interest in this philosophy.
For in the end, your sanity becomes my sanity and my sanity becomes
your sanity.
Don't believe this?
Remember the killings at Virginia Tech?
57 people shot or killed?
Atheists claiming the killer was a Christian?
Christians claiming the killer was an atheist?
Does it even matter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre
Let me illustrate how we all are in this together Andrealphus.
A millionaires daughter was a student at Virginia Tech. She was living
a happy, carefree life as any millionaires child might do. But one day
she ran into Seung-Hui Cho.
She was subsequently shot, as some other 56 were.
She lived, but is now she is paralyzed.
Seung-Hui Cho's sanity became her sanity...a sanity she lives with for
the rest of her life.
Seung-Hui Cho's sanity also became the sanity for the other 56 people
that shared his thoughts that day.
I don't know what his religious affiliations were, if any.
If Seung-Hui Cho was a Christian, his fellow practitioners may have
failed him...but where were the atheists secular humanists to take up
the slack of the Christians shortcomings?
Where were the atheists to ask Seung-Hui Cho if he needed a drink or
was lost when the Christians may have failed him? (Again, I do not
know what religion the killer was if any and am using this as an
illustration only. So don't get stuck on the blame game.)
Well, atheist don't want people to bother them and they want to leave
everyone else alone as well.
After all, charity is associated with Christians and atheists and
Christians do not get along.
See:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/327805fdd9caec99/c99a0e01b4947eca?hl=en#c99a0e01b4947eca
I suggest you read the 'informal creed' of atheism that discusses this
topic Andrealphus.
(Snip)
"An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes
that heaven is something for which we should work now - here on earth
for all men together to enjoy."
As such I ask if someone is thirsty and needs a drink when I see them
parched.
And if I am mistaken, then no harm done. I leave them in peace, but I
do ask.
This relationship of interdependent humanistic balance can best be
visualized in the 3 corners of a triangle which represents the
spiritual realm, other persons and ourselves
At the top goes Higher Power / God of Nature and God of Peace /
Buddha / The Dharma / Universe / Karma or whatever you choose as the
unseen force behind all.
On the bottom right corner of the triangle goes other people. On the
left bottom corner of the triangle goes yourself.
Keeping this relationship in harmonious balance helps develop
compassion for others and humility within ourselves.
We learn to think about others and the spirit as well as our own needs
and we can then see we are all interdependent and not independent with
all.
Once you see this balance you will realize that we all share the same
breath and no need to practice hatred or develop ill will towards
others. It is much better to develop compassion for others.
For as we develop compassion for others we develop peace within.
This also helps me with keeping an open mind for peace generators in
my life.
As such, I practice from any spiritual tradition without problems or
prejudices and readily look for such gifts irrespective of what label
they come under. I even use tools from the atheists as I have
mentioned with the creed.
See:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=4.0
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=509.0
Take care,
V (Male)
Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
AA#2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
01 Sep 2007 12:27:15 AM |
|
|
Last time that great scribe V <vfr44@aol.com> chipped away at his/her
stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
Atheists seek only perfection and discards anything that is not
perfect.
I stopped at this point. I seek other things beside perfection.
--
Remove both YOUR_SHOES before replying
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2009
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make
you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
02 Sep 2007 12:02:39 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 14:57:15 +0930, Meteorite Debris
<epicurusboth@YOUR_SHOESaapt.net.au> wrote:
Last time that great scribe V <vfr44@aol.com> chipped away at his/her
stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
Atheists seek only perfection and discards anything that is not
perfect.
I stopped at this point. I seek other things beside perfection.
Another "tion" - inebriation?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
01 Sep 2007 01:53:24 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 14:57:15 +0930, Meteorite Debris
<epicurusboth@YOUR_SHOESaapt.net.au> wrote:
Last time that great scribe V <vfr44@aol.com> chipped away at his/her
stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
Atheists seek only perfection and discards anything that is not
perfect.
I stopped at this point. I seek other things beside perfection.
Elle MacPherson's Husband?
He's beside perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
01 Sep 2007 07:52:07 AM |
|
|
Last time that great scribe Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> chipped
away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 14:57:15 +0930, Meteorite Debris
<epicurusboth@YOUR_SHOESaapt.net.au> wrote:
Last time that great scribe V <vfr44@aol.com> chipped away at his/her
stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
Atheists seek only perfection and discards anything that is not
perfect.
I stopped at this point. I seek other things beside perfection.
Elle MacPherson's Husband?
He's beside perfection.
Audrey Tautou boyfriend would be my choice. If she doesn't have one I'll
volunteer to stand beside ; )
--
Remove both YOUR_SHOES before replying
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2009
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make
you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
31 Aug 2007 11:33:22 AM |
|
|
On 31 aug, 16:54, V <vf...@aol.com> wrote:
On Aug 31, 4:23 am, "Metal Atheist" <x> wrote:
Ok, here goes, a crude attempt at a logical argument.
Religious people claim that we have freedom "of" religion, not freedom
"from" religion. This is a favorite of Newt Gingrich. However, I don't
understand how that would work.
Is a Catholic required to pray to Mecca?
Is a Muslim required to draw a pentagram and pray to the four winds?
So, doesn't freedom "of" religion require freedom "from" religion at its
core? How could you really have freedom of religion if we are not free from
other people's religions.
Christians in the US like to tout the idea that we are a "Christian nation".
Actually we are a nation of religious freedom.
Well, unless Jr. Bush has finally gotten around to just outright suspending
the Constitution... (wow. there's a nasty epitaph for the U.S. Got rid of
one King George at the start and ended with another one..).
"Truth first, believe later."
Like all things human, imperfection is injected into the equation.
We have religious freedom and freedom from religion...just not perfect
religious freedom and perfect freedom from religion.
Perfection is the nature of the gods...imperfection is the nature of
humans.
<snipped where you should have snipped yourself>
Sorry,
Zeus was an adulterer
Hephaistus was crippled
and the God of Abraham created a species so wicked,
he needed a deluge to wash his creation clean.
You do not need to understand that Gods are imaginary
to know that perfection is. . .
Peter van Velzen
August 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
31 Aug 2007 12:42:46 PM |
|
|
On Aug 31, 4:23 am, "Metal Atheist" <x> wrote:
Ok, here goes, a crude attempt at a logical argument.
Religious people claim that we have freedom "of" religion, not freedom
"from" religion. This is a favorite of Newt Gingrich. However, I don't
understand how that would work.
Don't sweat it. Neither does he. It's just that for someone to say out
loud "I don't believe in gods" is threatening to him. It re-awakens
his doubts and threatens his faith.
Is a Catholic required to pray to Mecca?
Is a Muslim required to draw a pentagram and pray to the four winds?
So, doesn't freedom "of" religion require freedom "from" religion at its
core? How could you really have freedom of religion if we are not free from
other people's religions.
Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding! Right answer! Tell him what he's won,
Johnny!
Christians in the US like to tout the idea that we are a "Christian nation".
Actually we are a nation of religious freedom.
This idea can be debunked very easily.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html
http://tinyurl.com/yoo7ly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
I often wonder what their theology would have undergone if "Origin of
Species" had been published 100 years earlier. Jefferson was certainly
interested in science..I'll bet he would have loved it.
Well, unless Jr. Bush has finally gotten around to just outright suspending
the Constitution... (wow. there's a nasty epitaph for the U.S. Got rid of
one King George at the start and ended with another one..).
"Truth first, believe later."
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
31 Aug 2007 04:17:12 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:42:46 -0700, wrote:
Don't sweat it. Neither does he. It's just that for someone to say out
loud "I don't believe in gods" is threatening to him. It re-awakens
his doubts and threatens his faith.
No it doesn't. I just laugh at you.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
08 Sep 2007 11:56:39 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:42:46 -0700, wrote:
On Aug 31, 4:23 am, "Metal Atheist" <x> wrote:
Ok, here goes, a crude attempt at a logical argument.
Religious people claim that we have freedom "of" religion, not freedom
"from" religion. This is a favorite of Newt Gingrich. However, I don't
understand how that would work.
Don't sweat it. Neither does he. It's just that for someone to say out
loud "I don't believe in gods" is threatening to him. It re-awakens
his doubts and threatens his faith.
It spotlights the terminal lack of any supporting evidence.
[]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
31 Aug 2007 10:40:16 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 03:23:19 -0500, "Metal Atheist" <x> wrote:
Ok, here goes, a crude attempt at a logical argument.
Religious people claim that we have freedom "of" religion, not freedom
"from" religion. This is a favorite of Newt Gingrich. However, I don't
understand how that would work.
Is a Catholic required to pray to Mecca?
Is a Muslim required to draw a pentagram and pray to the four winds?
So, doesn't freedom "of" religion require freedom "from" religion at its
core? How could you really have freedom of religion if we are not free from
other people's religions.
When you get through teaching a fundy that "logic" he's qualified to
enter day care. It would be an insult to a reasonably intelligent
5-year-old to assume that he didn't understand it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
08 Sep 2007 11:41:46 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 03:23:19 -0500, "Metal Atheist" <x> wrote:
Ok, here goes, a crude attempt at a logical argument.
Religious people claim that we have freedom "of" religion, not freedom
"from" religion. This is a favorite of Newt Gingrich. However, I don't
understand how that would work.
The freedom of the Christian superstition is what they mean.
Is a Catholic required to pray to Mecca?
Is a Muslim required to draw a pentagram and pray to the four winds?
Nope. It means all others must be subordinate to the Christian
superstition.
So, doesn't freedom "of" religion require freedom "from" religion at its
core?
Yes.
How could you really have freedom of religion if we are not free from
other people's religions.
Christians would be free from other people's superstitions, but not
the reverse.
Christians in the US like to tout the idea that we are a "Christian nation".
They all bear false witness-the Christian Sacrament.
Actually we are a nation of religious freedom.
Only in theory.
Well, unless Jr. Bush has finally gotten around to just outright suspending
the Constitution... (wow. there's a nasty epitaph for the U.S. Got rid of
one King George at the start and ended with another one..).
Constitution? Oh! That obsolete piece of paper. Scum rises to the
top.
"Truth first, believe later."
What is 'truth?'
St. Ignatius of Loyola
Spanish founder of the Society of Jesus
We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white
is really black,
if the heirarchy of the Church so decides.
- Exercita spiritualia / 1541
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
08 Sep 2007 12:49:33 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 09:41:46 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
"Truth first, believe later."
What is 'truth?'
I've never, ever, understood why they call it "truth".
There is so much wrong with that.
It forces a true/false dichotomy that leaves out what it actually is:
what the more extreme members of the religion believe is true.
It's meant to be that they can't believe it to be false so it must be
true.
But the same logic makes it false for everybody else.
And it is just plain insulting because it says whatever we might
believe about anything is false because it's not their "truth".
Especially when they tell us we're not interested in the truth. Which
is an outright lie.
All because they have redefined the word "truth" so it no longer means
something's basis in reality.
St. Ignatius of Loyola
Spanish founder of the Society of Jesus
We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white
is really black,
if the heirarchy of the Church so decides.
- Exercita spiritualia / 1541
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
12 Sep 2007 11:12:57 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 13:49:33 -0400, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 09:41:46 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
"Truth first, believe later."
What is 'truth?'
I've never, ever, understood why they call it "truth".
Because it isn't.
There is so much wrong with that.
It forces a true/false dichotomy that leaves out what it actually is:
what the more extreme members of the religion believe is true.
Yes.
It's meant to be that they can't believe it to be false so it must be
true.
But the same logic makes it false for everybody else.
Mobious strip 'logic.'
And it is just plain insulting because it says whatever we might
believe about anything is false because it's not their "truth".
Especially when they tell us we're not interested in the truth. Which
is an outright lie.
Which is a sacrament.
All because they have redefined the word "truth" so it no longer means
something's basis in reality.
Which dovetails with the rest of it.
St. Ignatius of Loyola
Spanish founder of the Society of Jesus
We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white
is really black,
if the heirarchy of the Church so decides.
- Exercita spiritualia / 1541
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "les_on_usenet" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom from or of religion? |
31 Aug 2007 04:35:40 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 03:23:19 -0500, "Metal Atheist" <x> wrote:
Ok, here goes, a crude attempt at a logical argument.
Religious people claim that we have freedom "of" religion, not freedom
"from" religion. This is a favorite of Newt Gingrich. However, I don't
understand how that would work.
from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and
freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice,
worship and observance.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this
right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers.
I take freedom of thought, andd conscience to include the right
to not hold religious beliefs free from intimidation or persecution
or discrimination.
One major omission from the charter in my view is the absence
to be free from being pestered by others expressing their
views. Or is this right in one of the other clauses?
Is a Catholic required to pray to Mecca?
Is a Muslim required to draw a pentagram and pray to the four winds?
There is nothing here about blasphemy but that is internal to
each religion.
So, doesn't freedom "of" religion require freedom "from" religion at its
core? How could you really have freedom of religion if we are not free from
other people's religions.
You have freedom of thought and conscience which surely includes
the right to be free from religion?
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They
are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one
another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour,
sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or
social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the
political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or
territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust,
non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Christians in the US like to tout the idea that we are a "Christian nation".
Actually we are a nation of religious freedom.
Well, unless Jr. Bush has finally gotten around to just outright suspending
the Constitution... (wow. there's a nasty epitaph for the U.S. Got rid of
one King George at the start and ended with another one..).
"Truth first, believe later."
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
