RE: Freedom From Atheism! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Freedom From Atheism! (2/25/2016 11:12:31 AM)

Your statement: Bigamy is NOT a sin aka religious law, but a state instituted crime!

It may well be a state instituted crime but it is most definitely rooted in religion and religious doctrine.



kdsub -> RE: Freedom From Atheism! (2/25/2016 11:37:00 AM)

If seems to me there are many conflicting religious beliefs. In order to accommodate all beliefs, in a free society anyway, religion needs to be practiced among individual groups of people with no demands on those of no beliefs or other religions.

That is the freedom of religion… the right to practice ones own religion, under the laws of the land, within your home and church… not another’s home or church.

If any religion tries to force their beliefs on those outside of there group then they are not protected by the Constitution. The only attack on religion by those of no belief or different belief is when the offending religion is trying to force their beliefs on others.

This would include using public money for religious displays or demanding a particular religion’s teaching in public schools....and Gay marriage

Butch



Real0ne -> RE: Freedom From Atheism! (2/26/2016 10:07:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

(1)If seems to me there are many conflicting religious beliefs. (2)In order to accommodate all beliefs, in a free society anyway, religion needs to be practiced among individual groups of people with no demands on those of no beliefs or other religions.

(3)That is the freedom of religion… the right to practice ones own religion, (4)under the laws of the land, (5)within your home and church… not another’s home or church.

(6)If any religion tries to force their beliefs on those outside of there group then they are not protected by the Constitution. (7)The only attack on religion by those of no belief (8)or different belief is when the offending religion is trying to force their beliefs on others.

This would include using public money for religious displays or demanding a particular religion’s teaching in public schools....and Gay marriage

Butch



(1) Agreed which is why the constitution simply states the government has no jurisdiction over the right of the people to freely exercise their religion.

This debate is also running in a parallel thread:

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4886080

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4886254

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4886255

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4886259

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4886271

(2) Agreed again, however people are not isolated entities and need to interact with one another for trade and other necessities of life outside the religion. The Amish for instance having been forced to use the highways with their horses and buggies because there is no other property they can use without trespassing agreed to put a slow moving vehicle sign on the back of their wagons to alert high speed traffic which helps reduce their death toll.

Point being that people need to interact with one another and that vehicle of interaction needs to remain neutral which it has not. My point is that neutral has slipped into atheism by propaganda and sleight of hand.

(3) Agreed

(4) ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE as this is 100% contrary to the agreement with gubblemint in the constitution.

Think of it like this to help you wrap your mind around contract law.

If I own property and you are a tenant on said property and I agree that you can freely exercise your religion and with the exercise of your religion you sacrifice a goat, that I find distasteful or even cruel, what authority do I have to run outside that contract and tell you that you cannt practice that particular religion?

You would scream and have my ass in court so fast the ink wouldnt even have time to dry.

That said; why would you let the gubblemint get away with something you would not let me get away with?

In other words if the contract between you and I stipulates I have no say so in the exercise of your religion then how did you conclude that you exercise your religion UNDER the law of the contract instead of OUTSIDE the contract where I would have no lawful claim of jurisdiction?

How did you conclude UNDER the law?




(5) Agree IN PART and Disagree IN PART. If part of your religion is to help lil ole ladies across the street, or coming to the aid of a dying person who was shot by a thug, Restricting your ability to exercise your religion in public forcing it remain strictly in your home or some synagog again denies you of your FREE EXERCISE of religion where it counts most in the case of saving someones life, especially since I am not aware of any religion that where a person would wish to die when being shot by said thug and condemn one saving their life.

With that draconian position it appears you want instead of freedom of religion you want to force it to be privatized.

Furthermore, the constitution is a documents which governs 'PUBLIC' affairs not private, hence the right to freely exercise ones religion referred to in the contract is with respect to exercising it in 'public' not private.


(6) Incorrect no standing in law. The constitution is an agreement between the people and the gubblemint. which means what the gubblemint can enforce on the people and the limitations of its jurisdiction when dealing with the people.


(7) Wrong about 'no beliefs', that is patently absurd ridiculous and with no knowledge of philosophy. In order to form a counter proposition to theists et al one must assert some kind of belief just to form an argument or proposition which demonstrates 'knowledge', then to conclude their proposition successfully they are forced to take a counter position since the position of theists are that deities exist. This is a binary matter without a middle ground despite atheists attmpts to muddy the water with their own flavor of trash philosophy.

The only possible way an atheist could claim 'lack' would be to have no knowledge to take a position which now more closely aligns itself with agnosticism.

(8)Atheists however most certainly can and do exert their beliefs and trample on peoples religions and the people with those religions protest and have been destroyed by the atheists.

Case in point the Klines; the klines were ruined through atheist discrimination regulations created by the beauracracy................unless of course someone is ready to admit the state in fact established an atheist religion? (which is my argument btw)







Real0ne -> RE: Freedom From Atheism! (2/26/2016 10:30:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

Your statement: Bigamy is NOT a sin aka religious law, but a state instituted crime!

It may well be a state instituted crime but it is most definitely rooted in religion and religious doctrine.




Bigamy by definition is a 'crime' against the state and if it were rooted in some religion and I am thinking of the big 3 it would be classified not as a crime but as a sin. I know of no sin of Bigamy, and without your showing me that it is a sin after I have shown you that Bigamy has its origins in the 'roman state' I cant agree with you.

From my knowledge base when you start talking about religion the word is polygamy, not bigamy as I pointed out on the last page and I know of no sin of polygamy? It was instituted a state crime before rome adopted christianity so I cant add up the way you are connecting your dots?

I even did a cursory search just to satisfy my own curiosty if I could have err'd on this

https://www.google.com/search?q=religions+that+practiced+polygamy

2.1 Hinduism.
2.2 Buddhism.
2.3 Celtic traditions.
2.4 Judaism.
2.5 Christianity.
2.5.1 Roman Catholic Church.
2.5.2 Latter Day Saint Movement.
2.5.2.1 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)
2.5.2.1.1 Mormon fundamentalism.
2.5.2.2 Community of Christ.
2.6 Islam.





So that said: The assumed 'neutral' state (gubblemint) having ruled against the exercise of religion 'polygamy' are no longer neutral.

It goes without saying that they have established some religion.

We know it is a 'state' religion since that is the enforcing agency,

The only question left is which one? Which religion?

Since the big 3 do not fit and the state ruling is the anti-thesis of religion being practiced by the people it stands to reason that since the state presumes itself to be secular humanists and since secular humanism is atheist we the religious people are victims of modern atheists.








kdsub -> RE: Freedom From Atheism! (2/26/2016 6:42:58 PM)

quote:

(4) ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE as this is 100% contrary to the agreement with gubblemint in the constitution.

Think of it like this to help you wrap your mind around contract law.

If I own property and you are a tenant on said property and I agree that you can freely exercise your religion and with the exercise of your religion you sacrifice a goat, that I find distasteful or even cruel, what authority do I have to run outside that contract and tell you that you cannt practice that particular religion?

You would scream and have my ass in court so fast the ink wouldnt even have time to dry.

That said; why would you let the gubblemint get away with something you would not let me get away with?

In other words if the contract between you and I stipulates I have no say so in the exercise of your religion then how did you conclude that you exercise your religion UNDER the law of the contract instead of OUTSIDE the contract where I would have no lawful claim of jurisdiction?

How did you conclude UNDER the law?


Are we talking the same subject?

Your religion and my religion are both UNDER the laws of the United States. If say a religion such as certain secs of Islam sanction the killing of ones daughter for offences against Allah... will my friend in this country that is murder. Say a satanic religion sanctions human sacrifice... well my friend this is murder UNDER the laws of the United States. We all have basic human rights guaranteed by our Constitution and laws that supersede religious rights. What if a Fatwa is issued by a Imam in the United States and carried out... This would be murder UNDER the laws of the United States...Despite what you may think the gubberment is more powerful than the word of any God in the United States... which means any deity is UNDER US law.

Butch



Real0ne -> RE: Freedom From Atheism! (2/27/2016 6:20:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

(4) ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE as this is 100% contrary to the agreement with gubblemint in the constitution.

Think of it like this to help you wrap your mind around contract law.

If I own property and you are a tenant on said property and I agree that you can freely exercise your religion and with the exercise of your religion you sacrifice a goat, that I find distasteful or even cruel, what authority do I have to run outside that contract and tell you that you cannt practice that particular religion?

You would scream and have my ass in court so fast the ink wouldnt even have time to dry.

That said; why would you let the gubblemint get away with something you would not let me get away with?

In other words if the contract between you and I stipulates I have no say so in the exercise of your religion then how did you conclude that you exercise your religion UNDER the law of the contract instead of OUTSIDE the contract where I would have no lawful claim of jurisdiction?

How did you conclude UNDER the law?


Are we talking the same subject?

Your religion and my religion are both UNDER the laws of the United States.

Butch



Huh?

My 'chosen' religion says I can have as many wives (or husbands) as I want.

My 'chosen' religion and the laws of my religion are NOT party to the holy church of the united states.

How can the laws of MY God and MY CHOSEN religion possibly be 'UNDER' united states religious LAW if the united states is NOT my CHOSEN religion and has NOT established ITSELF as a religion?

No one sees a contradiction in that? really?

Something is wrong here man, maybe the US is your CHOSEN religion but I never chose to worship the united states as my god, why must I conform to their religious laws instead of mine?

I dont see an exception do you?
quote:

1st AMENDMENT:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



oh here is is!
I just had to find the right constitution!!!!!
quote:

1st AMENDMENT:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; except polygamy or same sex marriage; or abridging the freedom of speech, in a 'free speech zone', or of the press; if they agree with gubblemint, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, with state permission, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, IF the supreme court will even bother to hear the case.



Is that really what this is about? Delusional Americans?

Allow me to explain to be clear;

The gubblemint has taken a position and that position is the antithesis to a religious practice that has been done for centuries that harms no one.


Once the gubblemint takes a 'postion against any religious action or practice' they are no longer 'NEUTRAL' and with a contrary position to an individuals religious position by default 'establish' a religion, and worse they enforce it upon the people at the end of a barrel of a gun.

Do you agree or disagree?

If you disagree and wish to claim the gubblemint has not established a religion by all means tell us how you sort that contradiction out.







Real0ne -> RE: Freedom From Atheism! (2/27/2016 3:01:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Despite what you may think the gubberment is more powerful than the word of any God in the United States... which means any deity is UNDER US law.

Butch



that part of what you said is precious.

so then you are claiming that its FUCK da LAW Weeza gubmint and everyone damn well better get on their knees and beg the lord god usa permission to practice their religion?

Care to explain how that is 'freedom'?










kdsub -> RE: Freedom From Atheism! (2/27/2016 3:38:16 PM)

You bet.... Law first.... Religion second.



Real0ne -> RE: Freedom From Atheism! (2/27/2016 4:28:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

You bet.... Law first.... Religion second.



Now you are truly sounding retarded.

The constitution IS law!

Gotta be seriously delusional to claim law first only to ignore the constitution.

Thats completely irrational.



It would not surprise me if 'some' people did not understand what I said above.

1) The constitution IS the highest 'LAW' of the land.

2) 'ANY' other laws and court decisions are (supposed to be....by law) created UNDER and in conformance with said constitution.

3) It, [the constitution] states unequivocally, incontrovertibly that you as Americans have not only the right to whatever relgion you choose but the right to exercise that religion, which means behave accordingly.

That means in public and it goes without saying also in private.

The reason the "law first religion second" statement is delusional is because the law had to have been broken by gublmint before your religious rights could have been violated in the first place, hence it is NOT law first, neither is it religion first, its gublmint first all else last.

That said, I agree that we have no right to exercise our religion without state approval.
However someone comes along and implies that is what the 1st amendment means has one foot over the edge in an upside down world.







ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Freedom From Atheism! (2/27/2016 5:09:48 PM)

quote:

The constitution IS law!

And it comes first, which is why you have a right to religious freedom. If religion came first, then many religious denominations would be prohibited.



Real0ne -> RE: Freedom From Atheism! (2/27/2016 5:13:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

The constitution IS law!

And it comes first, which is why you have a right to religious freedom. If religion came first, then many religious denominations would be prohibited.



really? then explain why the mormons cant have more then one wife (or husband)?

explain why it took a supreme court decision so gays can marry?

explain why religious people are forced to provide for religions they abhor?




kdsub -> RE: Freedom From Atheism! (2/27/2016 5:52:24 PM)

So you believe the Constitution guarantees honor killing?

Butch



DaddySatyr -> RE: Freedom From Atheism! (2/27/2016 8:08:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

So you believe the Constitution guarantees honor killing?

Butch


Quite a few believed it guarantees fetus killing. Why not honor killing?



Michael



kdsub -> RE: Freedom From Atheism! (2/28/2016 9:59:06 AM)

Michael your point is the perfect example... The law of the land, at least for now, is that abortion is legal under the Constitution. This law supersedes religious freedom. In our country the Constitution is greater than any God and it must be to guarantee the human rights of all. I'm sure the good Lord is just fine with this or we would be swimming after 40 days s of rain or turned into blocks of salt.

Butch



dcnovice -> RE: Freedom From Atheism! (2/28/2016 10:10:18 AM)

FR

Anyone truly craving freedom from atheism needs only a passport and a plane ticket:

Saudi Arabia sentences a man to 10 years in prison and 2,000 lashes for expressing his atheism on Twitter

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-sentence-man-to-10-years-in-prison-and-2000-lashes-for-expressing-his-atheism-on-a6900056.html



Real0ne -> RE: Freedom From Atheism! (2/28/2016 10:47:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

Anyone truly craving freedom from atheism needs only a passport and a plane ticket:

Saudi Arabia sentences a man to 10 years in prison and 2,000 lashes for expressing his atheism on Twitter

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-sentence-man-to-10-years-in-prison-and-2000-lashes-for-expressing-his-atheism-on-a6900056.html



totally inapplicable.
the OP does not say or imply exchanging one 'state' religion for another.

The OP concerns itself with the gubmint remaining neutral such that ALL religions can thrive in a single society without trampling on 'ANY' of them as the referenced examples prove.

your post is a waste of font ink.




Real0ne -> RE: Freedom From Atheism! (2/28/2016 10:54:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Michael your point is the perfect example... The law of the land, at least for now, is that abortion is legal under the Constitution. This law supersedes religious freedom. In our country the Constitution is greater than any God and it must be to guarantee the human rights of all. I'm sure the good Lord is just fine with this or we would be swimming after 40 days s of rain or turned into blocks of salt.

Butch



you need to respond to his excellent point, why not honor killing if abortion is allowed?



the Constitution is greater than any God and it must be to guarantee the human rights of all

oh and btw ^^^^^^^ is quantum bullshit, and in fact does exactly the opposite


for those just popping on here, the reason that is quantum bullshit is because when the matter is a religious issue, a court must rule in ONE direction or the other, therefore acknowledging the rights of one party while stomping the rights of the other even if both parties have the same right, because the court then issues the ruling on behalf of the states 'interest' in the matter. [corporate regulatory or commercial authority] (read that again)

For RvW the state forced health care workers where abortion is against their religion to perform them against their religion at the point of the barrel of the state gun so some other religion (those who believe in abortion) can have their rights in spite of stomping on the others.

Hence NOT neutral and taking a side.

No justice no remedy no equal rights under any law.


Likewise with the gay wedding cake. Where they gays only had to walk to the end of the block to a gay friendly cake store in stead the gubbmint took sides and totally ruined the family who would not bake the cake because it was against their religion to be an accessory to the commission of a sin.

Da gubmint once again took sides in a religious matter and stomped all over one persons rights to afford rights to another where the decision should have read go the fuck next door. So lets go into jewish bakeries and demand swastika cakes or black bakeries and demand KKK cakes.


which is why your must be theory is quantum bullshit since all any of these people had to do is go down the street to someone who agreed with their religion to have the services they wanted.

Despite its quantum bullshit there are those who do not see the reprecussions in their failure to evaluate all the evidence and criteria


Democracy has 49% LOSERS, and when it comes to respecting legislation or court decisions which address RIGHTS 49% LOSE their rights.

Democracy was intended for the commercial corporate gubmint not to force the private rights of party onto another.


That said who in the right mind would sign on to a country that VIOLATES YOUR PERSONAL PRIVATE RIGHTS under the name of DEMOCRACY where your rights can be simply VOTED AWAY?

KD; Where does the constitution grant the gubmint the authority to vote away your rights democracy or otherwise? Where do they have the authority to stomp on any ones rights through an operation of law or legislation?

Since everyones rights 'could' have been protected by simply going next door, you chose to have 49% of the peoples rights stomped on, so you have a lot of legal issues to address if you want to support your position.





DaddySatyr -> RE: Freedom From Atheism! (2/28/2016 12:22:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Michael your point is the perfect example... The law of the land, at least for now, is that abortion is legal under the Constitution. This law supersedes religious freedom. In our country the Constitution is greater than any God and it must be to guarantee the human rights of all. I'm sure the good Lord is just fine with this or we would be swimming after 40 days s of rain or turned into blocks of salt.

Butch


Nope. My post is a perfect example of the duplicity and intellectual dishonesty of this entire fork of the argument.

The same people who go on and on, ad nauseum, about a woman's right to murder her baby, march against capitol punishment and are the same ones that wish to use a "religious" argument about how (most) Christianity is against killing, but they refuse to be consistent.

I understand, Butch, the government is your god.

Good luck with that.



Michael



kdsub -> RE: Freedom From Atheism! (2/28/2016 2:13:12 PM)

lol... funny I usually get accused of being a fool for believing in God... I guess I just can't win. If you would like my views on the death penalty and God feel free to ask... but my answers will have nothing to do with the reality we are talking about.

I am of the personal responsibility way of thinking... Otherwise my God is in my heart and my personal actions. Because I believe in my God I don't feel I have the duty or right to force my beliefs on others. Thank all God's that our country was founded on the same thought. I would fight to keep it that way.

As an example… instead of trying to force my religious beliefs on abortion on others I donate to a local organization that gives women alternatives and support. I’ll just bet my approach saves more lives than most dumb ass anti-abortion protesters.

Butch



dcnovice -> RE: Freedom From Atheism! (2/28/2016 2:32:52 PM)

quote:

The law of the land, at least for now, is that abortion is legal under the Constitution. This law supersedes religious freedom.

Ever the Anglican, I think we can find a middle way: respecting both a woman's right to end her pregnancy and a doctor/nurse's freedom to decline taking part in one.



Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
5.859375E-02