Religious freedom?

[CiG]

This 'new atheism' is to me just as dogmatic and fundamentalist as the worst religion has to offer.

That's flat out wrong. Rude? Yes. Willing to decapitate apostates, kill gays and oppress women? No.

 

[Midas]

Religious freedom tend to mean "the right to discriminate or do idiotic things because my shitty book says so".
Want to pray to some worthless gods? Do it. As much as I think that nobody should because it is a sign of insanity, I think you should be able to.

Want to make me pray, or force other people's lives with your bullshit (i.e try to get it into politics/law)? This is where I have a serious problem with it. Religion has been around for too long. The respect for "religious freedom" is too great and has ruined countries everywhere. Take a look at Iraq, Iran, the corrupt cunts in USA, Bangladesh and so on. It is about time that humanity ridiculed this mental disease off of this planet because it is demonstrably harmful.

So... You should have the freedom to be mentally insane. (That's what it is. Faith is defined as belief without evidence. Only an idiot would believe x without evidence.)
You should not have the freedom to force your mental insanity onto others. Keep it to yourself, and try to get rid of the fucking thing.

 

[CiG]

Moronic landslide of words.

You don't understand freedom and it's people like you that fuck up countries with extreme secularism, ie communist shitholes.

Religious people are allowed to go into politics and if you think freedom of religion is a bad thing, you put yourself at risk with the other side of that coin, freedom from religion.

Read a book.

 

[Midas]

Moronic landslide of words.

You don't understand freedom and it's people like you that fuck up countries with extreme secularism, ie communist shitholes.

Religious people are allowed to go into politics and if you think freedom of religion is a bad thing, you put yourself at risk with the other side of that coin, freedom from religion.

Read a book.

Democratic socialism is a wonderful thing. Secularism doesn't necessarily lead to communism which you seem ignorantly unaware of. Just look at Denmark, or Sweden, or Norway.

Religious people are allowed to go into politics, nor did I say anything else, but they should not be allowed to push nonsensical religious agendas such as allowing discrimination of transgendered people and so on. If they do, they should have no place in the government.

Secularism, and democratic socialism are a great things. You clearly do not live in such a place (yet) and seem ignorant of the subject as you went from connecting secularism directly to communism, which is an incorrect stance.

Religion is like a pair of worn-out, rotting shoes.....They may fit for you, but don't force me to wear them.

 

[CiG]

I'm an atheist.

I didn't connect secularism with communism, I said extreme secularism as in, purging religion from a country and then forming non-religious authoritarian states. That is what scumbags like you do.

 

[Midas]

I'm an atheist.

I didn't connect secularism with communism, I said extreme secularism as in, purging religion from a country and then forming non-religious authoritarian states. That is what scumbags like you do.

An atheist huh? Let's dance.

Extreme secularism is an oxymoron.

"That is what scumbags like you do."

I have never done so, but it would be a good thing if religion was abandoned completely.

 

[CiG]

Why are you deflecting to the opinions of others? Typical card-carrying atheist lacking in their owns views, beliefs and moralities.

 

[Midas]

Why are you deflecting to the opinions of others? Typical card-carrying atheist lacking in their owns views, beliefs and moralities.

I share his views. Instead of writing it all out, I'll just save a few minutes by doing that so I can do other things instead. You seem to be lacking an argument for your position.

 

[CiG]

You don't even have an argument, by definition you have A.C. Grayling's argument in video form.

Define "good thing" in the case of completely abandoning religion if you don't mind. I'm no friend of religion, but I don't see how you can make such a bold claim.

 

[The Butt]

Religion should stay out of government, I definitely agree on that.

 

[CiG]

The way this person phrased their line in the sand (discriminating against transgender people) makes little sense though. You can't disqualify someone from democracy because they have religiously based views. If you think that, you're basically a piece of shit Leninist. So what exactly does "religion should stay out of government" mean beyond already existing separations of power?

 

[The Butt]

You can't disqualify someone from democracy because they have religiously based views.

Having religious-based views (even though I personally believe that religious faith is a sign of severe mental deficiency, but that's just my opinion) is one thing.

Trying to implement religious-based legislation (such as bills discriminatory of the LGBT community) is another, and I know you're smart enough to be able to tell the difference.

I can tolerate the former. The latter, in my view, is unacceptable, and I believe it is the duty of every sane man and woman to reject and shun such practice. This is what I mean by "keep religion out of government". Not everybody follows this fairytale, this delusion, that these people do, and they have literally no right to shove it down people's throats by legislating based on what the lead character in their favorite fiction would want.

 

[CiG]

Actually you're fundamentally wrong on point of fact, they have every right to make the attempt. But what do you mean by LGBT discrimination? That's a vague and loaded phrase.

 

[The Butt]

Actually you're fundamentally wrong on point of fact, they have every right to make the attempt.

No they don't. Forcing nonbelievers to follow laws based on the rules of a specific religion, is a violation of human rights in and of itself.

Substantiate your claims.

But what do you mean by LGBT discrimination? That's a vague and loaded phrase.

For example, the bill from North Carolina barring trans individuals from using the bathroom of their gender identity.

 

[CiG]

For example, the bill from North Carolina barring trans individuals from using the bathroom of their gender identity.

Though I don't care personally which bathroom anybody uses, I don't necessarily see how that bill specifically discriminates against trans people, I can see it much more as an attempt to deal with people taking advantage of quite new standards of gender identity i.e. a guy goes into a women's bathroom with bad intentions but has an excuse if caught because the standards are so flimsy when it comes to trans identity that a burly hairy shouldered man can say "I identify as a woman" and possibly avoid a charge.

Whether that's a likely scenario or not, I assume that's the kind of scenario those that passed the bill are more concerned with. Also not everybody accepts transgenderism as an actual legit group deserving of rights equivalent to gay people, as it's more akin to a mental health issue than it is to anything it's conflated with.

So I would say that's a bad example, you don't even have to be religious to agree with the intent of such a bill.

No they don't. Forcing nonbelievers to follow laws based on the rules of a specific religion, is a violation of human rights in and of itself.

Substantiate your claims.

My claim doesn't need to be substantiated yet because you haven't provided an example of religious people forcing ideological laws, bills, etc onto the populace that could represent some kind of line in the sand.

I'm saying that religious people have every right to attempt to have things passed that are specifically religious in nature, the idea being that they will either pass them with little to no push back (in which case you probably live in a religious country so nobody really minds) or you live in a democracy where you will struggle to get a majority to agree with you. You cannot dismiss someone's right to campaign for certain things because they're religiously based, that would be authoritarian and anti-democratic.

If we can just dismiss people based on ideology, then lets start with the socialists and communists, why just the religious?

So again, examples?