A vote on whether or not you intend to help ban religion in America

amok

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,342
0
0
There is a big difference between banning religion and banning the intrusion of religion on the "non-enlightened". I have no problem whatsoever with people practicing their beliefs. It intrudes on my freedoms, however, when they push their beliefs onto me.

I will never favor an all-out banning of religion, but I would like to be protected from religious harrassment, and understand that the differences in beliefs mean that some institutions should be devoid of religion for the sake of fairness.
 

PainTrain

Member
Jun 22, 2003
170
2
0
Holy crap, I didn't actuallly expect "yes" votes. I'd like to think someone is trying to sabotage the results, otherwise that's a bit unsettling.

**EDIT: typo's
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: PainTrain
Holy crap, I didn't actuallly expect "yes" votes. I'd like to think someone is trying to sabotage the results, otherwise that's bit ensettling.


i havent voted, in a min there will be one more "no" vote.


*edit* there is my NO vote

i am sure there will be more. on a grander scale though it does not take a majority vote in this country anymore, that is a democracy, we live in a judicial oligarchy now. the majority vote is of no consequence anyway.



 

PainTrain

Member
Jun 22, 2003
170
2
0
Majority, minority, the point I'm tyring to illustrate with the help of the members of this forum is that the notion that someone is trying to take your ability to practice whatever religion you choose is a phantom; I don't believe it exists. Even if it did to some people, it can't/won't/shouldn't happen anyways as far as our government is concerned. If you so pleased, you could walk around capitol hill with a picket saying "you're going to hell because you praise allah" and no one would mess with you. You might get called an idiot from some passsers-by, but you're not going to have any government institution or law enforcement officer telling you to do otherwise. Wal-Mart could change their mascot to pontius pilot, no one but the consumer could tell them differently. Just like a gay marriage is not my concern nor anyone but those to be wed, your religion is yours to practice as you see fit.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: amok
There is a big difference between banning religion and banning the intrusion of religion on the "non-enlightened". I have no problem whatsoever with people practicing their beliefs. It intrudes on my freedoms, however, when they push their beliefs onto me.

I will never favor an all-out banning of religion, but I would like to be protected from religious harrassment, and understand that the differences in beliefs mean that some institutions should be devoid of religion for the sake of fairness.

Exactly. However, it is also important to be protected from anti-religious harrassment as well.
 

MonstaThrilla

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2000
1,652
0
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: amok
There is a big difference between banning religion and banning the intrusion of religion on the "non-enlightened". I have no problem whatsoever with people practicing their beliefs. It intrudes on my freedoms, however, when they push their beliefs onto me.

I will never favor an all-out banning of religion, but I would like to be protected from religious harrassment, and understand that the differences in beliefs mean that some institutions should be devoid of religion for the sake of fairness.

Exactly. However, it is also important to be protected from anti-religious harrassment as well.

Example?
 

amok

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,342
0
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: amok
There is a big difference between banning religion and banning the intrusion of religion on the "non-enlightened". I have no problem whatsoever with people practicing their beliefs. It intrudes on my freedoms, however, when they push their beliefs onto me.

I will never favor an all-out banning of religion, but I would like to be protected from religious harrassment, and understand that the differences in beliefs mean that some institutions should be devoid of religion for the sake of fairness.

Exactly. However, it is also important to be protected from anti-religious harrassment as well.

Hehe, from my viewpoint, anti-religious harrassment is mostly a myth (there are a few zealots). Most of those types of arguments come around as a result of religious people pushing their beliefs. I've always respected the beliefs of others. Because of that, I tend to deflect religious discussions. Doesn't always work though. For instance, my mother's family are all hard core southern baptists, and they never allow me to do it. In fact, they often seek me out at family gatherings with the express intent of arguing their beliefs to me, despite the fact that I usually just nod my head and move on ;).

And before Shadow jumps on my statements, I'll explain my reasoning a bit. By devoid of religion, I don't mean "Atheist", I mean completely neutral. Having Christian monuments/texts/culture in government institutions and public schools is unfair to jews, muslims, buddhists, etc. who may also need to use those facilities. A private school can promote whatever they wish, because anyone going there will have to agree to the material before attending. Public and government institutions often have no real alternative.
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
Why do conservaties think that NOT promoting a religion means the removal of religion...
rolleye.gif
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: amok
And before Shadow jumps on my statements, I'll explain my reasoning a bit. By devoid of religion, I don't mean "Atheist", I mean completely neutral. Having Christian monuments/texts/culture in government institutions and public schools is unfair to jews, muslims, buddhists, etc. who may also need to use those facilities. A private school can promote whatever they wish, because anyone going there will have to agree to the material before attending. Public and government institutions often have no real alternative.

Not so fast. Before we can argue about anything, we have to accept one basic premise: That we exist. All further discussion is based on that assumption for if we don't exist, everything else is moot. So, even if we are religiously "neutral" as you say, we're not, because we have faith in the fact that we exist. Since we can't prove we exist, we can therefore say that you believe and have faith in that assumption. Therefore you are not truly "neutral" now are you? Sitting there all smug with your beliefs and your faith thinking you're like the Switzerland of religion. Nice try.
 

Genesys

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2003
1,536
0
0
Originally posted by: amok
There is a big difference between banning religion and banning the intrusion of religion on the "non-enlightened". I have no problem whatsoever with people practicing their beliefs. It intrudes on my freedoms, however, when they push their beliefs onto me.

I will never favor an all-out banning of religion, but I would like to be protected from religious harrassment, and understand that the differences in beliefs mean that some institutions should be devoid of religion for the sake of fairness.

but by trying to be protected from religious harrassment, youre also trampleing on others rights. therefore you should just do like people have done for over 100 years in this country and what you continue to do at family gatherings, nod your head and move on. just put up the constant bantering of the zealots and get over it.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: PainTrain
Holy crap, I didn't actuallly expect "yes" votes. I'd like to think someone is trying to sabotage the results, otherwise that's bit ensettling.


i havent voted, in a min there will be one more "no" vote.


*edit* there is my NO vote

i am sure there will be more. on a grander scale though it does not take a majority vote in this country anymore, that is a democracy, we live in a judicial oligarchy now. the majority vote is of no consequence anyway.
Wow some would say the the 2000 Presidential Election is a prime example of that.

 

amok

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,342
0
0
Originally posted by: Genesys
Originally posted by: amok
There is a big difference between banning religion and banning the intrusion of religion on the "non-enlightened". I have no problem whatsoever with people practicing their beliefs. It intrudes on my freedoms, however, when they push their beliefs onto me.

I will never favor an all-out banning of religion, but I would like to be protected from religious harrassment, and understand that the differences in beliefs mean that some institutions should be devoid of religion for the sake of fairness.

but by trying to be protected from religious harrassment, youre also trampleing on others rights. therefore you should just do like people have done for over 100 years in this country and what you continue to do at family gatherings, nod your head and move on. just put up the constant bantering of the zealots and get over it.

To be honest with you, I can deal with that without any trouble whatsoever. However, if I had strong beliefs in a different form of religion, I would be less able to deal with it, as their attemtps would be an attack on my faith. My reasoning is more for the sake of fairness than of any personal requirements.

As for trampling on other people's rights, that isn't the case. People don't have a consititutional right to harass anyone else. Some religions believe in human sacrifices, yet to do so would be a violation of law and we don't allow it. Basically, the truth is that we have freedom to practice religion insofar as that practice doesn't encroach on the rights of others.
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: PainTrain
Holy crap, I didn't actuallly expect "yes" votes. I'd like to think someone is trying to sabotage the results, otherwise that's a bit unsettling.

**EDIT: typo's


I voted yes because I read this before I voted.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
26,971
35,585
136
Why do conservaties think that NOT promoting a religion means the removal of religion

Bing!

The sheep still can't grasp the concept of 'KEEP THY RELIGION TO THYSELF.'
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: kage69
Why do conservaties think that NOT promoting a religion means the removal of religion

Bing!

The sheep still can't grasp the concept of 'KEEP THY RELIGION TO THYSELF.'

That goes against one of the points of religion... sharing your beliefs with others, both directly and indirectly.

Why are lliberals so anti-religion? <- This question has about as much worth as kage69's question above.

There is difference between not-promoting a religion and attacking a religion. So far, 12 people have voted in favor of banning religion from America. That's nearly 30% of the votes, and that scares me.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: kage69
Why do conservaties think that NOT promoting a religion means the removal of religion

Bing!

The sheep still can't grasp the concept of 'KEEP THY RELIGION TO THYSELF.'

That goes against one of the points of religion... sharing your beliefs with others, both directly and indirectly.

Why are lliberals so anti-religion? <- This question has about as much worth as kage69's question above.

There is difference between not-promoting a religion and attacking a religion. So far, 12 people have voted in favor of banning religion from America. That's nearly 30% of the votes, and that scares me.
I wonder how many voted yes just to skew the results to justify their "Religion Under Attack" rants?
 

TheBDB

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2002
3,176
0
0
I'm atheist and I voted no. Anyone who votes yes to this particular question clearly does not understand the Constitution. I am however in favor of removing some of the Christianity from the government, such as "under god" in the pledge. Times have changed and I think people need to recognize that there are a lot of Americans that aren't Christian, monotheistic, or religious at all. They deserve the right to pledge their allegiance to our flag and country without invoking something they don't believe in.
 

Morbius

Member
Feb 15, 2002
40
0
0
[/quote]

Hehe, from my viewpoint, anti-religious harrassment is mostly a myth (there are a few zealots). Most of those types of arguments come around as a result of religious people pushing their beliefs. I've always respected the beliefs of others. Because of that, I tend to deflect religious discussions. Doesn't always work though. For instance, my mother's family are all hard core southern baptists, and they never allow me to do it. In fact, they often seek me out at family gatherings with the express intent of arguing their beliefs to me, despite the fact that I usually just nod my head and move on ;).

And before Shadow jumps on my statements, I'll explain my reasoning a bit. By devoid of religion, I don't mean "Atheist", I mean completely neutral. Having Christian monuments/texts/culture in government institutions and public schools is unfair to jews, muslims, buddhists, etc. who may also need to use those facilities. A private school can promote whatever they wish, because anyone going there will have to agree to the material before attending. Public and government institutions often have no real alternative.[/quote]

But those Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. should realize that this nation was founded on Christian principles and scripture NOT on theirs. Therefore, they should expect to see evidence of that in this country.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: TheBDB
I'm atheist and I voted no. Anyone who votes yes to this particular question clearly does not understand the Constitution. I am however in favor of removing some of the Christianity from the government, such as "under god" in the pledge. Times have changed and I think people need to recognize that there are a lot of Americans that aren't Christian, monotheistic, or religious at all. They deserve the right to pledge their allegiance to our flag and country without invoking something they don't believe in.
The inclusion of "Under God" in the Pledge is a nasty legacy to a shameful time in America and should be removed from the pledge just for that account!
 

gistech1978

Diamond Member
Aug 30, 2002
5,047
0
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: kage69
Why do conservaties think that NOT promoting a religion means the removal of religion

Bing!

The sheep still can't grasp the concept of 'KEEP THY RELIGION TO THYSELF.'

That goes against one of the points of religion... sharing your beliefs with others, both directly and indirectly.

Why are lliberals so anti-religion? <- This question has about as much worth as kage69's question above.

There is difference between not-promoting a religion and attacking a religion. So far, 12 people have voted in favor of banning religion from America. That's nearly 30% of the votes, and that scares me.

perhaps the indirectly should take more a prominent role in relgious persons' lives?
too many times, you've seen the hypocrites. preach about the declining moral values of america, but then go off and spend millions playing slot machines.
how about spread your religion through your actions and deeds instead?
that would be too hard, its much easier to just be a sheep and attend your weekly services. making yourself feel self righteous the rest of the day. if you have waited tables on a sunday lunch after church lets out, you know exactly what im talking about. most christians think they can just do as they please and right away beg for forgiveness and receive it.
that is my problem with you fundies.

 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: kage69
Why do conservaties think that NOT promoting a religion means the removal of religion

Bing!

The sheep still can't grasp the concept of 'KEEP THY RELIGION TO THYSELF.'

That goes against one of the points of religion... sharing your beliefs with others, both directly and indirectly.

Why are lliberals so anti-religion? <- This question has about as much worth as kage69's question above.

There is difference between not-promoting a religion and attacking a religion. So far, 12 people have voted in favor of banning religion from America. That's nearly 30% of the votes, and that scares me.
I wonder how many voted yes just to skew the results to justify their "Religion Under Attack" rants?

One of those vast right-wing conspiracies?
rolleye.gif


Originally posted by: TheBDB
I'm atheist and I voted no. Anyone who votes yes to this particular question clearly does not understand the Constitution. I am however in favor of removing some of the Christianity from the government, such as "under god" in the pledge. Times have changed and I think people need to recognize that there are a lot of Americans that aren't Christian, monotheistic, or religious at all. They deserve the right to pledge their allegiance to our flag and country without invoking something they don't believe in.

I'm sorry to hear that you are a Godless person. However, the vast majority of Americans are Christians. Not only that, but 87% of the country believes that such religious references should remain within our government (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/06/29/poll.pledge/?related). Times have changed, but people haven't. You can't force change on a group of people, especially in a Democratic nation where the will of the people is what matters. Not to mention, change isn't always for the best.