One of my problems

[Furiidomu]

Thanks for linking that guide and for fixing my post.

No, at least not in the sense you think. It's a matter of what role government has in people's lives, which, granted, is arguable. Do you think the government has a right to deny people their right to assemble specifically for religious belief? Or do you believe they have the right to assemble with reasonable legal restrictions to ensure the safety and prosperity of everyone involved? Or do you believe the right to assemble religiously with no legal restrictions? It's a fundamental belief based on what you feel the role of government is.

I suppose what I think is the first one, that govt should have a right to deny people assembling specifically for religious belief.

I think the role of government is to promote freedom, including the right to assemble, but with reasonable restrictions to promote the fair practice of every religion or non religion. Essentially, allowing religions and their churches to exist as long as they follow building codes, pay taxes, are not permitted to abuse children and get away with it is fair for everyone. It protects people from abuses while still allowing the free practice of religion.

Here's why I think what I said above and a response to this; I don't think they should have the right to exist. I think they have acted in ways that should deny them that right.

I think dictating how people can worship/believe is a more dangerous idea. I would never espouse an ideology that would essentially stifle individual freedoms, including religion. I would love for the world to become a complete atheistic society, but I wish it through free-thought and intellectualism, not force.

I agree that it is a more dangerous idea, and that kinda gets me excited(is that creepy?). As for stifling individual freedoms, you can't drive your car faster than x mph without being punished, isn't that the governement stifiling an individual freedom? My point is that here are always limits and laws to control peoples 'freedoms', but it can be changed for better or worse.

How would we, as atheist, be any better than those Christians who wish to force upon us a Christian Nation? To some Christians, atheism is dangerous. To some Christians, atheism harms other people. It would be hypocritical to then attempt to impose our way of living on others just because we perceive their thoughts to be dangerous.

Freedom of religion is freedom from religion. It allows people to believe or not believe as they see fit. I am not oppressed because my neighbors go to church. I am not oppressed because people believe praying helps them in their daily life. I am not oppressed because people believe atheism is wrong. I am oppressed when Christians try to breach the separation of church and state, and appropriately enough those instances are brought to court by organizations that exist to preserve the first amendment. I do not think the answer to the wrongs some Christians would do is to commit those same wrongs in favor of atheism.

Freedom is not achieved through denying rights to people you disagree with and deem dangerous. It matters what they do.

I am tired of having to worry about who's better or whats fair. People are dying right now. Today. Yesterday. Soldiers, innocent children. Why should I give a crap about being fair or better? It's too late, isn't it? How many chances are we to give theists? Religions long and enduring history has made me unable to give any theists a break. You say that you are not oppressed because your neighbors go to church but I disagree. If your neighboor prays in their own home maybe, but when they drop that dollar in the collection plate IN CHURCH, it gets funneled to places of which you and I don't know the whereabouts. Maybe it pays for the churchs bible collection that goes to a religious publishing company who's CEO is then able to donate their publications to an area, far away from your neighbor and you and I, that kills non-believers in the bibles name. It happens. There is too much of a disconnect between what you deem as harmless and what has happened in the past and what is happening today.

Freedom demands that people you disagree with are also free. I think racism is dangerous, but I believe a person has a right to be racist, to hold those views, because I think that no person or government has the right to dictate what people think. (I.e Thought crimes) If they take their racism too far and kill black people, then the government acts appropriately through it's laws against murder. Laws against murder in essence do restrict actions of people to an extent, but it protects people's fundamental right to live. (Going back to the "telling people what to do" point).

Ultimately, I am free because my fellow Christians are also free, not because their right to believe and practice their beliefs are restricted.

Point taken. But again, I think you are giving theists too much room to move.

Think of it like this if you will please;

Imagine you are at a job and you have subordinates. One of those is named 'Christian'. If Christian were to make some mistakes, you wouldn't can him because he does his job pretty well, better than the last guy in fact, and we all make some mistakes. But one day Christian makes a grave mistake and almost causes your company to go bankrupt. He would be fired, right? Okay...maybe not yet, he still means well. So next month he makes a similar mistake, but this time he did it knowingly. You would fire him for sure this time right? How long are we supposed to wait exactly?

Fire the Churches.

---

No, you are right but I am saying that they have the right to worship how they want, which is in a church. This personal freedom to do so is important, taking that away could lead to the Government taking many other rights that people have.

It could, but that's not a good enough reason not to take it away. The government takes away alot of things, and it doesn't take away alot of things. If you fear every future consequesnce for every action, then there would be no progress.

Churches don't cause harm, the building is a place for the congregation of hive minded idiots. The religious belief inside the church causes harm but if you take the church away then the religion will still exist and so will the harm it causes so I see no point in banning them.

The point is its a start. Make them go underground. Take away their temples, their imposing buildings. Take away their visual influence. You have to start somewhere. And I disagree with your statement that a church doesn't cause harm(except for the idiots part ), I hope you dont mind but I am going to copy my reply to another post on here to explain:

...but when they drop that dollar in the collection plate IN CHURCH, it gets funneled to places of which you and I don't know the whereabouts. Maybe it pays for the churchs bible collection that goes to a religious publishing company who's CEO is then able to donate their publications to an area, far away from your neighbor and you and I, that kills non-believers in these bibles name. It happens. There is too much of a disconnect between what you deem as harmless and what has happened in the past and what is happening today.