Civil & Religious Liberty?

wolfsbane

Should Christianity be banned? That is, should it be legally prohibited from teaching any of its doctrines?

For example, that it is immoral to worship other gods; not to worship God; for unmarried people to have sex; to practice homosexuality.

Or any other Christian doctrine you can think of.

Should the principle involved in your decision apply to all other religions/ideologies?

For example, that it is immoral to practise capitalism/socialism/nazism; to deny the existence of God; to say Muhammad is a false prophet, etc.

Zombrex

Yes, yes it should

Fanny, close this forum!

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, yes it should

Fanny, close this forum!

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, yes it should

Fanny, close this forum!

Yes sir! Shall I fetch the papers for you too?

AtomicHorror

So long as it's not immune to the same criticism, or even ridicule, as any other religion, philosophy, political position or scientific assertion then there's no reason to ban it.

Don't get me wrong, I want Christianity to be relegated to the position of an extinct religion in the same vein as Greek polytheism, but if history has taught us anything it is that banning religions has a very poor success rate. And it sure didn't hurt Christianity in its first few centuries!

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

Should Christianity be banned?

Not at all, christianity is just a belief and people have an inalienable right to hold whatever belief they like, regardless of how true or false it is.

That said, it would be interesting to see a debate open up about whether or not legal protection for the inviolability of kids' bodies should be extended to kids' minds. In certain instances, there's an arguable case to be made.

It'd also be fun to debate about how society should deal with organizations that stop (or try to stop) their members from freely joining other organizations, ie, how to deal with exclucivist outfits that, intentionally or otherwise, encourage the unpleasant human proclivity for ingroup and outgroup division.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I want Christianity to be relegated to the position of an extinct religion in the same vein as Greek polytheism

It's interesting to wonder what people in the distant future will make of it all. I suppose they'll look back upon christianity, islam and so on much as we look back upon ancient Greek and Roman polytheistic beliefs and wonder if people really did believe it?

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

It's interesting to wonder what people in the distant future will make of it all. I suppose they'll look back upon christianity, islam and so on much as we look back upon ancient Greek and Roman polytheistic beliefs and wonder if people really did believe it?

Didn't you hear, robin, God is back.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

It's interesting to wonder what people in the distant future will make of it all. I suppose they'll look back upon christianity, islam and so on much as we look back upon ancient Greek and Roman polytheistic beliefs and wonder if people really did believe it?

LOL. Yourself and godoesntexist have a great knack of thinking that your opinion is obvious truth. Things like, 'when I accepted reality' (His quote not yours) and your quote above. Very entertaining.

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote: »

Should Christianity be banned? That is, should it be legally prohibited from teaching any of its doctrines?

For example, that it is immoral to worship other gods; not to worship God; for unmarried people to have sex; to practice homosexuality.

Certainly not. Alot of time the issue arises in how professing Christians interact with others. E.G. The Phelps are quite correct about homosexuality being sinful. They are in line with Christian doctrine. However, how they express that view etc is what the issue is.

Should the principle involved in your decision apply to all other religions/ideologies?

I think so. I have no issue with for example, with a Muslim who thinks that I'm going to hell etc. However, i have a huge issue with any extreme sect deciding to kill the infidels.

We live in a diverse world, with many diverse ideologies. We need to respect that fact. I think thats the Christian thing to do anyway.

Mickeroo

robindch wrote: »

It's interesting to wonder what people in the distant future will make of it all. I suppose they'll look back upon christianity, islam and so on much as we look back upon ancient Greek and Roman polytheistic beliefs and wonder if people really did believe it?

Like Star Trek?? Always struck me that the human race in star trek is what we should aspire to be. They only seem to start fighting when they bump into dogmatic alien races

I dont think it should be banned though.

Nodin

wolfsbane wrote: »

Should Christianity be banned? That is, should it be legally prohibited from teaching any of its doctrines?

No, as its them today, someone else tommorrow.

ScumLord

Even if people did abandon religion I think the Jesus storey would survive, even if you take him as an ordinary man and drop all the son of God millarcky it's still a fairly inspiring storey of one mans peaceful struggle against religious corruption, mob mentality and oppressive regimes.

Manach

Mickeroo wrote: »

Like Star Trek?? Always struck me that the human race in star trek is what we should aspire to be. They only seem to start fighting when they bump into dogmatic alien races

I dont think it should be banned though.

and you'd prefer the anemic Star Trek (think Enterprise) to BSG (Lords of Kobol)- tsk.

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Didn't you hear, robin, God is back.

Back from where?

Fanny Cradock

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Back from where?

Haven't read the book myself, but I assume God is back from the banishment He apparently experienced during and after the Enlightenment.

philologos

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I want Christianity to be relegated to the position of an extinct religion in the same vein as Greek polytheism, but if history has taught us anything it is that banning religions has a very poor success rate. And it sure didn't hurt Christianity in its first few centuries!

Why though? This seems to be a relatively hostile reaction to it, considering Christianity has had an overwhelmingly positive role in the world?

pts

Jakkass wrote: »

Why though? This seems to be a relatively hostile reaction to it, considering Christianity has had an overwhelmingly positive role in the world?

I think the bolded part is where you will find a lot of dissagreement.

Seaneh

Jakkass wrote: »

Why though? This seems to be a relatively hostile reaction to it, considering Christianity has had an overwhelmingly positive role in the world?

You've just started the "Religion has killed/oppressed/perscueted millions over 2 melleniums" debate, you know that, don't you?

philologos

Seaneh wrote: »

You've just started the "Religion has killed/oppressed/perscueted millions over 2 melleniums" debate, you know that, don't you?

Yes, yes I do know that, I also know that it is a load of nonsense for atheists to raise this considering the horrors of the last century, so let them bring it up

AtomicHorror

Jakkass wrote: »

Why though? This seems to be a relatively hostile reaction to it, considering Christianity has had an overwhelmingly positive role in the world?

Not really interested in having that discussion in this thread. Not what the thread is about. You did this on the "do religion and science conflict" thread as well- trying to start a debate about some specifics (abortion and stem cells) when the topic was whether the conflict existed and what it's nature was.

In this case if I say "yes- ban it because x y z" you can shoot me down. But I'm not saying that. I'm saying no, but clarifying that I'd still prefer it if religion were not around. A fairly obvious position for an atheist to hold.

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Haven't read the book myself, but I assume God is back from the banishment He apparently experienced during and after the Enlightenment.

I thought He just went off to Africa. He sure doesn't seem to be coming back here.

Fanny Cradock

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I thought He just went off to Africa. He sure doesn't seem to be coming back here.

Just wait!

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I assume God is back from the banishment He apparently experienced during and after the Enlightenment.

Belief in Western Europe is at its lowest historical ebb and shows little sign of reviving. And while religious belief might be increasing in certain parts of the world, god himself remains as grandly invisible now as he ever has.

JimiTime wrote: »

LOL. Yourself and godoesntexist have a great knack of thinking that your opinion is obvious truth. Things like, 'when I accepted reality' (His quote not yours) and your quote above. Very entertaining.

Almost every religion that humanity has ever dreamt up has disappeared, and the few that have survived have done so because of the continual adaptions they've been able to make to render themselves credible to each new generation of holders.

Much as you might find the idea entertaining, it's quite presumptuous to assume that your own specific religious beliefs aren't going to go the way of all others.

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Just wait!

You better be right. I'm thirsty and this Evian isn't going to turn itself into wine.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Belief in Western Europe is at its lowest historical ebb and shows little sign of reviving. And while religious belief might be increasing in certain parts of the world, god himself remains as grandly invisible now as he ever has.

Well, I would say in the majority of the world, not simply certain parts. Either way it doesn't say anything about his existence.

Fanny Cradock

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You better be right. I'm thirsty and this Evian isn't going to turn itself into wine.

Even in these recessionary times the Lord and Aldi have made it so you need never to run out of wine.

wolfsbane

Nodin said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Should Christianity be banned? That is, should it be legally prohibited from teaching any of its doctrines?
No, as its them today, someone else tommorrow.

That is indeed a strong point in favour of tolerating ideas we don't agree with.

But are there any ideas/doctrines one should outlaw? Not the practice, just the idea - for example, the ban on holocaust denial in Germany & Austria. If a religion or ideology taught that, should they be prosecuted/banned?

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Much as you might find the idea entertaining, it's quite presumptuous to assume that your own specific religious beliefs aren't going to go the way of all others.

Once again you let presumption rule. Could you quote the part where I said my beliefs would not go the way of others? I think you'll find that it was not me that was making such sweeping statements.

Mickeroo

I'd like to think this is the incarnation of Jesus people will worship in 2000 years time

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Should Christianity be banned?
Not at all, christianity is just a belief and people have an inalienable right to hold whatever belief they like, regardless of how true or false it is.

Glad to hear it.

That said, it would be interesting to see a debate open up about whether or not legal protection for the inviolability of kids' bodies should be extended to kids' minds. In certain instances, there's an arguable case to be made.

Yes, it is a difficult issue. Just where should society draw the line on what parents can teach their kids? Our democracy has accepted all sorts of religious and ideologies as being acceptable - but what if they taught kids it is good to have sex with adult leaders? Remember, I'm not speaking about practice, just teaching.

Then we move into the non-hypothetical zone: is it right to teach kids that adult sex outside marriage is OK/Not OK? Or that homosexuality is OK/Not OK?

But maybe we should leave the kid issue to another thread. The general question will be enough for us to solve at the moment - should anyone be banned from saying any of those practices are OK/Not OK?

It'd also be fun to debate about how society should deal with organizations that stop (or try to stop) their members from freely joining other organizations, ie, how to deal with exclucivist outfits that, intentionally or otherwise, encourage the unpleasant human proclivity for ingroup and outgroup division.

Not sure what you are thinking of. Surely any voluntary group should be allowed to impose its own standards? If I don't like them, I don't have to join.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicHorror
I want Christianity to be relegated to the position of an extinct religion in the same vein as Greek polytheism

The best one can offer at the moment is a relocation to North Korea, but even there...:D

It's interesting to wonder what people in the distant future will make of it all. I suppose they'll look back upon christianity, islam and so on much as we look back upon ancient Greek and Roman polytheistic beliefs and wonder if people really did believe it?

They will look back from heaven's vantage-point and marvel at how God worked it all out for His glory and the Church's salvation. How all the suffering, chastisement, labour, contention for the faith brought the Church to final victory with Christ at their head:
Romans 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written:


“ For Your sake we are killed all day long;
We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.”

37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Even in these recessionary times the Lord and Aldi have made it so you need never to run out of wine.

It's a miracle!

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Nodin said:

That is indeed a strong point in favour of tolerating ideas we don't agree with.

But are there any ideas/doctrines one should outlaw? Not the practice, just the idea - for example, the ban on holocaust denial in Germany & Austria. If a religion or ideology taught that, should they be prosecuted/banned?

It's a tough one- as some ideas are genuinely repugnant and even dangerous. But even if we could argue that some element of Christianity were as immediately unpleasant and threatening as holocaust denial, and I think that would be a hard case to make, I genuinely think the best way to kill bad ideas is to firstly try to remove the factors which cause people to set aside reason and then just try your damndest to be more honest and convincing than the other guy.

When we're talking about ideas that are based on subjective knowledge and which have a strong emotional basis, it seems to me that banning is likely to do more harm than good. I've also always disagreed with the ban on holocaust denialism and nazi imagery in Germany for many reasons. Part of that being that it implies to the world that fascism might take hold of the hearts and mind of the German people at any moment and must be suppressed. I think it would take a convergence of many very unlikely circumstances for that to be a genuine risk.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Once again you let presumption rule. Could you quote the part where I said my beliefs would not go the way of others? I think you'll find that it was not me that was making such sweeping statements.

Honestly, Jimi, either I'll die of old age, or you'll die of a heart attack before you get the point of anything I write!

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Honestly, Jimi, either I'll die of old age, or you'll die of a heart attack before you get the point of anything I write!

You may be right, I do 'think' I get your point, but I find that there are many times on these forums where people think they've got points when they certainly haven't.
So is there a quote which backs up your assertion that 'I' was being presumptuous? I thought the only point I made, was how certain you were in your opinion?
Your presumption is that the God is as non existant as Zeus etc, and based on this, folk will look back on him the same way as Zeus etc. YHWH has been worshipped from pretty much the start of written history. While other gods have come and gone, he still remains. Of course, being an atheist, you must analyse why this is. So you are happy with an explaination such as 'its because its adapted and changed' etc. You don't 'know' that to be the case, but it matches your world view, so you 'accept' it as the case. Then speak with such certainty that its only a matter of time.

So thats what I saw in your point.

JimiTime

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I've also always disagreed with the ban on holocaust denialism and nazi imagery in Germany for many reasons. Part of that being that it implies to the world that fascism might take hold of the hearts and mind of the German people at any moment and must be suppressed. I think it would take a convergence of many very unlikely circumstances for that to be a genuine risk.

have to agree here. Its not something I've really meditated on though, so I don't know if I've missed something. The whole 'holocaust denial is a crime' though doesn't sit well with me. It may be offensive and bogus, but criminal? Don't like it myself.

Dades

Now would be a great time to ban religion.

With the drop in land prices there's great savings to be had in setting up death-camps and gulags.

We need more trains, though.

pts

Dades wrote: »

We need more trains, though.

How about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q44IDYpEeso

AtomicHorror

Dades wrote: »

Now would be a great time to ban religion.

With the drop in land prices there's great savings to be had in setting up death-camps and gulags.

We need more trains, though.

I agree! Down with dogma! Hooray for the unquestionable will of Comrade Dades!

AtomicHorror

JimiTime wrote: »

have to agree here. Its not something I've really meditated on though, so I don't know if I've missed something. The whole 'holocaust denial is a crime' though doesn't sit well with me. It may be offensive and bogus, but criminal? Don't like it myself.

I think what bothers me about it is the implication that people could turn into fascists spontaneously if you don't keep a close eye on them. Mind you, Dades seems to have taken a turn there and now he's infected me so maybe they're on to something.

espinolman

wolfsbane wrote: »

Should Christianity be banned? That is, should it be legally prohibited from teaching any of its doctrines?

For example, that it is immoral to worship other gods; not to worship God; for unmarried people to have sex; to practice homosexuality.

Or any other Christian doctrine you can think of.

Should the principle involved in your decision apply to all other religions/ideologies?

For example, that it is immoral to practise capitalism/socialism/nazism; to deny the existence of God; to say Muhammad is a false prophet, etc.

Definitely not , you have to look at the civilising influence of the teachings of Christianity , i think the wisdom of christianity could prevent the west from sinking into a barbarism .

Nodin

wolfsbane wrote: »

Nodin said:

That is indeed a strong point in favour of tolerating ideas we don't agree with.

But are there any ideas/doctrines one should outlaw? Not the practice, just the idea - for example, the ban on holocaust denial in Germany & Austria. If a religion or ideology taught that, should they be prosecuted/banned?

Disgusting as it is, no. Apart from the idea that one ban leads to another, it gives these things a certain cache they don't deserve.

For instance, in Germany or on some German websites one will often see certain items featuring pictures or engravings of Hitler with the eyes blanked out. Hitler was a little Austrian human who did terrible things and in later life suffered greatly from flatulence. He does not have the power to start the Fourth reich with a glare beyond the grave. Yet, the implication is created....

On the religon front - Scientology - strikes me as a money making scam. Yet I'd rather it was in the open and held to ridicule than made some hidden cult.

Nodin

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It's a miracle!

Even more so, when we remember the low quality of the God of the 80's recession, St Bernard.

espinolman

Nodin wrote: »

On the religon front - Scientology - strikes me as a money making scam. Yet I'd rather it was in the open and held to ridicule than made some hidden cult.

I think people should not be handed the secrets of the universe and life on a plate and if it was up to me Scientology would cost much more than it currently does , Scientology is the best thing there has ever been and it should not be handed out to irresponsible people , definitely not .

postcynical

robindch wrote: »

Belief in Western Europe is at its lowest historical ebb and shows little sign of reviving.

Even if factual, such "arguments" of strength by numbers can be twisted to assert that theism is true because a majority of the world's population is theist; then Christianity is true because it is the largest religion and then that Catholicism is true because it's the largest branch of Christianity. I don't think many believers are too concerned that they might be the last generation of believers.

And while religious belief might be increasing in certain parts of the world, god himself remains as grandly invisible now as he ever has.

...your god maybe:pac:

wolfsbane

espinolman wrote: »

Definitely not , you have to look at the civilising influence of the teachings of Christianity , i think the wisdom of christianity could prevent the west from sinking into a barbarism .

Yes, the teachings of the New Testament certainly have a civilising influence even on many not actually believers. But it must be acknowleged that perversions of that teaching by even true believers have led to actions barbarous as any heathen got up to.

To me, that is the danger every religion/ideology poses to society - the sinful nature of man tends to want to impose it on everyone else. Even secularism has this tendency - to ban all religious expression that does not conform to its view of religion - ie, that all religion is just human imagination at work. So those who take their religion seriously and teach it as truth are treated as disturbers of the peace. For example:

http://barthsnotes.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/evangelists-threatened-with-arrest-in-birmingham/

Seaneh

espinolman wrote: »

I think people should not be handed the secrets of the universe and life on a plate and if it was up to me Scientology would cost much more than it currently does , Scientology is the best thing there has ever been and it should not be handed out to irresponsible people , definitely not .

first of all, Scientology is not a religion it is an unlicenced form of psycho-therapy.

Second of all, why doesn't the "church" (money making mechinism) of Scientology allow members to give their children vital medical treatments?

Jet Travolta is just one child who has died because his parents refused to acknowledge that autsim requires medication (or infact exists!).


Interesting stuff!

espinolman

Seaneh wrote: »

first of all, Scientology is not a religion it is an unlicenced form of psycho-therapy.

That is like sayiing you need a licence to talk to people , because there is no psycho-therapy in scientology , basically what scientology is about , in my experience , is unlearning the lies you have learned over the last half an eternity , now how could you get a licence for that , i don't think you could , unless you could prove man is an immortal spiritual being , oh but that is a belief because you would need eternity to prove it , you see you would have to live forever to prove this .

Seaneh wrote: »

Second of all, why doesn't the "church" (money making mechinism) of Scientology allow members to give their children vital medical treatments?

Do you have any evidence to back up what you have stated ?

achtungbarry

espinolman wrote: »

scientology in my experience , is unlearning the lies you have learned over the last half an eternity

So the truth is that the evil Xenu, dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" , brought billions of his people to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs and all this happened about 75 million years ago ?

Mickeroo

achtungbarry wrote: »

So the truth is that the evil Xenu, dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" , brought billions of his people to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs and all this happened about 75 million years ago ?

Their souls remained though, and are still inside us, they're responsible for all our negative feelings and flaws, the only way to get rid of them is to audit yourself.

achtungbarry

Mickeroo wrote: »

Their souls remained though, and are still inside us, they're responsible for all our negative feelings and flaws, the only way to get rid of them is to audit yourself.

My goodness, that sounds just as mad as all that heaven, hell, everlasting life, people coming back from the dead, giant boats, pillars of salt stuff !

zing zong

while i do not agree with christianity at all, or any other religion, i dont think it should be banned

but religion should be restricted

for example, it shouldnt be imposed on children, baptism (or eqivalent) should be a choice made as an adult only

it should not be tought in our schools, and it should be looked on in the same way ancient greek/roman/egyptian etc religions are discussed in schools, and not thought as fact

religion is also a personal choice and should be kept as such, they should have zero state backing when as a group, get more rights than any other group.