Well, this will be my second post, so if you are ever thinking, 'wtf is he talking about', I suppose you could look at my intro and it might...help.

Simply put I have alot of problems with religion, as I would hope many here do. So, here is one:

I think churches should be banned as they exist today.

Do you think that churches should be allowed to exist? Should they be eradicated, or should they be allowed to stand?

Oh, and why

1. Whether or not churches should exist is irrelevant. They serve no useful social purpose but as long as they are organized and operate according to the laws of the land they should be permitted.

2. They should be taxed on their property and income like any other business...which is what they are.

They should be allowed to exist because I don't think my lack of belief of God means I can try to stifle and eradicate the beliefs and practices of people who do.

I think Churches should not get tax exempt status. I also think churches need to be held accountable for any bad behavior. *cough* Pedophilia *cough* But banned? No. That's an extreme measure and goes against my first and foremost belief in freedom of religion, which involves the right to believe or not believe as you wish, with the obvious exception of being allowed to permit acts that harm other people, and churches do not do that.

(July 1, 2010 at 10:27 am)Minimalist Wrote: 1. Whether or not churches should exist is irrelevant. They serve no useful social purpose but as long as they are organized and operate according to the laws of the land they should be permitted.

2. They should be taxed on their property and income like any other business...which is what they are.

Thank you for your reply.

1. So laws should never be changed? I don't understand why their existence is irrelevent, please explain. I feel like their existence plays such a large part in wordly affairs and my daily life.

2. Agreed, if they are allowed to exist.

---

(July 1, 2010 at 10:29 am)Eilonnwy Wrote: They should be allowed to exist because I don't think my lack of belief of God means I can try to stifle and eradicate the beliefs and practices of people who do.

I think Churches should not get tax exempt status. I also think churches need to be held accountable for any bad behavior. *cough* Pedophilia *cough* But banned? No. That's an extreme measure and goes against my first and foremost belief in freedom of religion, which involves the right to believe or not believe as you wish, with the obvious exception of being allowed to permit acts that harm other people, and churches do not do that.

Thank you for your reply.

I understand your feeling that it is not your place to tell others what to do. But, you say that they should be taxed, they should be held accountable. Isn't this telling them what to do?

I think that freedom of religion is a dangerous idea. I think that freedom from religion is much more appetizing. History has shown that if we give religion the freedom to exist in any from, it ultimately entails them commiting 'acts that harm other people'.

I believe in the right to own property, and the right to do whatever you like in that property as long as it isn't against the law. So no, I don't think churches should be banned anymore than mosques should be banned, or what people read, or what people wear, etc.

Besides, if you banned churches "as they exist today" all you'd have is churches springing up in new places, with new themes, new ideas, etc. If enough people want something, they will work hard to make sure they get it. Since churches still exist, it is clear that people still want them (or else they would have been torn down eons ago).

All you are doing is putting your own personal feelings above that of society; something that rarely leads to anything good.

The constitution assures freedom of religion. There is zero chance of amending it in the next five lifetimes.

You'll have to deal with it.

(July 1, 2010 at 10:47 am)Tiberius Wrote: I believe in the right to own property, and the right to do whatever you like in that property as long as it isn't against the law. So no, I don't think churches should be banned anymore than mosques should be banned, or what people read, or what people wear, etc.

Besides, if you banned churches "as they exist today" all you'd have is churches springing up in new places, with new themes, new ideas, etc. If enough people want something, they will work hard to make sure they get it. Since churches still exist, it is clear that people still want them (or else they would have been torn down eons ago).

All you are doing is putting your own personal feelings above that of society; something that rarely leads to anything good.

I would ask the same question to you as the previous responder. Are laws not to be changed?

As for your second comment, if they were banned I don't see how they would spring up in the same form. And since it is clear some people still want them, is that a reason to say that they should exist?

I understand that my question may seem extreme and hateful, but all new ideas seem radical at first. Please refrain from belitting my question by attacking me personally. Maybe you should ask me why I feel the way I do before assuming my motive is selfish.

---

(July 1, 2010 at 11:02 am)Minimalist Wrote: The constitution assures freedom of religion. There is zero chance of amending it in the next five lifetimes.

You'll have to deal with it.

I'm glad that you think that we will last that long in our current state, but we can't be sure.

I'll only have to deal with it if a)I decide to abide by the constitution, and b)I decide to remain in America for the rest of my life.

What about my question on irrelevency?

Banning churches would be banning an integral part of many people's religion, you would be stripping them of an extremely important part of their life if they had no church.

Personal liberty is something we should uphold, them worshipping how they want (as long as it doesn't cause harm), in this case in a church, is an example of that.

So no, I don't believe churches should be banned.

Quote:So no, I don't believe churches should be banned.

I do think that, if most theists did not have their heads planted firmly up their asses, churches would wither away.

However, I don't expect people to get that much smarter in the next 5 lifetimes, either.

(July 1, 2010 at 11:03 am)Furiidomu Wrote: I would ask the same question to you as the previous responder. Are laws not to be changed?

Yes, when a large majority wants them to be. Good luck with all that.

(July 1, 2010 at 11:03 am)Furiidomu Wrote: I'm glad that you think that we will last that long in our current state, but we can't be sure.

Every single generation in the entire existence of the USA has said the same thing.

(July 1, 2010 at 11:03 am)Furiidomu Wrote: I'll only have to deal with it if a)I decide to abide by the constitution, and b)I decide to remain in America for the rest of my life.

You not abiding by the Constitution has nothing to do with with churches being allowed in the US.

(July 1, 2010 at 10:35 am)Furiidomu Wrote: I think that freedom from religion is much more appetizing.

I think Stalin & Pol Pot would agree with you.

(July 1, 2010 at 10:35 am)Furiidomu Wrote: History has shown that if we give religion the freedom to exist in any from, it ultimately entails them commiting 'acts that harm other people'.

Taoists, Shintoists, Wiccans, Buddhists & Jedi disagree.

You are coming off as very, very egocentric.

---