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.

[Jaysyn]

Fascists scare me a lot more than Christians do.

[Furiidomu]

Fascists scare me a lot more than Christians do.

Am I totally going overboard?! I'm a nice guy...really I am!

What about Muslims?

[Eilonnwy]

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

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.

I agree that it is a more dangerous idea, and that kinda gets me excited(is that creepy?).

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I think you want to take away a theists room to move at all.

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. 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."

[Eilonnwy]

Fascists scare me a lot more than Christians do.

Am I totally going overboard?!

Yes.

I'm a nice guy...really I am!

Not relevant.

What about Muslims?

Muslims have nothing to do with your radical (and stupid) ideology.

[Tiberius]

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.

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?

[Jaysyn]

What about Muslims?

I've got nothing but pity for them, especially the females. Now, Islamists (the terroristic flavor of Muslim) also worry me a bit because:

a.) They are religious fascists.

b.) The religion they follow is so mind boggling incoherent, backwards & evil they make modern Christianity look like a reasonable alternative.

c.) They hate my country & by extension, me.

[Eilonnwy]

I've got nothing but pity for them, especially the females. Now, Islamists (the terroristic flavor of Muslim) also worry me a bit because:

a.) They are religious fascists.

b.) The religion they follow is so mind boggling incoherent, backwards & evil they make modern Christianity look like a reasonable alternative.

c.) They hate my country & by extension, me.

d. And if you espouse they same authoritarian ideals, such as preventing other people from practicing their own religion, you are no better than them.

[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....

[Eilonnwy]

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?

No, because the churches didn't commit the atrocities, the people did. Let me give you an example.

The current economic crisis is the result of bad banking practices that stemmed from continuous deregulation. Your solution to this problem would be to get rid of the banks! But wait, we need the banks. People rely on them, it's a driving force in our economic society. The real solution is regulation. Prevent banks from doing risky business like derivatives. Prosecute criminals like Bernie Madoff and the Goldman Sachs for abusing the system and knowingly selling bad stocks, but still give people who use the banks for good the ability to do so.

It's the same for churches. Make them pay taxes, make them accountable under the law, don't give religious exemptions, ridicule churches that promote terrible ideas on the media, etc... etc...But let people who use churches as a means for charity, community service, and self help continue to do so.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

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?

No, but your solution to a perceived problem is to take away the person's right to use the car, because cars are dangerous and people die in them every day. Get it?

I propose regulating the churches better and holding them accountable. Compare that to road laws, I propose speed limits and traffic tickets to regulate car use and make it safe.

You propose abolishing churches. Compare that to road laws, you propose abolishing the use of cars all together.

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.

Your making a Nirvana fallacy, you think there's a perfect solution, when there just isn't.

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?

What you have said here is very problematic and prejudiced. You're making sweeping generalizations of theists as whole. Newsflash, not all theists are evil. Not all theists commit atrocities. You're making them guilty by association. Your blaming the thing that some evil people use as the cause for the evil. You're making a bunch of logical fallacies here. You're confusing causation with correlation, sweeping generalizations, arguing an absurd slippery slope, and resorting to tu quoque.

You're fractally wrong. I don't care if you feel that theists treat you no better, that doesn't give you the right to trample on the basic freedoms that you also enjoy.

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.

In any case I and others have explained ad nauseum why your suggestion is absurd.

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.

This is what happens when you bring your opinions out into the public arena. They get criticized. This is not a bad thing, it's important to receive criticism to understand why something your believe may be wrong. Refer to this thread for a point made about arguing outside your bubble.

I can have patience with you if you listen and really think about what you're saying. You have made some concessions in a couple cases that what you said wasn't the best, which is good.

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.

No. Your assertion is absurd.

Knives are used for cutting food, building things, opening things, etc.. But knives also kill people. They will continue to kill people. Shall we ban knives?

And you want fallacies, here you go:
Proof by example. You have stated that the church has committed atrocities, therefore all religions and all churches committ atrocities and must be banned. No. That's not true. It's so blatantly not true.

You confuse correlation with causation. Religions that have committed atrocities do have churches, but that doesn't mean the churches are the cause of those atrocities.

Fallacy of single cause, you imply church is the sole cause of the atrocities without even considering that basically evil people simply used the church, or happen to be related to the church.

You have committed an association fallacy by simply asserting that because churches are associated with religious atrocities, all churches are evil.

There's a bit of a Genetic fallacy, by referring to the past ills of the churches without recognizing that churches have changed and can continue to change.

And lastly, two wrongs make a right.. You claim religions are unfair, therefore it's okay for you to be unfair to religions.

I think I've covered most if not all the fallacies.