Ban Religion - are you for or against it and why?

[ElDinero]

SOME are. The biggest ones are, yes. Not all.

[thesummerqueen]

...er...

Maybe the monotheistic ones. I don't remember Wicca saying "you can't think this".

[Epimethean]

I don't think we are arguing against each other as much as you think, ElD.

---

...er...

Maybe the monotheistic ones. I don't remember Wicca saying "you can't think this".

So far he only has one goat. That's the one we're getting.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's the rub. Wicca and billgoatism yeah? If wicca and billgoatism where the only religions the world had to contend with I doubt we would even be having this conversation would we. The state of affairs, as is (I apologize in advance witch) that billgoatism and wicca are insignificant, and the big three dominate these conversations.

(I would, btw, ban the actual religions that wicca draws from, since they themselves were guilty of crimes against humanity in many ways, and positively did feel that their little gods gave them ethnic superiority over other tribes, to the point of extermination. Pagans weren't any nicer than anyone else)

[ElDinero]

(There are plenty of things El D, and we probably agree completely here, that work in principle. It's when they make it to practice that things tend to snowball. Demanding that I only deal with the principle is akin to telling someone on the politics forums that they cannot refer to any instances where communism has been attempted, only the principles. I'm not sure that it works that way.)

Of course I agree. But when you're talking about banning something altogether instead of combating the barbaric and outdated practices of some, you are going after the principle.

As for how I'd keep Billygoatism unobstrusive, how about I wouldn't tell anyone about it unless they asked me my beliefs? I guarantee there are religions like this in the world. Of course they don't become big, but that is besides the point completely.

[thesummerqueen]

So... we ban outright the ability for all to form a group and have their own little beliefs because some fuck it up for the others?

[The Grand Nudger]

No, we ban certain practices which are based on exactly the same sorts of justifications that other practices we have already (near unanimously) determined to ban-worthy. Remove legal protection, add laws limiting practices, ramp up education, and then we'll see whats left of religion. No more power, no more money, no more kid gloves. What was that example recently, of the Christian Scientists in Oklahoma was it, prayed their kid to death? They refused to allow a defense of religious practices, good for them. There's a start.

(I am actually plainly against people even thinking this shit, but there's nothing I can do about that...sadly..lol)

[thesummerqueen]

So...we ban the activities that harm people, but not the religion itself?

[The Grand Nudger]

That's the sensible way to do it isn't it? What would be the effect of banning all of that stuff? What would remain? Secularism with pretty pictures? Thumbs up.

[Epimethean]

Call it unlawful assembly, summer, as it has shown a demonstrated tendency to offend the peace and security of the public in the long term.