If you could make religion illegal

[paulpablo]

Right, but now..go find me a "just secularist" group that gets up to dirt that we have some problem shooting at.  I'll wait, but I won't hold my breath.

You think so, Paul?  Do you think that we have a problem shooting at governments (secular or otherwise), who get up to dirt, commonly known as waging wars?

If we tried shooting at government organizations we would have problems, yes I do think that.

Although ignored that point before because with the conversation being about comparable violent religious/secular groups, whether or not "we" have a problem shooting at them doesn't mean anything.
Whoever "we" is supposed to describe, or why whoever it is meant to describe would be shooting at these groups.

[The Grand Nudger]

You think so, Paul?  Do you think that we have a problem shooting at governments (secular or otherwise), who get up to dirt, commonly known as waging wars?

If we tried shooting at government organizations we would have problems, yes I do think that.

LOL...wtf?

Although ignored that point before because with the conversation being about comparable violent religious/secular groups, whether or not "we" have a problem shooting at them doesn't mean anything.
Whoever "we" is supposed to describe, or why whoever it is meant to describe would be shooting at these groups.

When I say to you, that we allow organized religions some leeway in what we deem acceptable compared to non religious organizations, is there anything about that comment that you need me to clarify, or that you take issue with?  

That, for example..if there were some foreign government responsible for institutional rape of american children..we just might take more severe action than we took in the case of the RCC, for example?  Or that we will not accept a child dying in the custody of the state due to the state refusing them lifesaving medical care...though we may allow a parent to opt out of that very same care on religious grounds, resulting in the death of the child.  

Thoughts?  Questions?

[paulpablo]

If we tried shooting at government organizations we would have problems, yes I do think that.

LOL...wtf?

Although ignored that point before because with the conversation being about comparable violent religious/secular groups, whether or not "we" have a problem shooting at them doesn't mean anything.
Whoever "we" is supposed to describe, or why whoever it is meant to describe would be shooting at these groups.

When I say to you, that we allow organized religions some leeway in what we deem acceptable compared to non religious organizations, is there anything about that comment that you need me to clarify, or that you take issue with?  

That, for example..if there were some foreign government responsible for institutional rape of american children..we just might take more severe action than we took in the case of the RCC, for example?  Or that we will not accept a child dying in the custody of the state due to the state refusing them lifesaving medical care...though we may allow a parent to opt out of that very same care on religious grounds, resulting in the death of the child.  

Thoughts?  Questions?

I probably won't read that to be honest with you. You asked for a secular organization comparable to a religious organization in terms of shittinees, violence whatever.

I asked what specifications you wanted, what they have to have done or their size and you didn't specify

[The Grand Nudger]

I probably won't read that to be honest with you. You asked for a secular organization comparable to a religious organization in terms of shittinees, violence whatever.

Now I get the disconnect.  No, that's not what I asked for.  I asked for an example of some group or system of organized secularism that did some shitty thing that we just shrugged at, or made allowances for.  I asked..because we -do- shrug and make such allowances for organized religions when they do shitty things.  

This is why the mafia was not a good example, nor the american govrnment.  Because we gutted the mafia, and ofc we (ostensibly) hold our government and other governments accountable for their actions.  Claiming a strongly held religious belief is one of the things that..in america, can confer leeway which other organised this or that's do not have.  From taxes, to the death of a child.

However using crime (and organized crime) as an example. Why is it that a scam tithing church can prey on the geriatric for their incomes legally...but a small team of cons at a nursing home cannot? Strongly held religious beliefs.

[paulpablo]

I probably won't read that to be honest with you. You asked for a secular organization comparable to a religious organization in terms of shittinees, violence whatever.

Now I get the disconnect.  No, that's not what I asked for.  I asked for an example of some group or system of organized secularism that did some shitty thing that we just shrugged at, or made allowances for.  I asked..because we -do- shrug and make such allowances for organized religions when they do shitty things.  

This is why the mafia was not a good example, nor the american govrnment.  Because we gutted the mafia, and ofc we (ostensibly) hold our government and other governments accountable for their actions.  Claiming a strongly held religious belief is one of the things that..in america, can confer leeway which other organised this or that's do not have.  From taxes, to the death of a child.

However using crime (and organized crime) as an example. Why is it that a scam tithing church can prey on the geriatric for their incomes legally...but a small team of cons at a nursing home cannot? Strongly held religious beliefs.

The people/agents of the government of the United States aren't always successfully and fully held accountable for dangerous, violent actions.

So saying we hold the government accountable means nothing.

There's a million ways to prey on the geriatric people for money legally without religion.

Its just one tool of many.

[The Grand Nudger]

The people/agents of the government of the United States aren't always successfully and fully held accountable for dangerous, violent actions.

While that's absolutely true, this is a case of a failure of enforcement, whereas in the case of organized religions, it;s not that we try to enforce x and fail..we are giving them an exemption.    

So saying we hold the government accountable means nothing.

There's a million ways to prey on the geriatric people for money legally without religion.

However, the -same- scam run by two different people..one a prosperity preacher at a tithing church, and the other a common con is only illegal for the common con.  Not only is it legal for the prosperity preacher..-his- con is legally protected. This is what I'm commenting on.  Now, we let that one slide, but..like I've been enjoying in thread..somewhere between that and throwing virgins into volcanos there's a line.

Its just one tool of many.

Sure.

[paulpablo]

The people/agents of the government of the United States aren't always successfully and fully held accountable for dangerous, violent actions.

While that's absolutely true, this is a case of a failure of enforcement, whereas in the case of organized religions, it;s not that we try to enforce x and fail..we are giving them an exemption.    

So saying we hold the government accountable means nothing.

There's a million ways to prey on the geriatric people for money legally without religion.

However, the -same- scam run by two different people..one a prosperity preacher at a tithing church, and the other a common con is only illegal for the common con.  Not only is it legal for the prosperity preacher..-his- con is legally protected. This is what I'm commenting on.  Now, we let that one slide, but..like I've been enjoying in thread..somewhere between that and throwing virgins into volcanos there's a line.

Its just one tool of many.

Sure.

I know nothing of tax laws concerning religions.
I'm just talking about violent groups. Violent religious groups, for the most part and as far as I'm aware, will be held accountable for their actions. And in a lot of cases more so than government agents working for the government which you say is an example of a secular organization.

Also I would add that the government, the secular organization, isn't being taxed. It's the organization doing the taxing. Which again makes it comparable to a religious organization.

Whichever way you look at it I personally see secular organizations being comparable to religious ones in terms of organization, violence, danger and accountability. Depending on the circumstances.

[The Grand Nudger]

I know nothing of tax laws concerning religions. 
I'm just talking about violent groups. Violent religious groups, for the most part and as far as I'm aware, will be held accountable for their actions. And in a lot of cases more so than government agents working for the government which you say is an example of a secular organization.

Yeah, I touched on that a few pages back..certain in the knowledge that if any organized religious group starts believing in their own shit -too- much and goes mujahideen, they'll be met with mace and teargas or worse.  

Also I would add that the government, the secular organization, isn't being taxed. It's the organization doing the taxing. Which again makes it comparable to a religious organization.

That's a novel way to parse that, but okay.  

Whichever way you look at it I personally see secular organizations being comparable to religious ones in terms of organization, violence, danger and accountability. Depending on the circumstances.

It's the bit I italed that I've been commenting on.  Importantly, in the US, organised religion is -not- comparably accountable.  It's not an oversight or a failure, on our part...there are just some things we're willing to let them get away with..because organized religion.  That list is shrinking.  Notably and recently, there have been high profile cases where the state has intervened on behalf of minors who are being denied some medical treatment or procedure they require (jehovahs witnesses, christian scientists).  

I was mentioning that...despite our reaction to "banning religion" we do and have done so, we're more comfortable with it than people think.  It's just that we parse it in novel ways.  We say.."well, I'm not banning their religion just because I won"t let their child die of strep when their prayer regimen doesn't work. "  But, ofc, that;s exactly what we're doing from the point of view of the religious, because doing that and allowing that -is- what they believe in.  It is their strongly held religious belief.

[The Valkyrie]

No I wouldn't.

Making it illegal would drive it underground.

The way it currently is it's easier to identify the adherents for the inevitable extermination...

[The Industrial Atheist]

No, but I would like it if Atheism became as common or more common than Theism, here, like in much of Europe and Australia New Zealand.
You really can't control what people think or believe. You can scare them into saying the believe or don't believe what you do or don't want them to.

I believe in secular values, that doesn't mean forcing atheism onto anybody.