One of my problems

[Minimalist]

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

Right now, it is reality.

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.

The constitution does not apply to you. It applies to the government. Various federal, state and local laws apply to you and you violate them at your own risk.

At a minimum, you might want to consider getting out of Kansas, though.

What about my question on irrelevency?

I guess I thought it was irrelevant.

[Furiidomu]

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.

Thank you for your reply.
May I argue against what you are saying?

Firstly, I think we both know as atheists that people who find that religion helps them or plays an important role in their life can find this elsewhere. We both know that it isn't the religion that is helping them as god doesn't exist. Truly what is helping them is other humans, and they can find that outside of a church. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Secondly, the most important part of what you said is 'as long as it doesn't cause harm'. How do you see that churches don't cause harm?

[Eilonnwy]

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?

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

[Shinylight]

Firstly, I think we both know as atheists that people who find that religion helps them or plays an important role in their life can find this elsewhere. We both know that it isn't the religion that is helping them as god doesn't exist. Truly what is helping them is other humans, and they can find that outside of a church. Correct me if I'm wrong.

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.

Secondly, the most important part of what you said is 'as long as it doesn't cause harm'. How do you see that churches don't cause harm?

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.

[Furiidomu]

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

-Thanks, I hope you really mean that.

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

-And?

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

-*sigh* I'm pretty sure the conversation us two were having when I replied this way had strayed off the topic, so yes I think you misunderstood.

You are coming off as very, very egocentric.

-If I have offended you, I apologize. If you read my intro that I created today it might explain why. I don't have any intentions to be that way.

I think Stalin & Pol Pot would agree with you.

-I'm not a murderer, and I mkae no mention of physically harming anyone if that is what you are implying.

Taoists, Shintoists, Wiccans, Buddhists & Jedi disagree.

Jedi is fictional.

Shinto, are you serious? Have you ever heard of the Rape of Nanjing? Or maybe...World War II? That was Shinto my friend.

I don't think that Taoism is considered a religion, but I may be wrong...don't they just do nothing. I don't think there is any supernatural views in their belief system.

And Buddhists. Are you serious again? I know countless events where warrioir buddhist monks have laid seige on cities, etc.

Dont know anything about Wiccans, but I will soon enough I suppose.

[Tiberius]

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

I wouldn't say laws are "to be" changed. They can change; some of them should, some of them shouldn't. If you want to change the law, you must have a very good reason for doing so. Let me now ask you a question:

Why do you think the law should be changed and churches banned? What reasons do you have for getting rid of them?

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?

Firstly I didn't say they would spring up in the same form, I said they would spring up again, with new themes, new ideas, etc. Churches were once banned in communist China, so they all moved underground. They never disappeared completely.

Yes, I believe that if people want something, and it isn't harming anyone else, there should't be any reason why they cannot have it. A church is a building; it is given meaning by the people who use it. If enough people want a building in which they can worship, talk, meet friends, etc, why not let them have it?

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.

I didn't belittle the question, nor did I attack you personally. You said quite clearly in your original post that you personally wanted churches to be banned:

"I think churches should be banned as they exist today."

I pointed out that you are clearly putting your own opinion above that of the society. Society clearly does not want churches banned (given that the large majority of society is religious), and it is grossly unfair to have something banned because a few people think like that.

[Jaysyn]

-And?

And we are still here.

-I'm not a murderer, and I mkae no mention of physically harming anyone if that is what you are implying.

All power comes out of the barrel of a gun. All laws are enforced via governmental power. You are completely delusional if you think removing religion from the USA wouldn't cause harm.

Jedi is fictional.

Not in the UK.

Shinto, are you serious? Have you ever heard of the Rape of Nanjing? Or maybe...World War II? That was Shinto my friend.

That was the Japanese government, but I will concede that point because I simply don't know enough about it.

I don't think that Taoism is considered a religion, but I may be wrong...don't they just do nothing. I don't think there is any supernatural views in their belief system.

It's a religion, philosophy & also has supernatural aspects.

And Buddhists. Are you serious again? I know countless events where warrioir buddhist monks have laid seige on cities, etc.

For religious reasons? In the past 2000 years? Non-holy wars don't really count for this tally AFAIAC.

[superstarr]

Well about churches, until someone crumbles christianity and makes those believers to non-believers, the churches stand. It's quite miraculous though, because if you compare the amount of Christians 100years ago to today, there are less and less. Or, if we find extraterrestrial life outside our Earth, most of religions will die off because it would contradict a LOT of beliefs. And they won't be able to say things like, "Faith will protect me" because those aliens are right on their faces.

[Jaysyn]

And they won't be able to say things like, "Faith will protect me" because those aliens are right on their faces.

Faith vs. Facehugger?

[Minimalist]

And they won't be able to say things like, "Faith will protect me" because those aliens are right on their faces.

Please. After a couple of days to invent a new story they will claim the aliens are there to find fucking jesus.

Never underestimate the capacity of the truly stupid to adapt their fairy tales to new realities.