One of my problems

[Furiidomu]

And what about the good churches have done? Churches promote charity, create a welcoming atmosphere for the community, does community service, etc... You can't say all churches everywhere are evil. You can't condemn churches for the bad they do without considering the good they also do.

I will agree that some problematic things have happened in churches and can be promoted by church, but you need to attack those problems specifically, not blanket ban the churches themselves. The solution to the child pedophilia cases is not banning churches. That doesn't solve the problem. Pedophilia will still exist. You need to prosecute and arrest those responsible for doing it and hiding it.

What about it? That's what my 'job' example was for. Are you saying that churches should be forgiven for the atrocities because they do good?

Yes, and kinda makes me think you might be a troll. If you really do get excited by trampling on the basics rights of freedoms, then I think your beliefs are abhorrent.

What is a troll? I am new to online forums like I said in my intro...now I'm getting frustrated because the last place I tried to talk about this stuff everyone got pissed off at me and called me a 'troll', and wouldn't talk to me about it. I'm just trying to understand and direct or calm the rage inside of me. I came here to get help with that. Maybe I havent thought enough about it, maybe I'm being foolish, but I'm not getting mad at you about it.

You argue for government control of churches then question speed limits? If you think you're making a case for yourself, you're not. Your statements are getting more absurd with every post. As I have said, I support limited government control which strikes a balance between promoting individual freedoms while protecting people from abuses of those freedoms. In no way does banning churches serve that purpose, it simply is a means of attempting to control a group of people for not behaving and thinking like you.

I dont think that's fair to say, but maybe you are right I'm sorry if that sounded absurd. I guess the point I was trying to make is that Freedom has many definitions. I mean to be completely free, we would have do be allowed to do anything, even murder right? So obviously govt has to control and and put at least some boundaries on freedom. I think that it is possible to extend those boundaries around organised religion. Is that so radical?

Also, I don't care if they behave or think exactly like me. I don't think about myself at all when I'm contemplating this. I think about the victims of religious oppression.

But, do you think that balance you desire is possible? I feel like theists ultimately wont accept a balance.

Haha, really? So you essentially support a totalitarian social construct in which no person can go to or worship at church because YOU don't want to worry about what's fair? Are you kidding me? As long as you get your way it doesn't matter whether the ideals of freedom are upheld? Your way of thinking right now is more dangerous than any of the Christian's who frequent this forum.

The churches themselves do not cause the questionable and problematic things some Christians can do. They are a place of community, yes. Ideas are propagated, yes, and in some churches some teachings are problematic. Pastors that preach anti abortion propaganda are dangerous, and have lead to shootings. I don't deny that, but the church didn't do it, the people did. And those people could propagate their ideas without a church. American Muslim terrorists have been recruited through the internet. You're misdirecting your anger of the ills of religion at the church. Banning churches does not stop the problem, it does not address it, it simply causes oppression and if you claim to be so superior to Christians, you'd recognize that it's wrong.

The ideas that are taught on the internet were most likely originally taught to the teachers in a mosque, were they not? Are you asking me if I don't care about what's fair? If so, yes I do care. But not about being fair to organized theists. And no it's not because I don't want to worry, I think thats misrepresenting what I said. I want to worry about what is fair. I want to spread the practise of logic and reason. I want everyone to be free. But I think that theists have proven to us that they don't deserve these natural feelings of the human condition.

Why should we try to be fair to them when they aren't to everyone us?

And that same dollar can go to a charity and feed a hungry child in charity. You're putting the ills of religion solely on the church itself, and that's truly absurd. I get that you care about the harms religions have and will cause, but you are completely misguided in your method of dealing with it. You sound as bad as the fundamentalist wackos who insist Harry Potter is evil because it espouses witchcraft.

No, I don't think I am. Maybe it wasn't clear or you are assuming. I think the ills of religion are partly to blame on the church, not fully. But this thread is about the church only.

No. Churches are not the problem. You might as well say hospitals shouldn't exist because people die there. Banks shouldn't exist because robberies happens there. Your assertions are ludicrous. Churches aren't people. They are buildings that people go to. The Ku Klux Clan meets in buildings, should we say those buildings shouldn't exist?

What if Christians banned all atheist assembly because they fear the dangers of atheism? Oh hey, let's ban all assemblies of white people, because they could be promoting racism and planning to kill black people!

You have a very simplistic and naive way of thinking. Your solution does nothing. It would force churches underground but they would still exist. It would rid the world of the charity churches DO provide, and keep the propaganda and malicious ideas they promote underground and out of the scrutiny of the public to keep it in check. You would be trampling on the rights of individuals to believe just as you disbelieve.

I'll be the first to condemn the problems of the Catholic church and any other church, I'll be the first to demand justice and equal treatment. I will not, however, deny my fellow Christians their basic freedoms. I will not condemn every Christian and every religion for the evils of some. (Hasty generalization much?)

Your argument can be summed up as this, "Religion has been responsible for evil. Religions assemble at churches. Therefore churches are bad! We must ban churches." You give no consideration to the complicated role religion plays, what causes the ills of religions, and wish to solve the problem through an idiotic ban on something that is secondary to the larger problem at hand. The world is not so black and white, your ideas are not revolutionary, they are oppressive and authoritarian.

I will quote the wise Benjamin Franklin, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Look, I've been brooding about this among many many ideas all alone for sometime now, so you'll have to forgive me if I seem rash or foolsih. I assure that my intentions are to follow reason and logic, and I am here to work that out with you. I hope you can have patience with me.

If you can, I will just say this;

My argument can be summed up as "Freedom in its purest form is not condusive to civilization, therefore it is natural that as wo/man organises s/he puts boundaries on freedom. This binding of natural freedom can and should be extended to those that do evil and endager others. This is called Law. Religion has shown in the past and even today that without a proper binding on its freedom, it will commit atrocities along side good deeds. Churches are the public face of religion and give it public legitimacy. They also are the means to which money and power is legitimately transferred throughout the religious systems. Therefore, as a conduit for a system that produces evil and endagers others, they should be banned. "

So, now if you are still with me and want to continue, I would sincerely love to know where I went wrong in this argument or what fallacy I committed.

---

You speak about protecting individual freedoms; well what about the freedom of your neighbour to spend their money in whatever way they want? Why should you (or anyone else) have a say in what your neighbour does with *his* money?

umm, because it can pay for evil deeds. Its the same a the government arresting someone who wires money to terrorist organizations. You make it sound like anyone anywhere can buy anything they want....