Login

Epimethean · October 16, 2011 at 9:48 am

Some evils are necessary. Religion isn't one of them, at least public religion.

**thesummerqueen** · (This post was last modified: October 16, 2011 at 9:51 am by thesummerqueen.)

I see no reason why a privately funded church where people pay to do their own little thing should be banned. Fucking tax the property like everyone else, but let them have their little hole.

Unlike the rest of us paying taxes for the fuckheads people currently complain eat off of our hard-earned cash.

So, here goes: alcohol isn't necessary either. In fact, it does a lot more harm than the supposed "good" (ie, health benefits) because of how people misuse it. So we have laws controlling how it gets used in public. No one's suggesting we ban booze again, are they? Or shut down bars as places of 'evil' where a harmful substance gets consumed that could be unleashed on the public? Something that makes you act stupid and impairs your judgement?

**The Grand Nudger** · (This post was last modified: October 16, 2011 at 9:54 am by The Grand Nudger.)

It's a pretty heavily controlled substance. Permits, provisions, age requirements, liscenses, etc. You can't sell alcohol to a child and claim that it is an article of faith, nor can you drive drunk and claim articles of faith, can you? Breweries aren't tax exempt..etc etc etc...

**thesummerqueen** · October 16, 2011 at 9:56 am

And we shouldn't allow faith in schools either. I never argued that. Keeping school completely secular seems to be doing a damn fine job of, if not making outright atheists, at least keeping the vast majority of those children from doing the activities you described.

**The Grand Nudger** · (This post was last modified: October 16, 2011 at 10:00 am by The Grand Nudger.)

So we shouldn't ban religion, just do everything in our power to make sure that secularism trumps everything. The measure of how benign a religious group is is exactly equivalent to how far from literally they are allowed to practice their faith? Sounds alot like banning religion without all the nasty connotations implied by overtly declaring that you've banned religion.

(the faithful already complain that we're "banning religion" for what little we do)

**thesummerqueen** · October 16, 2011 at 10:02 am

No, because I'm not saying they're not allowed to go think, believe and even practice a lot of what they do.

Take my wonderful heritage, Rhythm - most of those laws are ridiculous, but they don't harm other people. Am I going to say "Well, you can't kill people AND you can't follow kosher law because religion is bullshit"?

You can be as silly and harmful to yourself as you want in your own home. You can't do it to other people. Btw, you don't need religion to abuse children in the exact same horrible mental ways.

**The Grand Nudger** · (This post was last modified: October 16, 2011 at 10:08 am by The Grand Nudger.)

The example of abuse would be fine, except that you absolutely can defend yourself against those accusations in this country by claiming articles of faith. When it doesn't work it's news-worthy, and the faithful feel that this is somehow a miscarriage of justice. Summer, these people have checked themselves out of our social contract. Those that don't take their faith literally in every sense are the ones you seem to be defending. The more in line with our current notions of secularism they are the less worrisome they become? I agree completely. Which is exactly why I'd love to get rid of religion in the first place.

Epimethean · October 16, 2011 at 10:06 am

The operative term being "in your own home."

**thesummerqueen** · (This post was last modified: October 16, 2011 at 10:07 am by thesummerqueen.)

(October 16, 2011 at 10:04 am)Rhythm Wrote: The example of abuse would be fine, except that you absolutely can defend yourself against those accusations in this country by claiming articles of faith. When it doesn't work it's news-worthy, and the faithful feel that this is somehow a miscarriage of justice. Summer, these people have checked themselves out of our social contract.

The courts are no longer letting these fuckheads get away with it, which is exactly why it's making news.

(October 16, 2011 at 10:06 am)Epimethean Wrote: The operative term being "in your own home."

Private residence, privately paid for building. Don't care. Same deal.

Epimethean · October 16, 2011 at 10:09 am

Really? Can we build a privately owned terrorist training center and get away with it?

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Poll: Ban Religion - are you for or against it and why? This poll is closed.
I support it	19.05%	16	19.05%
I oppose it	80.95%	68	80.95%
Total		84 vote(s)	100%

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	1 dollar stands firmly against 1 hryvnia. Why?	Interaktive	6	652	June 23, 2021 at 5:00 am Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
	transgender military ban to go into effect	Fake Messiah	20	3408	January 25, 2019 at 12:28 am Last Post: The Grand Nudger
	Palestinian rock throwing, but isnt that against their religion?	Kimbi	1	659	September 4, 2018 at 1:52 pm Last Post: Minimalist
	Why oh why are people on the righ so against LGBT folk?	NuclearEnergy	10	2387	July 26, 2017 at 11:36 pm Last Post: Amarok
	Why is the Democratic Party against the only person who could save them?	Mystical	63	18506	June 3, 2017 at 9:25 pm Last Post: dyresand
	This Is What You're Up Against With Drumpfucks	Minimalist	20	3280	March 18, 2017 at 5:45 pm Last Post: Tiberius
	Trump's ban on Muslims	WinterHold	51	8512	March 6, 2017 at 10:31 pm Last Post: SteelCurtain
	Pence Defends Trump’s Criticism of Judge Who Blocked Travel Ban	Silver	3	949	February 5, 2017 at 9:41 pm Last Post: Edwardo Piet
	Do you know why wars happens and why middle east is robbed?	Safirno	12	2555	July 9, 2016 at 11:48 am Last Post: account_inactive
	Remember Progressives.... This Is What You Are Defending Against	Minimalist	19	3354	May 27, 2016 at 2:28 am Last Post: Thumpalumpacus