(April 11, 2013 at 1:30 am)MysticKnight Wrote: I'm against it because it promotes dishonesty and hypocrisy. If you truly believe in a revelation, you should act upon it individually and as a society.

People do act upon it individually, and that's hardly going to change. I don't really know what you mean by acting upon revelation as a society, though; societies are made up of people, and in case you haven't noticed, there's tons of religious beliefs, all different, all equal. The majority doesn't get to dictate to the minority, that's kind of the point.

Quote: Also if people look towards religious leaders for guidance (church) and want God's guidance, why should that be separated from the political atmosphere?

Fine, that's what you want? Then no more tax exemptions, no more special treatment for religious institutions, no more excuses when a religious figure commits a crime, and you have to prove your god actually exists before you can use him as reasoning when it comes to passing laws, because last I checked, politicians can't use imaginary reasoning in their work. If they invoked any other unproved magical entity for that, you'd rightly conclude they were either insane or being disingenuous, why should gods get a free pass?

You get your religious institutions to agree to all of that and actually follow through, then they'll have a real place at political functions. You want your churches involved with your laws? Then they actually have to be subject to those laws, not holding themselves above them.

Quote:If people want religion out of politics, in my opinion, they should disbelieve in the religion, rather than promote dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Way to poison the well with your skewed language, there. Also, what recourse do I have, as a nonbeliever, if you guys do end up passing laws based on the will of a god I don't believe in? That's sort of the point: your unverifiable beliefs can't be enforced upon everyone, including those who believe otherwise. If I started a religion and gained enough political traction to pass laws that infringed on your beliefs, you'd be fucking furious.

Quote:As for us minority non-religious, we have to convince society to leave religion, rather, than have them act in a dishonest and hypocritical way with their beliefs.

And if we never do? I'd say that possibility is huge, if we allow the religious to pass laws now, while they're in power. We already know the dishonest lengths that religious institutions will go to to indoctrinate children and poison the school system with their beliefs, are we really just meant to appeal to their better nature after giving them all the power and removing the one restraint they had from silencing opposing views to begin with?

Churches don't have a better nature, that's the problem. They can and will censor dissent the moment they have the power to do so.

(April 11, 2013 at 1:25 am)justin Wrote: http://youtu.be/y364C42sg0Y

Example 1.
I`m "aganit" being posioned by religion.

Wow! And this man is a leader!

I gotta go throw up....

I'm completely against it because religion makes no bones about allowing the opinion of the many to trample over the rights of the few.

(April 11, 2013 at 6:23 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: I'm completely against it because religion makes no bones about allowing the opinion of the many to trample over the rights of the few.

Just to be clear, you are against the separation of church and state even though it prevents a great injustice?

I Have said it before, if atheism is a religion, then I want tax exemption!

No matter who you are or what you believe, you should embrace the separation of church and state:

Atheists- For obvious reasons

Theists- regardless of your religious preference, the separation of church and state is a protection for you, which you should make every effort to safeguard. Here are the top two reasons:

1. Whether your religion is prevalent in your area of the world or not, it may not always be. Do you really want the religious views of others forced upon you or your children?

2. Even if your religion is prevalent, you may not agree with key interpretations of the hierarchy. As such, you could be subject to laws and standards that you do not agree with. Laws that could have a potentially fatal impact on your life. As an example, it was the practice of the Church, between the 15th and 18th century, to hunt down and execute "witches". It is estimated that around 40,000 executions were carried out. Many of these executions were the result of simple misunderstandings or false accusation.

(April 11, 2013 at 6:36 am)smax Wrote:

(April 11, 2013 at 6:23 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: I'm completely against it because religion makes no bones about allowing the opinion of the many to trample over the rights of the few.

Just to be clear, you are against the separation of church and state even though it prevents a great injustice?

Apologies - that's what I get for responding before coffee.

I am vehemently for the separation of Church and State, and very much against its combination.

Edit: apparently I still hadn't had enough coffee because I was repeating words. Fucking hell I can't type today.

For the separation. Why should any religion be treated as fucking special?

Esquilax, as much as I may hate living in a society where religion would rule, for example, Islam or Christianity, I don't think the minority has the right to force people to be hypocritical and dishonest with their beliefs. I think Muslims should implement Shariah law for example. This is because they are told they are infact unjust if they don't. This is because they are told explicitly to do it. To say they believe in Islam and ignore what revelation teaches, is teaching them to be dishonest and hypocrites. I rather tackle the root of the evil, then cover it up, with a dress. That's just me.

I want the church to end and state to continue, they can hardly do this unless separated.