Restpecting the rights of the non-religious

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Reynod

Reynod

Administrator
Mar 26, 2007
14,921
16
42,215
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/world/middleeast/muslims-rage-over-film-fueled-by-culture-divide.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www

I think the rights of the non-religious people in the world are currently under fire ... my rights.

I don't believe in god, allah, buddha, or the flying spagetti monster for that matter ... all are equally invalid in my mind ...

Frankly I am more interested in the welfare of my family and work ... religion plays no part in either of them for me.

If I want to question, post, or make comments about your god or prohet then I reserve the right to do so ... and the laws in my country should support me, providing I am not trying to incite hate or violence.

No society should be ruled by preachers or prophets ... frankly these people are poorly trained to do so.

If a society can't question every aspect of its functioning, its going nowhere but down the gurgler.

No religion should control a society or consider others that do not share the same religion as infidels and therefore the enemy.

To me religion is a personal thing ... not something to be imposed on others.

I want to feel safe out there on the streets and so do the rest of my friends and family.

Feel free to post your own ideas.

:)

 
I guess if you don't believe in it, why bash it or come out against it? I don't understand it I guess. If you don't believe, why spend the time bashing on it? To what point and purpose?
 
Religion is internal, not external.

Jehovah's are the only religious group (I think...) that get brownie points for conversions. Does God really care if you converted your neighbor Steve? Or does he want you to be a good person?
 
Spreading the word and getting conversions are two different things. I think they mistake the mission.

Jehovah's only believe 20,000 or maybe 80,000 get into Heaven. That's why they try so hard.
 


Well I normally wouldn't care but when religious extremists are killing and maiming other people around the planet I get worried ... as any sane person would.

Seriously ... don't tell me you think its ok to bomb a US embassy because somebody somewhere made a bad film and the US govt is somehow responsible?

So its ok to riot on the streets in Jakarta and Sydney and run around stating that those who blaspheme Mohommed should be beheaded ... injuring a heap of cops in the process and messing with businesses?

So its ok to increase the bounty on Salmum Rushdie's head to 3.3 Million dollars.

Do you defend any of those behaviours?
 
This isnt a defense just an observation...

Maybe younger religions arent as mature about worship? Christianity is cool with some Jesus jokes

But there was a point in history where saying anything negative about about Jesus or the church would be a death sentence, and a brutal one at that. What mellowed mainstream Christianity? And now a Jesus joke.



Top Ten Reasons That Beer Is Better Than Jesus:-
a) No one will kill you for not drinking beer.
b) Beer doesn't tell you how to have sex.
c) They don't force beer on minors who cannot think for themselves.
d) Beer has never caused a major war.
e) When you have a beer you don't knock on people's doors trying to give it away.
f) Nobody has ever been burned at the stake, hanged or tortured over a beer.
g) You don't have to wait 2000 years for a second beer.
h) There are laws saying beer labels cannot lie to you.
I) You can prove you have a beer.
j) If you are devoted to beer then there are groups who can help you stop.
 
By my account, the attack on religion and conversely, non-religion, has been a relatively recent occurrence in human history and, in my opinion, began largely with the nihilist philosophers and postmodern thought that questioned the very basis of the "truth" Western Society is based on. I also think that the attack on religion came to a head with the implementation of socialism/communism as a political/societal institution. Surely there have been wars and disagreements over religion (of which religion was used mostly an excuse used to extort land and resources) but it was not up until the development of Marxist/Leninist ideology that a nation, the USSR, was specifically created as atheistic and explicitly anti-religious. The anti-religious society was continued in 1949 with the Chinese Civil War that put the Communists in power and solidified with the Cultural Revolution in 1967 that eliminated all religion in China and destroyed many temples and place of worship.

I believe what we are witnessing in the Middle East with Muslim zealotry/fanaticism is a theocratic based society that interprets every transgression against them wholly within a religious and anti-Islam context. They take these transgressions within the perspective of their religious duty and inherent hatred for the infidels, the same religious duty and inherent hatred for what they perceive as the Western Society's continued colonialism extorting their land and resources. Secular nations and secular humanism is unacceptable to Islamic nations as it is fundamentally incompatible with Sharia and Hadith.

It seems to me that only in nations where secularism has been institutionalized and/or where there is constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of religious expression (hence freedom to express non-religion) can there be any semblance of religious tolerance. You can argue that segment's of western society push for a single religion but that is more of a minority of the society as a whole compared to a political movement to create a national and legally binding religion.

Just my $.02...
 
Jerusalem has no main religion, and is therefor not recognized as the capitol of Israel, according to the dems, who dont want to upset the Muslim, who is obviously against this.
Actions such as these doesnt appease in any way this situation.
The city is a good example of toleration in and of itself, yet some just dont get it.

 


Many people in the United States can't even grasp the concept of seperation of church and state.. the obvious example is Christianity.

Many arguments against gay rights, abortion, stem cell research, etc. end up with religion being a major driving force behind the opposition to these things.

The "tolerant" people here can't get it and people expect a group that some consider "less tolerant" to understand?
 
There is nothing wrong with Gay rights. The Christian community isn't against giving them rights. The argument comes down to using the term "marriage." The religious aspect of marriage is important. If they were to call it something else outside of the religious aspect of it, it would be a non-issue. Many are not against a Civil Union since it is not used in the term of Marriage. Our gov't over stepped and incorporated this into it and has caused the problem. If the Gov't would stop recognizing marriages and the benefits, it again wouldn't be an issue.
 


There is truth in what you are saying. In the interest of trying not to divert the thread to far off course I will just say that I agree to some extent. The point, however, remains - in the United States seperation of church and state does not exist in a pure form. There are groups that lobby in the interest of religion and elected officials that cater to the beliefs of the religious citizens in this country. Abortion is a clearer issue to this. There are religious people on the "pro-life" side of the argument that use religion as their reasoning, and, in all likelihood, there are elected officials that base their stance on abortion on their religious belief (and that belief may have been a contributing factor to their victory.) If religion didn't matter and stayed out of politics we wouldn't care who Obama's pastor is/was/will be, the same goes for every president and elected official. Yet we all know where they lie because it wins (and loses) votes and people expect that someone that they voted for based (to some extent) on religious beliefs to uphold those beliefs when they are in office. There are plenty of important societal issues that are impacted directly by the religious beliefs of the citizens and elected officials in the United States.
 
Religion matters more today than it did 200 years ago because the moral compass has changed. On top of that, Religion plays a huge factor in decision making. While Gov't should be held distant from Religions, the person making the decision is not.

Regarding abortion, the issue is not life/death, it is the money. Remove the money from the situation and the argument is pointless. The gov't funding people to have abortions upsets a lot of people because it is something they do not believe in. Remove the money, the issue goes away.
 
No way, I believe it's the other way around! If there is one thing Americans understand it is what it means to have a separation of Church and State. It is a fundamental concept and founding reason of this country. It is because Americans have an all to hard grasp on separation of Church and State that is the reason for the religious in this country desire to maintain some semblance of the moral baseline religion teaches. If anything, America is extremely tolerant of other religions. I believe it is a minority of bigots in American who actually care about the guy living down the street being Jewish or if the guy who lives next door wears a turban.

Riser is right, religion seemingly matters more today because the moral compass has totally changed. And a person making decisions, politician or lay person, can no more remove their religion from their decision making process lest they lose a part of what makes up their very being.
 
To remove religious thought or expect it to be so is like expecting atheists to react religiously, as we are what we are.
Money and abortion is fine, as long as those who partake are spending their money, agreed there.
What we are currently seeing is paid for by those who want such things, such as statues and artworks of the ten commandments removed from public areas, and goes beyond those wanting money from those who dont agree, as in abortion.
To me, one can be ignored, whereas the other is reflected in every paycheck.

Many are completely absorbed by creation, as we see it better thaan ever before, and have turned awat from the creator, and while doing so have made attempts at discrediting believers, which is comparable to believers shaking their heads at those non believers.

These discepencies/differences are almost always worked out, as believers have their own particular "facts" they adhere to, and dont force it down other believers as well as non believers throats, or we would see today more transgressions than what does exist
 


If the people making the decisions is not required to set religion aside then you don't have the seperation of church and state.

Does their religious view feed into their belief system? Probably.. and in such a case you aren't seperating church and state. The person is allowing their political decision to be based on religion. There are arguments against abortion that don't involve religion, however, without the support garnered from the religious people in this country the number of anti-abortion supporters would inevitably fall. I've heard far too many people base their abortion stance with religious arguments. If that is what it is based on then I'm not sure how you could argue their religious stance isn't being forced upon others regarding abortion when politicians believe the same way and cater to these individuals.

If an individuals moral compass on an issue is purely derived from their religious belief it does not matter if it's life/death or money. The bottom line is that they are against something because of their religion and they believe that non-religious and other religions must cater to that. The only fair way to approach the situation is to remove religion from the equation - the definition of seperation of church and state. Religion should have no impact on political issues.




Then you don't have seperation of church and state. Yes, there is nothing wrong with basing a political decision on your moral compass unless the entirety of your moral compass direction is based on religious belief. At that point it's 100% based on religion and therefore you lose seperation of church and state.
 
By your logic, any religious person would be unable to make an objective secular decision; this is counter intuitive to basic human nature.

The separation of Church and State as it is intended by our Founding Fathers was captured in the 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". The separation of Church and State means that the American government can not pass legislation establishing a national religion that all citizens are bound to follow by law. That verbiage was specifically put into the 1st Amendment in direct contradiction to the King of England who was also the head of the Church.

OMG_73 is correct. the phrase "separation of Church and State" does not appear in the any of the founding documents. In reality, the phrase "building a wall of separation between Church and State" was penned in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists to affirm the 1st Amendment, affirm the fact that Congress was forbidden to legislate a national religion.

It is a well documented fact that the Founding Fathers intended a government for, of, and by the People (citizen statesmen) who would recognize the inalienable rights given to them by their creator and follow the examples set by the great lawgivers throughout history to govern with wisdom and the perspective necessary to preserve the republic and protect the Constitution.

 


Not true, by my logic individuals have a responsibility to set their religion aside and formulate an opinion outside of it's bounds. Perhaps the same conclusion could be drawn without religion being involved at all, as I mentioned regarding abortion. In either case, it's a professional responsibility. If you're going to get into something like politics you need to be able to do such a thing.

I find it incredibly disturbing that people are okay with others that base their opinions on religious beliefs weilding power to force others to uphold their religious "morals". "You don't have to believe what we believe, but you do have to follow our rules." Rules derived from religion. Sounds an awful lot like the stuff mubin and eninn run around cheering about.
 


Yes, that is reasonable.

I respect people of faith and their religion (something that is personal - keep it to yourself), however, I think it is incredibly irresponsible of people that have have religious beliefs to force others to follow their beliefs. If someone of faith is against abortion because it somehow conflicts with their religion - I have a problem with that, banning abortion would be forcing someone into your personal view that is based on religion. If they can set their religion aside and draw the same conclusion and present it as such, I am fine with that.

 
I believe our lawmakers remove religious consideration and live up to your level of responsibility; with Roe vs Wade being a good example. Roe vs Wade made abortion legal as a result of affirming the individual right to privacy and person-hood, not as a result of pushing a judeo-christian religious morality. Individuals may have turned abortion into a religious issue, but the ruling and law is secular in nature.

I think it is unreasonable to expect a person to forget their religious based morality when making rules, I also think it is totally unfair to say that reasonable people are unable to disengage their religion when considering the rules. Making a rule or passing a law where religious morality is one of many considerations is very different from making a rule or passing a law based solely on religion.

The fact is, all laws throughout the ancient world were based on religion; The Code of Hammurabi, the Code of Ur-Nammu, the ancient Egyptian legal code, the Halakha, etc. And, as a result, whether you agree or not, religion has been the basis for all laws throughout Western Civilization.

It has only been in the last 225 years of world history where nations were intentionally formed based on secular law or without religion; the primary nations being America in 1789, the USSR in 1922, and in 1967 when China officially banned all religion.

I'm curious though, what laws (rules) that govern American today that have been derived or based on religious morality do you object to? Do you object to Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not steal, Thou shall not commit adultery, even though they have a basis in religion?
 



I firmly believe morals existed before "religion" claimed them as their own. It is fully possible that if a society were to be formed absent touch of religion and the people in it did not have an inner desire to attribute things they don't understand to "higher" figures that after some time morals and laws similar to the ones thats exist today would exist. Religion is not a prerequisite for individuals to conclude that they will generally be happier if they stop killing each others families and work together.
 


But your not a woman and not pregnant ... therefore its not your decision to judge a woman's right to carry or terminate her child.

Its individual choice and the woman lives with the consequences.

You can't have your freedom of speech and right to bear arms then restrict the rights of half your population in a similar way ... can you?

Can you see the hypocracy in that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom