Freedom FROM religion

If everything is a religion then I demand all of my activities to be non-taxable.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Arella Mae- I don't think that you have a complete understanding of the issue. I have no problem with people practicing their religion privately. I just don't want the government involved with religion, in any way.

If the churches don't pay taxes, then, in effect, all of us, whether we believe in your religion or not, are paying for your religion. Would you like to be forced to donate some of your hard earned money to an atheist group? Get it now?

Sure I get it Phoenix. All I can suggest is that you and those that feel the same way lobby to have the laws changed. I don't have a problem with that.

It just seems to me that some of the comments made go a bit beyond what you are stating here. If I misunderstood that then I do apologize.

0 Replies

There is no need to change any laws, because the law does not now allow the insinuation of religion into government and government-supported public activities. All that is necessary is to prevent the nut cases from changing the law to allow religion to be foisted onto those who don't want it.

0 Replies

Well then what the heck are you complaing about? If you don't like the way something is being done then you lobby to change it.

If you don't like the way this is being handled then lobby to change it! That's how things are supposed to work. Exercise your rights! That's what I do and so do plenty of others. If you feel this is being done and it is in error then lobby to change it!

So one of two things is going on here: 1) these churches, etc., are acting within the limits of the law and you don't like it; or 2) they are acting outside the limits of the law and you obviously just want to complain about it and make excuses for not doing anything about it. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Arella Mae wrote:

Well then what the heck are you complaing about? If you don't like the way something is being done then you lobby to change it.

If you don't like the way this is being handled then lobby to change it! That's how things are supposed to work. Exercise your rights! That's what I do and so do plenty of others. If you feel this is being done and it is in error then lobby to change it!

So one of two things is going on here: 1) these churches, etc., are acting within the limits of the law and you don't like it; or 2) they are acting outside the limits of the law and you obviously just want to complain about it and make excuses for not doing anything about it.

who is this directed at?

0 Replies

Arella Mae wrote:

So one of two things is going on here: 1) these churches, etc., are acting within the limits of the law and you don't like it; or 2) they are acting outside the limits of the law and you obviously just want to complain about it and make excuses for not doing anything about it.

Typical MOAN horseshit--you didn't read the thread, did you? You just jumped in and began shooting off your big mouth. Neo started a thread in which he asked if we should be free from religion. In my very first post i stated that we are free from religion, and that it should stay that way.

Then you come along and start ranting without having read the thread, and making statements without any basis in fact. I have not, and i know of no one here who has complained that any specific church has acted outside the law.

You just make yourself look like an idiot when you stomp around ranting as you have here, when it is so obvious that you haven't read the thread.

0 Replies

Here ya go, MOAN, this is Neo's first post:

neologist wrote:

Would we all be better off if, instead of our having freedom of religion, we were to have freedom from religion?

To which i responded as follows:

Setanta wrote:

I think we are already free from religion. I don't take strong drink--but it doesn't bother me to drive past a bar, and to know that people are getting high in there [This sentence refers to a remark made by Sozobe.].

But no one has the right to come into my home and make me drink whiskey. Equally, no one has the right to make me attend divine service, or to listen to their religious rant. This is a problem for some people on the religious right, who claim their rights are infringed by not being allowed to proclaim their religious creed in the course of public, state-sponsored events. But that's their problem, not mine.

Before i became active online, i went from one year to another without ever discussing religion with anyone (and usually without discussing politics, either). It is still true that religion does not impinge on my daily life when i'm not online talking to nut cases like Neo--hey, buddy, is the coffee pot on?

I think we are free from religion, and it should stay that way.

You have a serious doesn't look before leaping problem.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Arella Mae wrote:
So one of two things is going on here: 1) these churches, etc., are acting within the limits of the law and you don't like it; or 2) they are acting outside the limits of the law and you obviously just want to complain about it and make excuses for not doing anything about it.

Typical MOAN horseshit--you didn't read the thread, did you? You just jumped in and began shooting off your big mouth. Neo started a thread in which he asked if we should be free from religion. In my very first post i stated that we are free from religion, and that it should stay that way.

Then you come along and start ranting without having read the thread, and making statements without any basis in fact. I have not, and i know of no one here who has complained that any specific church has acted outside the law.

You just make yourself look like an idiot when you stomp around ranting as you have here, when it is so obvious that you haven't read the thread.

Yes I read the thread! Phoenix made some comments about taxes and churches, etc. Good grief! Read the thread yourself! I was commenting on some of that.

I will ask you kindly, once again, to not refer to me as MOAN. My ID has been changed for quite awhile and I take your refusal to respect that as a clear sign of your intent and character.

0 Replies

I'm not sure why he gets away with that constantly, Arella. It's a clear violation of the TOS. He'll sure run to the moderators like a little girl with a boo-boo if he feels he's been offended in any way, but he gets away with calling you MOAN, even though it's obviously intended to do nothing but offend.

But I'll continue bringing it to their attention. Maybe the hypocrisy of continuing to let him get away with it will become apparent.

0 Replies

Interesting thread.

I do agree that organised practice around any common theme (e.g. a sports team) can be termed religion in a "totemic" sense (see Durkheim and others). That's a sociological view, not the common use of the word "religion".

It honestly disturbs me, however, that the operation of a government can be determined by a particular "faith" religion (the way we usually use the word). Particularly disturbing to me are those countries who claim "God is on our side".

It distresses me that Bush 43 used references to "God" (presumably the Christian god) in his announcements around the Iraq invasion and the combatting of terrorism.

This is demonstrative of an "unholy" (excuse the pun) alliance of religion and politics, seen also predominantly in the Islamic states of the Middle East.

I believe most other G7 leaders would not call on any god to support them in their political objectives (except perhaps in private), though it's difficult to prove this negative proposition!

What I would call for is a freedom of politics FROM religion. Without this, religious war and "crusades" are all too probable.

0 Replies

MOAN told me i should lobby to change things, and claimed i had only two choices to deal with churches which i alleged were infringing my rights. I did not allege that any church had infringed my rights, i had pointed out to her that there was no need to change the law, and i even went so far as to quote my first post to demonstrate it. It just doesn't sink in with her, because she, like Snood, comes in here to rant, with judgments of others already in place, completely unable to understand that someone with whom she habitually disagrees might not actually have said what she wants to believe that person believes.

Snood and MOAN provide perfect examples of close-minded riglious prejudice, and now Snood whines about having been banned for sending me PMs in which one of the mildest epithets he used was son-of-a-bitch. Grow up, the both of you.

0 Replies

technically, xmas is not a Christian holiday. Jesus was born in march, says the bible and december 25th is a pagan date that the bloody catholics used to ease the move between the 2 ''religions''.

i think that it is weird how you all accuse religious people of forcing their views on you, when in my experince in all areas of life it's the other way round. usually, it's the non-belivers who start the conversations or the arguments, and all believers do is argue the case based on what questions are asked, never have i ever personally seen a genuine religious believer start ranting and raving on the street, or in a pub, or any public place about how everybody is wrong and they're right. and i know what your arguments against that will be so please take into account that i said a GENUINE beliver.

0 Replies

You tell someone to grow up while refusing to let go of a childish insult using an offensive name for someone who has asked you to stop. that's all I commented on - your use of the name MOAN, for Arella.

You have nowhere to stand, being obviously wrong for continuing to use the epithet you fashioned after a name no longer in use, so you conjur months-old injuries to hide behind.

You grow up, and move on. And stop using that name for her, like she has all but begged you to do. Stop being such a pathetic bully. You know dang well you wouldn't be that nasty face-to-face.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

He'll sure run to the moderators like a little girl with a boo-boo if he feels he's been offended in any way

I am really shocked, (well, not really). You are the first person who rails at anything that is even remotely related to racism. Yet, you have no compunctions about making a blatantly sexist remark.

0 Replies

Translation: You left a huge, gaping escape hatch in your argument.

What the Americans in this thread have been discussing is freedom from religious expression which is sponsored by the state--it's a "not with my tax dollars" argument. Otherwise, the consensus among those here who do not subscribe to an organizaed religion is that we (in the United States) are already free from religion. Some few have suggested that churchs here ought to be taxed--some are poor little affairs, but others are immensely wealthy, with huge property and investment holdings. I don't happen to be one of them, for the simple pragmatic reason that i know no politician would ever back such a measure.

Perhaps you misunderstand because you live in a country with a religious establishment. Perhpas you misunderstand because ranting religionists are far less common than they are in the United States. No one here has said that they have been accosted by religious ranters in public places, whether or not you would consider them "genuine" believers. I do note that you couldn't resist a sneer at Catholicism, a character flaw common among Protestants.

I have seen the odd street-corner religious ranter, but they are not common. I (and i'm sure many others here in the United States) have had religious proselytizers come to the doo--this is especially common among Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. But, significantly, those in this thread who do not subscribe to organized religion have not complained about being publicly accosted by religious nut cases, but have only remarked that they don't want to see the government promote religion by permitting or paying for religious expression in public, state-sponsored events.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

snood wrote:
He'll sure run to the moderators like a little girl with a boo-boo if he feels he's been offended in any way

I am really shocked, (well, not really). You are the first person who rails at anything that is even remotely related to racism. Yet, you have no compunctions about making a blatantly sexist remark.

...just like clockwork...

Which sexist remark is that, Phoenix?

0 Replies

rockpie wrote:

never have i ever personally seen a genuine religious believer start ranting and raving on the street, or in a pub, or any public place about how everybody is wrong and they're right.

You have obviously never visited New York City!

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

rockpie wrote:
never have i ever personally seen a genuine religious believer start ranting and raving on the street, or in a pub, or any public place about how everybody is wrong and they're right.

You have obviously never visited New York City!

or Denver Colorado, or Albuquerque New Mexico.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Which sexist remark is that, Phoenix?

Games, games, games. If you can't figure it out for yourself, fuggedaboudit. I see that your "sensitivity antenna" is tuned to only one channel!

0 Replies

snood wrote:

You grow up, and move on.

You brought up the issue of being reported to the moderators. If you were to grow up and move on, then perhaps we'd have no more examples of you whining about being banned because you couldn't govern your temper nor cleanp up your foul mouth.

0 Replies

Freedom FROM religion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know