Christians suck; world still turns

[AchrisK]

Interesting. Today my pastor said that we would not be hearing any political discussion from the pulpit, and I am glad. I have attended this church from 1988-1994 and came back a couple of years ago, and honestly, I can't say that I have ever heard any political discussion from him. Same is true from the church we were at for about 10 years in between. That is not the purpose of the church.

...but some of you guys seem to get a little bit disproportionally angry with anything you disagree with in regards to Christians. Although I agree with the separation of church and state, and with free speech, I think it has set up a double standard where everything BUT Christianity is acceptable.

 

[FerretallicA]

Although I agree with the separation of church and state, and with free speech, I think it has set up a double standard where everything BUT Christianity is acceptable.

I think a lot of proud self-professed Atheists also get carried away with things and confuse freedom of religion with freedom from religion.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

...but some of you guys seem to get a little bit disproportionally angry with anything you disagree with in regards to Christians. Although I agree with the separation of church and state, and with free speech, I think it has set up a double standard where everything BUT Christianity is acceptable.

Yeah, well after 1500 years of Christianity causing war, despotism, and suffering, a few statesmen decided it was a good idea to create that double-standard.

It doesn't fucking mean you can't be religious. It just means that, like Nazism, Christianity was given its chance at total control and failed miserably.

 

[cookiecutter]

...but some of you guys seem to get a little bit disproportionally angry with anything you disagree with in regards to Christians. Although I agree with the separation of church and state, and with free speech, I think it has set up a double standard where everything BUT Christianity is acceptable.

Come on. The Christian Right is an incredibly powerful political force. This is not to mention retarded Catholics telling people to vote purely about abortion. Our energy is expended primarily against Christians because they are the main group trying to inject religion into politics. The Jewish lobby is also powerful and that's not good either, but Christianity is a much bigger threat to progress.

I think a lot of proud self-professed Atheists also get carried away with things and confuse freedom of religion with freedom from religion.

Do me a favor and attempt to utilize that organ we call the brain. Seriously you are embarrassingly dumb. If my religious choice is not to have religion, then I have just as much right to be free from religion as a religious person has to be free from irreligion. Being neutral on religion is what government should be, and not allowing Christians to put their medieval superstitions into law is being neutral. Otherwise everyone not a member of the majority would suffer. This should be obvious.

 

[genocide roach]

I think a lot of proud self-professed Atheists also get carried away with things and confuse freedom of religion with freedom from religion.

freedom of religion includes freedom from it. period, end of discussion
~gR~

 

[FerretallicA]

If my religious choice is not to have religion, then I have just as much right to be free from religion as a religious person has to be free from irreligion.

For someone who speaks of embarrassing stupidity you do a good job of completely missing the point. Let's try a different angle since apparently your one-track mind struggles to maintain multiple perspectives of an argument simultaneously. Try NOT being a complete fucking moron for a second and answer this question directly.

Do I have:
a) as much right
b) more right
c) less right
...to a society free from homosexuality as you do to a society free from religion?

I'll explain where I'm leading with that once you've answered (I wouldn't want to confuse you with too much information at once).

 

[FerretallicA]

freedom of religion includes freedom from it. period, end of discussion
~gR~

No. Freedom of religion includes the freedom of personally having no religion. It is not the same as seeking universal liberation from all religion and seeing it as evil, dumbing down the population etc etc. That's basically saying everyone should share your particular religious view (that is, no religion at all) and that anything else is bullshit. That is not freedom of religion. That is enforced non-religion.

It just means that, like Nazism, Christianity was given its chance at total control and failed miserably.

So... you're equating Nazism with Christianity...

What a clever strawman you've constructed there.

:Smug:

 

[CAIRATH]

Do I have:
a) as much right
b) more right
c) less right
...to a society free from homosexuality as you do to a society free from religion?

I'll explain where I'm leading with that once you've answered (I wouldn't want to confuse you with too much information at once).

Maybe you should explain it now, because as it stands your argument is not off to a good start by putting two things on the same plane that are infact very different. Religion is an ideology, homosexuality is not (unless you are one of those people who believes that gay people go out of their way to choose to be gay, in which case you're up against a rather large pile of evidence that strongly suggests otherwise, along with common sense which should also be pointing in that direction).

So yeah, I'd like to see where you were going with this.

 

[FerretallicA]

So you would be saying I have less (or no) right then?

 

[skeptik]

You have absolutely no right whatsoever, living in the US, to be free from homosexuality. In the exact same sense that you are not free from heterosexuality. My fucking god if you are as ugly as you are stupid then I think you should call Guinness, because we've got a record on our hands.

 

[Mort Divine]

 

[zabu of nΩd]

 

[Mort Divine]

haha, i was in tears over that for a minute or two

 

[FerretallicA]

You have absolutely no right whatsoever, living in the US, to be free from homosexuality. In the exact same sense that you are not free from heterosexuality.

While not where I was originally going with it, take your statement right there. Would you then say that, living in the US - or anywhere in the world for that matter - you have no right to be free from religion in the same sense that you have no right to be free from Atheism/Agnosticism/etc?

Again, try to answer without the typical sensationalist cocksucker overtones.

 

[Mort Divine]

False point, this country was founded on freedom of religion which IMPLIES freedom FROM religion. There is nothing in this countries constitution that states freedom from homosexuality.

 

[skeptik]

While not where I was originally going with it, take your statement right there. Would you then say that, living in the US - or anywhere in the world for that matter - you have no right to be free from religion in the same sense that you have no right to be free from Atheism/Agnosticism/etc?

Again, try to answer without the typical sensationalist cocksucker overtones.

It depends in what context you mean "free from". In this country, citizens are supposed to have the right to not have the government interfere in their religious practices or lackthereof. In other countries, that obviously depends on the law. If it's a theocracy, then you sure as fuck are not free from religion. That does not mean that you're free to burn down churches or anything of that nature. This is something that's so fucking obvious that shouldn't need to be said though.

 

[FerretallicA]

False point, this country was founded on freedom of religion which IMPLIES freedom FROM religion. There is nothing in this countries constitution that states freedom from homosexuality.

Even though trying to make out as though the Constitution has anything to do with your reasoning is laughable, it's worth stating for the record:

1) Freedom of religion was an amendment to the constitution, not a concept it was 'founded on'.
2) Speaking in terms of the Constitution, the country was 'founded on' the right to keep people in a state of slavery. Does that make it OK?
3) The country was 'founded on' a strong foundation of racial discrimination, with racial suffrage not being brought in until a much later amendment.

I'm not from the US so really don't care enough about it all to have ever read up in much depth but I'm sure if I wanted to I could pick holes in the constitution you were 'founded on' just as easily.

So back to actually answering instead of dodging the question with "false points"...

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

You're just fucking dumb, go away.

 

[Crimson Velvet]

I browsed over the discussion, and I can't for the life of me understand why you guys are comparing homosexuality - a personal lifestyle choice - to christianity - an institution built upon the principle of affecting as many people as possible, whether they want to or not. It seems silly to me...

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

It is silly, it's an argument constructed by stupid morons to try to prove a poorly-thought-up point.