Right of freedom of religion should not be a human right

[Macoleco]

The proper right should be: right of freedom of thought. Which is then, contrary with the freedom of religion, as religion is forced upon children.

It is also a right that benefits the church, as it indoctrinates people legally and under the “right of freedom of religion”. A human right should not benefit any type of institution, much less one as the church.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The proper right should be: right of freedom of thought. Which is then, contrary with the freedom of religion, as religion is forced upon children.

It is also a right that benefits the church, as it indoctrinates people legally and under the “right of freedom of religion”. A human right should not benefit any type of institution, much less one as the church.

If freedom of religion wasn't a human right, I could be punished for being an atheist.

Boru

[no one]

If thought was involved, religion would not exist.

[Mister Agenda]

Humans may not always teach their children well, but the alternative is to have the state teach what is currently the domain of parents. I don't see how that can be done in a way that's compatible with liberty.

[brewer]

The proper right should be: right of freedom of thought. Which is then, contrary with the freedom of religion, as religion is forced upon children.

It is also a right that benefits the church, as it indoctrinates people legally and under the “right of freedom of religion”. A human right should not benefit any type of institution, much less one as the church.

Don't confuse the thought with the organization/institution.

[Brian37]

The proper right should be: right of freedom of thought. Which is then, contrary with the freedom of religion, as religion is forced upon children.

It is also a right that benefits the church, as it indoctrinates people legally and under the “right of freedom of religion”. A human right should not benefit any type of institution, much less one as the church.

There is no such thing as a utopia. Most of the world holds some sort of religious view, be it Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Jew, or Buddhist, ect ect ect. That isn't ever going to change. 

What I do advocate for is human rights. I'd only agree that religion, no religion, or political or economic label for that matter, should ever be free from criticism.

For example, if you are Hindu, and you murder a Muslim for slaugtering a cow, you are a fucking asshole. If you are Jewish and refuse to sit next to a women on a Passenger jet, same thing, you are a fucking asshole. And if you are and Amish or LDS male dictating to females as to how they dress, same thing. If you are a Muslim male insisting on forcing women to wear Hijabs or Burkas, same thing. You are a fucking asshole.


So it is to me a mistake to simply say "church", because that commonly is associated with the Christian sects. "Church" is simply the same thing as "Mosque" or "Synagouge" or "Temple". All of those are houses of worship, merely with different mythologies, traditions, but all still institutions of worship.

But I don't think your quote, which I just quoted is different. I think it boils down to, "You have the right to claim what you want, but I also have the right to criticise your claim."

[Drich]

The proper right should be: right of freedom of thought. Which is then, contrary with the freedom of religion, as religion is forced upon children.

It is also a right that benefits the church, as it indoctrinates people legally and under the “right of freedom of religion”. A human right should not benefit any type of institution, much less one as the church.

re-tart. freedom of religion is also freedom from... religion. the admend reads Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. which means the government should have no say in what ever you do or do not believe. how is that not a right?

[Brian37]

The proper right should be: right of freedom of thought. Which is then, contrary with the freedom of religion, as religion is forced upon children.

It is also a right that benefits the church, as it indoctrinates people legally and under the “right of freedom of religion”. A human right should not benefit any type of institution, much less one as the church.

re-tart. freedom of religion is also freedom from... religion. the admend reads Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. which means the government should have no say in what ever you do or do not believe. how is that not a right?

I agree our government has no say in what you do or do not believe. But it also does not have the right to enforce religious litmis tests to hold office, or set up religious laws that promote social pecking orders.  Thus the oath of office "no religious test".

If for example a Muslim born in the United States were of legal age to run for President, and that she or he managed to convince the population to vote for them, that AMERICAN would be legally entitled to hold public office. I am not arguing entitlement here other than the entitlement to file to run. That person, Muslim, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or atheist, ect, would still have to make the argument to the public that they are worthy of holding that office. That is the perpose of running and appealing to the public. 

There was a time in America nobody would consider Jews or Catholics for Public office. But we've had atheists and gays and Muslims in our congress since. 

So what is it you personally mean by "Congress should have no say in whatever you do or do not believe"?

Drich, I have read enough of your posts over the years to know what you mean by this, beause it is the same argument I get from all the world's religions. "I am willing to leave you alone since you are the minority, as long as you accept I am the majority". In the west it should not be about protecting social pecking orders, in the west, it is about putting people in government that are willing to be neutural on religious issues and to work for everyone, not just a majority.

[Macoleco]

Humans may not always teach their children well, but the alternative is to have the state teach what is currently the domain of parents. I don't see how that can be done in a way that's compatible with liberty.

People are brainwashed since they are children in order to make them believe a religion. Nobody believes in a religion spontaneously. This is against the freedom the thought. Specially when you consider that religion has no evidence for what it claims, is known to be a weapon of control, etc. This is a violation against a human right. 

The right of Freedom of religion violates another right fundamentally.

[Drich]

re-tart. freedom of religion is also freedom from... religion. the admend reads Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. which means the government should have no say in what ever you do or do not believe. how is that not a right?

I agree our government has no say in what you do or do not believe. But it also does not have the right to enforce religious litmis tests to hold office, or set up religious laws that promote social pecking orders.  Thus the oath of office "no religious test".

why? if the government cant make laws against religion, then if people who hold those offices decide to have a religious litmus test isn't saying you can't have one the same as the government telling you what you can or can not believe? in a truly free society the religious can take their religion to office as freely as the atheist can abstain from it in office.

If for example a Muslim born in the United States were of legal age to run for President, and that she or he managed to convince the population to vote for them, that AMERICAN would be legally entitled to hold public office.

....and?

I am not arguing entitlement here other than the entitlement to file to run. That person, Muslim, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or atheist, ect, would still have to make the argument to the public that they are worthy of holding that office. That is the purpose of running and appealing to the public. 

you understand we are already electing atheist, muslims buddhists in both sides of congress right? that they are not made to swear allegiance to god..

There was a time in America nobody would consider Jews or Catholics for Public office.

you didn't live in that time. there are few alive who did. why must the current church and believer alive today be punished for how non believers were treated almost 100 years ago?

But we've had atheists and gays and Muslims in our congress since. 

some even argue as president as well.

So what is it you personally mean by "Congress should have no say in whatever you do or do not believe"?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Drich, I have read enough of your posts over the years to know what you mean by this, because it is the same argument I get from all the world's religions.

you should know what i mean by this as it is a quote from the first amendment.

"I am willing to leave you alone since you are the minority, as long as you accept I am the majority". In the west it should not be about protecting social pecking orders, in the west, it is about putting people in government that are willing to be neutral on religious issues and to work for everyone, not just a majority.

i mean it says there can be no national religion including atheism nor a move to preserve neutrality by eliminating all expressions of religion. rather if our religious belief compels us to bring a prayer into the government or bring out laws then we should be allowed to do so. let the people vote us out or in as they see fit. not by laws that restrict the free practice there of...

---

Humans may not always teach their children well, but the alternative is to have the state teach what is currently the domain of parents. I don't see how that can be done in a way that's compatible with liberty.

People are brainwashed since they are children in order to make them believe a religion. Nobody believes in a religion spontaneously. This is against the freedom the thought. Specially when you consider that religion has no evidence for what it claims, is known to be a weapon of control, etc. This is a violation against a human right. 

The right of Freedom of religion violates another right fundamentally.

so who are you to force that thought or line of thinking on to anyone? "don't buy the churchs brain washing buy into mine.."