• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Who believes in freedom from religion?

As an atheist, I don't really give a ****. I think religion shouldn't be promoted in public schools financed by my tax dollars and that kind of thing but I like Christmas decorations and stuff and literally don't give a **** about seeing it on public lands or private lands.

Just don't teach my children retarded bull**** about creationism and we are good.
 
What exactly do you mean by "freedom from religion"? I don't support enforcement of religion in any public service, but issues like the statement "In God We Trust" on paper money aren't really important things to address. The antitheism advocated by the like of Hitchens won't work in the real world. If someone wants to preach their religion publicly, they should be able to do it; it's an issue of idealism vs realism. The government also shouldn't intervene in the religious aspect of private citizens, property, etc. For instance, the government can't ban school prayer in a private school.
 
You have a right to be an Atheist (in America at least) so freedom from religion exists.
I don't think you have the right to replace Freedom OF Religion with Freedom FROM Religion because it infringes on the freedoms of others.
And since the secular world and religious world has gotten along fine thus far (again in my country) I don't really see a need to change it.

That's how I see it.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Pressure and kid-contact is one thing which I get. But 'not look at religious imagery' . . . ?

I walk into the mall and immediately see images of women in underclothing. So I think I can cope with the occasional religious image.

I'm an atheist mother with a few kids who do go to church - the idea that religion is some villainous concept that we must shield and protect our children from is ridiculous.

Do you want to raise children who understand the world they live in or a bunch of dumb****s? I actually tried to raise my kids without any sort of religious awareness but realized A) it's impossible, B) it's selfish, C) it's immature, D) they ultimately developed strange and unusual interpretations of religious content seeing as how it's UNAVOIDABLE.

And so I realized that I didn't want to raise a bunch of ignorant fools that didn't even know what a concept of a god was.

Ultimately - I left it up to them if they wanted to go to church or not. 3 / 4 opted for attending. I even go when they ask. [Yes - I Aunt Spiker of the Pentecostal-turned-Atheist order hereby declare I attend church upon bequest of my offspring. I even tithe while there.]
Click to expand...

i did the same thing with my three kids

didnt want to push religion on them

didnt want to avoid the issue like the plague

gave them a few things to read on BOTH sides of the arguments once they were old enough

let them go to a few different churches with a few different friends....

helped that we were in a large metro area, and there were plenty of choices

in the end, they all chose different paths.....

which is how it is supposed to be i guess
 
Good luck with attempting to be 'free from religion', as you would have to do away with some 2,000 years of Judeo-Christian social influences and Western social evolution to do so, including much of the such influential documents as the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, natural rights, common law, and much of humanist thought as well. You can probably find some island somewhere nobody is interested in and create the pure atheist state you crave, but it wouldn't last long, as it would be a sort of Lord of the Flies meets Jackass 'culture', with the 'Darwinist' ideologues ending up exterminating everybody else but themselves, and then begin killing each other off; it's only 'rational', you know ...
 
Oberon said:
Good luck with attempting to be 'free from religion', as you would have to do away with some 2,000 years of Judeo-Christian social influences and Western social evolution to do so, including much of the such influential documents as the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, natural rights, common law, and much of humanist thought as well. You can probably find some island somewhere nobody is interested in and create the pure atheist state you crave, but it wouldn't last long, as it would be a sort of Lord of the Flies meets Jackass 'culture', with the 'Darwinist' ideologues ending up exterminating everybody else but themselves, and then begin killing each other off; it's only 'rational', you know ...
Click to expand...

There are many secular, predominantly atheist societies around the world, especially in Western Europe and more specifically Sweden, Denmark, etc. And they're doing just fine. Religion is man-made. Morality is man made. You don't need religion to adhere to the morality that society accepts. Troll bait post.
 
Amadeus said:
There's nothing militant about wanting religion to not influence public policy. Certainly as a libertarian you'd have to agree.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry religion is going to influence public policy as long as there are religious people participating in government. Being that this nation is a republic, outs going to be influenced by religion. Eradication of it from policy making is absolutely militant.
 
akrunner88 said:
There are many secular, predominantly atheist societies around the world, especially in Western Europe and more specifically Sweden, Denmark, etc. And they're doing just fine. Religion is man-made. Morality is man made. You don't need religion to adhere to the morality that society accepts. Troll bait post.
Click to expand...

Yes, any post that doesn't mimic your pseudo-intellectual posturing is no doubt troll bait in your mind, but as anybody who reads something besides astro-turfing sites knows, moral principles began with religions, not atheism, and are still the main bulwarks of it. You can always slit your wrists over it, I guess, since it ain't going to change history to snivel about it now, it's far too late. Sweden and Denmark are both cultures heavily influenced by Christianity for a long time now, ingrained in their social and legal structures, whatever their recent beliefs are demographically. States that made massive efforts to stamp out religion haven't fared well as bastions of enlightenment and tolerance, really.
 
Oberon said:
Yes, any post that doesn't mimic your pseudo-intellectual posturing is no doubt troll bait in your mind, but as anybody who reads something besides astro-turfing sites knows, moral principles began with religions, not atheism, and are still the main bulwarks of it. You can always slit your wrists over it, I guess, since it ain't going to change history to snivel about it now, it's far too late. Sweden and Denmark are both cultures heavily influenced by Christianity for a long time now, ingrained in their social and legal structures, whatever their recent beliefs are.
Click to expand...

Moral principles begin with religion because before the emergence of science, religion was all we had. There was no atheism on a large scale prior to even the 1900's. And yes, you're a troll.
 
akrunner88 said:
Moral principles begin with religion because before the emergence of science, religion was all we had. There was no atheism on a large scale prior to even the 1900's. And yes, you're a troll.
Click to expand...

Science doesn't have any morality, troll. It can be used by any sociopath for whatever mayhem and damage some crazy can inflict.
 
akrunner88 said:
Science can be used to derive morality.
Click to expand...

No, it can't; even the very premise of scientific methodology and empiricism is derived form sociological premises.

Also, your religious beliefs are stupid.
Click to expand...

Yes, that really means a lot coming from a butt hurt troll.
 
CriticalThought said:
I do. I feel if you do not want to be proselytized to or pressured to participate in prayers or services then you should be free from it. You should not be compelled to look at religious imagery and your children should not be approached on topics of spirituality or faith without your consent. I believe the government and its officials should serve the public without invoking matters of faith, and those incapable of those duties should resign.

Does anyone disagree?
Click to expand...
You are free from it. Don't participate nobody can compel you to do so.

Nobody is compelled to view religious material.

And your children aren't approached on topics if faith without your consent. You consent to letting your child experience the world. You can keep them in the house.

The world shouldn't have to change to your idiosyncrasies. If you can't tolerate things it's your problem.

As for government, I agree.
 
akrunner88 said:
Moral principles begin with religion because before the emergence of science, religion was all we had. There was no atheism on a large scale prior to even the 1900's. .
Click to expand...

Religions are but failed sciences. That was all we had when we were ignorant desert tribesmen baffled by the setting sun. Thankfully we've advanced since then, else we wouldn't be communicating through the marvels of modern science.

Religion had very little to do with the development of our modern idea of morality. That's a product of secularism, won in hard fought battles with superstitious ideas and it's not over yet.
 
All I want is freedom from religion in public life. I just feel more comfortable having modern society directed my 21's century ideas rather than 1'st century ideas. Or "God forbid" 7'th century ideas.
 
grip said:
Can science account for the first cause?
Click to expand...

Can you demonstrate that the first cause actually exists, and is not psuedo intellectual fluff and nonsense?
 
RAMOSS said:
Can you demonstrate that the first cause actually exists, and is not psuedo intellectual fluff and nonsense?
Click to expand...

Yes, it has something to do with the ability to say, "I Am."
 
grip said:
Yes, it has something to do with the ability to say, "I Am."
Click to expand...

Well, let's see you provide actual evidence, and not use religious dogma, or metaphysical nonsense.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
So you protect the right to let ISIS parents raise their kids to become suicide bombers?
Click to expand...

Straw man noted.

Should parents in America have the liberty to raise their children in the church if they so desire? Yes, or no.
 
countryboy said:
Straw man noted.

Should parents in America have the liberty to raise their children in the church if they so desire? Yes, or no.
Click to expand...

Yes, if that church doesnt teach kids to kill Americans or try to take over the US. My point is that our freedoms and liberties are limited to our ability to kill, rape maim, insurrection etc. generally taking away the rights of fellow Americans. It is everyones right to talk about such things but is another to do those things and actually plan on doing those things.

How do you feel about what is being taught in private schools? Should private schools be stopped from teaching kids to be terrorists?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Yes, if that church doesnt teach kids to kill Americans or try to take over the US. My point is that our freedoms and liberties are limited to our ability to kill, rape maim, insurrection etc. generally taking away the rights of fellow Americans. It is everyones right to talk about such things but is another to do those things and actually plan on doing those things.

How do you feel about what is being taught in private schools? Should private schools be stopped from teaching kids to be terrorists?
Click to expand...

How do private schools teach kids to be terrorists?
 
akrunner88 said:
How do private schools teach kids to be terrorists?
Click to expand...

:shock: Um generally they dont. I asked if one did, should we intervene or let the parents decide?

The concept of intervening falls under rule of law theory. If the activities by one group will cause another to lose their liberties and freedoms, the government/law enforcement needs to intervene in accordance with law. Racial segregation of public places is a good example of when the government needs to intervene in Americans lives.

Generally speaking of course parents have the right to raise their in any fashion they want. Of course all laws apply to to parents as they do to any American. And crimes against children will be punished under law. Children have rights and no one (not even their parents) can take those rights away.

I hope that explains what I meant better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom