# Anti-theists what sort of laws would you support?



## CannonFodder (Sep 18, 2011)

What I mean by that is like obviously there are laws that say religious leaders can't have sermons and that at schools and that in the u.s., obviously the laws are skirted by having students teach instead.
Or the banning of the burqa in france?
Like how people propose taxing churches and that, all of which are relatively tame compared to some ideas out there.  But would you support more extreme laws like outlawing places of worship or such?  and how far would be too far in your book?


----------



## BRN (Sep 18, 2011)

"First, do no harm" - though that's Hippocrates, and not Mill, I stand by the 'harm principle'. That is: 

"The only occasion at which power can be rightfully used to limit the freedom of a member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to somebody else." 

There shouldn't be laws against thiests, just as there shouldn't be laws against 'heresy'. Either is discrimination. There should be laws to tackle religious _extremism_ and against the places in which extremism develops, but not the practice of religion in general. I don't care what someone else does if it doesn't involve me.


----------



## Ikrit (Sep 18, 2011)

true separation of church and state


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 18, 2011)

Ikrit said:


> true separation of church and state


Which would entail what exactly?  Cause that's pretty vague.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 18, 2011)

Ikrit said:


> true separation of church and state


I'm a theist and I totally agree with that!


CannonFodder said:


> Which would entail what exactly?  Cause that's pretty vague.


Well, beyond keeping public school secular (let religious instruction take place at home and/or church),  I'd like to see the government get out of the business of marriage.  Marriage for thousands of years has been a union between two people, according to whatever faith they believe in.  Why does government need to be involved at all?  I find it infuriating that the government has to recognize ministers or judges who can legally sign a marriage license to make it valid!  Replace the idiotic & toothless marriage license with a civil union to handle all the legal stuff.  Once you have that, you're legally bound together in the eyes of the law and (if you choose) you can go have whatever marriage ceremony you want, done however you want.  If you want your dog to marry you, it's your choice.

I find the fact that government's involved in marrying people, especially the fact that government has a list of recognized ministers, personally offensive and a clear violation of the principle of separation of church & state.


----------



## Azure (Sep 18, 2011)

Ban it all, it's worse than drugs. Culture be damned, nothing good comes out of it these days.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 18, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Which would entail what exactly?  Cause that's pretty vague.



The church cannot mingle with political affairs and the government cannot make any law that affects the churches. (Like forcing them to marry gay people as an easy example)


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 18, 2011)

Telnac said:


> I'm a theist and I totally agree with that!


*BZZT* Hold on a second there's only such a thing as relative truths, so that would mean a "true" separation of church and state would in turn be relative.  Meaning how would YOU as a person define, "true" separation of church and state?


Aleu said:


> The church cannot mingle with political affairs and  the government cannot make any law that affects the churches. (Like  forcing them to marry gay people as an easy example)


But how would you even go about doing this, cause all it'd take is for a well known religious figure to blog about it and tell people to vote for someone and then there goes the separation.


----------



## Fay V (Sep 18, 2011)

Well. I'm Atheist, not Anti-theist, but really I just shoot for equality when I think of laws. Taxing churches sounds okay to me considering the mega churches out there, but at the same time there really are small community churches that deserve that non-tax status to help the people that attend the church. 
I think I'd like to pass laws to be sure that non-profit organizations are really non-profit. 

Really going too far would be when you are impeding the rights of others. Banning places of worship is impeding someone's right to worship.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 18, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Well. I'm Atheist, not Anti-theist, but really I just shoot for equality when I think of laws. Taxing churches sounds okay to me considering the mega churches out there, but at the same time there really are small community churches that deserve that non-tax status to help the people that attend the church.
> I think I'd like to pass laws to be sure that non-profit organizations are really non-profit.
> 
> Really going too far would be when you are impeding the rights of others. Banning places of worship is impeding someone's right to worship.


What if someone proposed a law saying that people can't pray publicly, like how so many people pray before eating a meal?


----------



## Lobar (Sep 18, 2011)

In exchange for the tax-free status granted by the 1st amendment, there needs to be no government funds or property used to benefit any religious organization or promote any religious message.  They can have access to emergency services, but the city should be able to charge a fee if they wish.

Edit:



CannonFodder said:


> What if someone proposed a law saying that people can't pray publicly, like how so many people pray before eating a meal?



I wouldn't support this and neither would most.  The key litmus test is if the government provides any support for religious activity or messages.  What people do privately of their own volition is not the government's business.  We don't need censorship to overcome superstition.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 18, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What I mean by that is like obviously there are laws that say religious leaders can't have sermons and that at schools and that in the u.s., obviously the laws are skirted by having students teach instead.


We have 'sermons' or equilavent weekly at my school but they are not only given by religious leaders and such. Some teachers just turn it off because it disturbs the class.

Oh, the joy of 'de facto state religion'. Won't keep going on forever as it's shrinking one per cent a year!



> Or the banning of the burqa in france?


The ban includes that if someone forces a woman to wear a burqa they're fined hard. So I wouldn't call it merely a slash against religious freedom.

And, of course, France is not too big on anything overly religious - some wounds never heal.



> Like how people propose taxing churches and that, all of which are relatively tame compared to some ideas out there.


Ironically here the church taxes us. D:

Even if you aren't registered to a denomination the church has a right to tax companies and other foundations a 'community tax' (of which parishes get 2,55%).


----------



## Aleu (Sep 18, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> But how would you even go about doing this, cause all it'd take is for a well known religious figure to blog about it and tell people to vote for someone and then there goes the separation.


If they're acting on their own interests then it's not really the church interfering. I'm talking about funding like what happened with Prop 8.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 18, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What if someone proposed a law saying that people can't pray publicly, like how so many people pray before eating a meal?


Such a law would violate the clause in the 1st Amendment against free exercise of one's faith.


----------



## Onnes (Sep 18, 2011)

I think my position can be summed up in three points:
Faith-based organizations should be taxed.
Faith-based organizations should be required to adhere to non-discrimination rules in order to receive any sort of state or federal funds.
Faith-based organizations should not be exempted from those laws that would otherwise apply to a non-faith-based organization.

Basically, just because you call something a church doesn't mean it should have special advantageous privileges under the law.



Aleu said:


> The church cannot mingle with political affairs and the government cannot make any law that affects the churches. (Like forcing them to marry gay people as an easy example)



Should churches therefore be exempt from zoning and other land use laws?


----------



## Fay V (Sep 18, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What if someone proposed a law saying that people can't pray publicly, like how so many people pray before eating a meal?


Then...that would be impeding their rights...prayer is free speech. 
Now maybe I need to clarify. There are times when prayer may not be appropriate. You can't slaughter a pig in the middle of a busy street because baconismo will grant you good favor (or flavor) if you do. If your method of prayer impedes the rights of others then it should not be allowed in a public place. This is the same reasoning behind not being able to yell obscenities at people in public, or fire in a crowded area. Of course this is a grey area, but it's equal for everyone in terms of speech. 

So too long didn't read. If you want to pray before eating, go for it. If you want to quote hitchiker's guide, go for it. If you want to force others to pray before eating, tough shit.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 18, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> We have 'sermons' or equilavent weekly at my school but they are not only given by religious leaders and such. Some teachers just turn it off because it disturbs the class.
> 
> Oh, the joy of 'de facto state religion'. Won't keep going on forever as it's shrinking one per cent a year!
> 
> ...


The great irony is that in nations where there is no separation between church & state, a far lower percentage of the population tend to be believers.  I read an interesting article (I wish I could find it so I could link to it) that suggested the reason there are so many more believers in the USA is that churches have to compete with each other and pack the pews in order to survive.  As a result, proselytizing is much more pervasive here than in nations where the church is an extension of the state.

The separation of church & state may end up being be the best thing ever to happen to churches!


----------



## Aleu (Sep 18, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Should churches therefore be exempt from zoning and other land use laws?



No because it's not church specific.


----------



## Fay V (Sep 18, 2011)

Telnac said:


> The great irony is that in nations where there is no separation between church & state, a far lower percentage of the population tend to be believers.  I read an interesting article (I wish I could find it so I could link to it) that suggested the reason there are so many more believers in the USA is that churches have to compete with each other and pack the pews in order to survive.  As a result, proselytizing is much more pervasive here than in nations where the church is an extension of the state.
> 
> The separation of church & state may end up being be the best thing ever to happen to churches!



I don't think it was meant to harm the churches at all. I don't think anyone was expecting the kind of bloody brutality that came from the catholic and protestant skirmishes but the idea of the seperation wasn't purely to protect the state from church...but more to protect churches from the state, particularly anyone that isn't the national religion. 

That info is really interesting though


----------



## FluffMouse (Sep 18, 2011)

The no booze on Sundays law needs to change. :< Shits bull. Don't tell me I can't drink on Sunday just because your God is a tightass.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 18, 2011)

Telnac said:


> The great irony is that in nations where there is no separation between church & state, a far lower percentage of the population tend to be believers.  I read an interesting article (I wish I could find it so I could link to it) that suggested the reason there are so many more believers in the USA is that churches have to compete with each other and pack the pews in order to survive.  As a result, proselytizing is much more pervasive here than in nations where the church is an extension of the state.
> 
> The separation of church & state may end up being be the best thing ever to happen to churches!


Also not to mention the fact that churches adapt to the new generations and modernize, the people that talk as if religion is going extinct in america are full of it, cause people have been saying that for far longer than any of us have been alive.  If I had to take a guess I'd say the far right evangelism movement is directly fueling the increase in agnosticism, cause if you don't want people to end up hating <insert group> don't tie it up with politics.  The reason being is if your organization is tied into politics and all of a sudden the party you are sleeping with becomes unpopular it's going to kick your organization in the nuts as well simply being linked to them.


----------



## Unsilenced (Sep 18, 2011)

Churches should be allowed to run like any other group or organization with neither preferential nor discriminatory treatment. 




Also why do you have to say anti-theist? That's a stupid phrase that makes atheists and agnostics sound like butthurt little children who just want to rebel against authority because that's what the cool kids are doing.


----------



## Fay V (Sep 18, 2011)

SugarMental said:


> The no booze on Sundays law needs to change. :< Shits bull. Don't tell me I can't drink on Sunday just because your God is a tightass.


Reminds me of the time I got stuck in Utah. Long story short if you have a really shitty day, don't get stuck in Utah. you can only have 1 shot.


----------



## FluffMouse (Sep 18, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Reminds me of the time I got stuck in Utah. Long story short if you have a really shitty day, don't get stuck in Utah. you can only have 1 shot.


 o-o Wh-aaat?


----------



## Onnes (Sep 18, 2011)

I think it's usually Denmark that comes up in discussions of a national church. In particular, 80% of the population belong to the Danish National Church, while only ~30% say they they believe in god (a higher percentage are otherwise spiritual, though.) Denmark is also supposed to be one of the most atheist countries on Earth. 

Interestingly, the Danish church doesn't have any kind of central authority other than the government itself, which prefers to be relatively hands off; the whole thing is meant to keep the church from becoming involved in politics.


----------



## Fay V (Sep 18, 2011)

SugarMental said:


> o-o Wh-aaat?


the beer has less alcohol content, and you can't have 2 shots of alcohol at dinner.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 18, 2011)

Telnac said:


> The great irony is that in nations where there is no separation between church & state, a far lower percentage of the population tend to be believers.


All Nordic countries' state churches (regardless if de facto or de jure) have a membership of 70-80% of the population but funny things happen in contrast to this.

Average weekly church attendance of 42% sounds unbelievable. Is it true? 



Onnes said:


> I think it's usually Denmark that comes up in  discussions of a national church. In particular, 80% of the population  belong to the Danish National Church, while only ~30% say they they  believe in god (a higher percentage are otherwise spiritual, though.)  Denmark is also supposed to be one of the most atheist countries on  Earth.


In 2005 31% of Danish citizens responded that "they  believe there is a god",  whereas 49% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or  life force" and 19% that "they do not believe there is any sort of  spirit, god, or life force".

I think the most irreligious country may be Japan; usually the non-believers represent 60-80% of the population.


----------



## FluffMouse (Sep 18, 2011)

Fay V said:


> the beer has less alcohol content, and you can't have 2 shots of alcohol at dinner.



That's sick. D: What is this world coming to?!


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 18, 2011)

Churches, religious people, and all that should be treated equally with no special benefits. If a church takes tithing, or any sort of donations, than they should be charged a small percent of that like anyone else that owns a building or what have you. Same with religious people, they should be treated the same in schools in regards to clothing - Such in the way of wearing a giant chest-wide cross would be considered 'distracting' or 'inappropriate' as an up-side-down cross would. 

Equality across the board, eh heh.


----------



## Onnes (Sep 18, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Average weekly church attendance of 42% sounds unbelievable. Is it true?



The 40% figures come from self-report surveys, and you can't trust people to say that they never bother showing up for services. Actual figures would be closer to 20%.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 18, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Also why do you have to say anti-theist? That's a stupid phrase that makes atheists and agnostics sound like butthurt little children who just want to rebel against authority because that's what the cool kids are doing.


Why do we have to use fundamentalist? That's a stupid phrase that makes theists and deists sound like religious nuts.


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Sep 18, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Which would entail what exactly?  Cause that's pretty vague.


Imho (atheist), that would mean that churches are treated like a private organisation, (for example, a football or a chess-club ), legal marriage (and all rights that come with it, like visiting rights in hospital) is done * only * by the state, they can still do their ceremonys or whatever, but legally those ceremonies are as  significant as what you ate last tuesday (ie not at all).


----------



## Bliss (Sep 18, 2011)

Onnes said:


> The 40% figures come from self-report surveys, and you can't trust people to say that they never bother showing up for services. Actual figures would be closer to 20%.


Compared to 1,5-2% that seems huge. D:


----------



## Telnac (Sep 18, 2011)

Yeah, laws limiting alcohol use on Sunday is stupid.  When I lived in WI there was another idiotic alcohol law that said you couldn't buy alcohol from a liquor store after 9pm, but you can drink all you like at a bar until 2am!  It's supposed to fight alcoholism (b/c many alcoholics drink home alone) but in reality it's a law that promotes drinking & driving.  If boozers can't buy a nightcap at 11pm, what are they going to do: stay sober or drive to a bar & get smashed before driving home?


----------



## ramsay_baggins (Sep 18, 2011)

Telnac said:


> Yeah, laws limiting alcohol use on Sunday is stupid.  When I lived in WI there was another idiotic alcohol law that said you couldn't buy alcohol from a liquor store after 9pm, but you can drink all you like at a bar until 2am!  It's supposed to fight alcoholism (b/c many alcoholics drink home alone) but in reality it's a law that promotes drinking & driving.  If boozers can't buy a nightcap at 11pm, what are they going to do: stay sober or drive to a bar & get smashed before driving home?



In Scotland you can only buy alcohol between 10am and 10pm. It's illegal to sell it outside those hours, though you can still be served in a licensed establishment. It's supposed to be to curve alcoholism, but it hasn't really. It's just ended up annoying loads of people.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Sep 18, 2011)

I'm a theist Pagan/Voodoo witch doctor and I say is place laws against the radicals to prevent any major violence. It's pointless to be an extremist.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 18, 2011)

In regards to the specific examples, religion texts and sermons are fine if being studied as literature/public speaking, and not as actual proselytizing.  Banning places of worship outright is something I wouldn't support, but I'd be fine if places of worship and preaching were confined to properly zoned areas much like commercial and industrial businesses and advertising are. And given how much money churches get each year, taxing them is not out of the question either.


Atheists don't necessarily want the complete abolition of religion, (While they wouldn't mind it not being there entirely there's no practical or ethical way to force it's removal like that.), they just wish religious people weren't able to fuck things up for everyone else. :V


----------



## Aetius (Sep 18, 2011)

When they bring back and mandate witch hunts, I am rejoining the Catholic Church. :v


----------



## Bliss (Sep 18, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> When they bring back and mandate witch hunts, I am rejoining the Catholic Church. :v


You are basically asking to get your shit smacked, darling. >:V


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Sep 18, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> When they bring back and mandate witch hunts, I am rejoining the Catholic Church. :v


That's if the witches don't place a spell before :V


----------



## Lobar (Sep 18, 2011)

SugarMental said:


> The no booze on Sundays law needs to change. :< Shits bull. Don't tell me I can't drink on Sunday just because your God is a tightass.



These are called blue laws and they are a right pain in the ass.  Another key part in seperating church and state is ensuring all proposed legislation has a compelling secular state interest.  They have no right to force compliance from everyone to their religious restrictions.



Aleu said:


> Why do we have to use fundamentalist? That's a stupid phrase that makes theists and deists sound like religious nuts.



The word "fundamentalist" is their own term, and all negative connotations it carries are the result of years of tainting it with their own actions.  In and of itself, the word should not be offensive.  Fundamentals are good, right?


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 18, 2011)

PenningtontheSkunk said:


> That's if the witches don't place a spell before :V


Wicca: "Stupif-
Catholic church: "Expelliarmus!"
Catholic church: "Ava Kedavra!"


----------



## Bliss (Sep 18, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Wicca: "Stupif-
> Catholic church: "Expelliarmus!"
> Catholic church: "Ava Kedavra!"


This is worthy.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Sep 18, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Wicca: "Stupif-
> Catholic church: "Expelliarmus!"
> Catholic church: "Ava Kedavra!"


Harry Potter's awesome. XD


----------



## Aleu (Sep 18, 2011)

Lobar said:


> The word "fundamentalist" is their own term, and all negative connotations it carries are the result of years of tainting it with their own actions.  In and of itself, the word should not be offensive.  Fundamentals are good, right?


Anti-theist isn't offensive either, at least not to atheists and agnostics (or shouldn't be anyway). Anti-theists oppose gods or a supreme being and don't necessarily disbelieve there is one. 

I was just pointing out that Unsilenced's assumptions are quite silly.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 18, 2011)

Words are only as offensive as you let them be.  As a Christian, I don't find the term "fundamentalist" offensive at all, but I've known people who freak out if someone calls them that.  I don't see why.  Like Lobar said: fundamentalism isn't a bad thing in and of itself.  By definition, it's just the core of some belief set.  It's the assholes who picket funerals and carry signs that say "God hates fags" that give fundamentalists a bad name.  Unfortunately, we can't pass an "anti-asshole" law in this country.  Those pricks have the same right to say whatever they want as I do.  Thankfully, I have the right to not listen to them.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 18, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Anti-theist isn't offensive either, at least not to atheists and agnostics (or shouldn't be anyway). Anti-theists oppose gods or a supreme being and don't necessarily disbelieve there is one.
> 
> I was just pointing out that Unsilenced's assumptions are quite silly.


Yeah if someone's skin is so thin that they get upset over the term, "anti-theist" then why are they even on FaF to begin with?


----------



## Lobar (Sep 18, 2011)

I don't agree with Unsilenced either, but your counterpoint was faulty and it needed pointing out.  Anyways, antitheism (against theism) is being opposed to _belief_ in gods.  I am openly antitheist.


----------



## Fay V (Sep 18, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Yeah if someone's skin is so thin that they get upset over the term, "anti-theist" then why are they even on FaF to begin with?


Depends on how it's used. For instance I'm not anti-theist. I have nothing against those that want to believe. Yet trying to apply the term to me in terms of my arguments is offensive to me. 
No one has done that yet, but mislabels can be very offensive.

edit: you know. Like when someone tries to argue for gay rights and someone else says "well you're just saying that because you're gay" that is offensive if the person is straight. Not because the label is offensive but because it means they are completely incapable of arguing one side at all. It's an insult to their intelligence.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Sep 18, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Yeah if someone's skin is so thin that they get upset over the term, "anti-theist" then why are they even on FaF to begin with?


I don't think anti-theist is offensive, but it shouldn't be used as a  synonym to atheist. The two mean pretty radically different things. The  "anti-" prefix means "opposed to." The "a-" prefix has about a billion  different meanings, but in the context of atheist, it means "without."  An anti-theist would act or think in opposition of a hypothetical deity  (and may actually believe in the deity in the process); an atheist just  doesn't believe in the deity. I think that some self-identified atheists  do act more like anti-theists, the root philosophies are actually  pretty different. For example, I am an atheist, but I'm not really  against religion or any particular deity. There are even some religious  concepts that I continue to embrace. (I was raise Catholic and maintain  many of the morals I was taught through that.) I can see the place that  belief in a deity has in society; it just doesn't have a place in my  personal life. 

I would get a little ruffled at being called an  anti-theist not because the word itself is insulting, but because it's a  misnomer and misconception. Sort of like mixing up transvestite and  transsexual. Nothing wrong with being transvestite vs. transsexual, but it's not the same thing. 

I would comment on the actual thread topic, but it's not addressed to me. :V (Actually I ran out of my 15-minute break.)


EDIT: Dang, Fay beat me to it.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 18, 2011)

Lobar said:


> I don't agree with Unsilenced either, but your counterpoint was faulty and it needed pointing out.  Anyways, antitheism (against theism) is being opposed to _belief_ in gods.  I am openly antitheist.



My argument was just as flawed as his in more or less the same manner. Which was the point :V


----------



## Gavrill (Sep 18, 2011)

Complete anarchy because I am a godless heathen

also lowering the age of alcohol consumption to 18


----------



## BRN (Sep 18, 2011)

Gavrill said:


> also lowering the age of alcohol consumption to 18



Hi this is England and we're about 235 years ahead of you in that respect


----------



## Gavrill (Sep 18, 2011)

SIX said:


> Hi this is England and we're about 235 years ahead of you in that respect


fuck you guys and your fancy hats >:c


----------



## Unsilenced (Sep 18, 2011)

"Anti-theist" can refer to someone who believes in a god but claims not to/preaches against it as a gesture of defiance against it or the religious institution that supports it. Because of this, people sometimes use the term as a way to dismiss atheists. "You don't really not believe in god. You're just saying that cuz u mad." 

I get that you're not really trying to do that, and I admit that my first post was pretty knee-jerk, but it still annoys me to see people use it interchangeably with "atheist." 

Now, of course, if you actually didn't mean to address atheists at all and were really looking for opinions from actual anti-theists, then I guess I (and more than a few responders to the thread) have completely misstepped. -.-


----------



## Lobar (Sep 18, 2011)

Atheism, antitheism, skepticism, freeethought, materialism, naturalism and humanism are all pretty closely related, and there is a lot of overlap between them, but none are the exactly the same.


----------



## Blutide (Sep 18, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What I mean by that is like obviously there are laws that say religious leaders can't have sermons and that at schools and that in the u.s., obviously the laws are skirted by having students teach instead.
> Or the banning of the burqa in france?
> Like how people propose taxing churches and that, all of which are relatively tame compared to some ideas out there.  But would you support more extreme laws like outlawing places of worship or such?  and how far would be too far in your book?



Fair ones.

:|

Don't start with that, " But what is your definition of fair? " Shit either. If people don't know what fair is, you shouldn't be posting in this thread, on that note don't complain about fair either. Life sucks, we live here on the same rock and we have to deal with each other. 

That's all I am willing to say, honestly I am tired posting this. buh, excuse it if this comes off as rough.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 18, 2011)

Damn if FaF, I understand what the term anti-theist means and I was using it correctly.  To use a analogy it'd be like if I made a thread titled, "atheists, why do you not believe in any deity or such?"
*headdesk*
I was just asking a specific audience originally.


----------



## Onnes (Sep 18, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Damn if FaF, I understand what the term anti-theist means and I was using it correctly.  To use a analogy it'd be like if I made a thread titled, "atheists, why do you not believe in any deity or such?"
> *headdesk*
> I was just asking a specific audience originally.



So you really only wanted anti-theists to respond? I think people are just in disbelief that you'd direct a forum post to such a specific group.

My general problem with the anti-theist designation is that it seems to imply a desire to convert believers to nonbelievers. Once you go from talking about your own beliefs to those of the population around you, you enter dangerous territory.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 18, 2011)

Onnes said:


> So you really only wanted anti-theists to respond? I think people are just in disbelief that you'd direct a forum post to such a specific group.
> 
> My general problem with the anti-theist designation is that it seems to imply a desire to convert believers to nonbelievers. Once you go from talking about your own beliefs to those of the population around you, you enter dangerous territory.


*headdesk*
*blood*
I understand that while anti-theism and atheism is similar, there can be a anti-theist religious person, just like there can be a theist atheist.  If I had asked, "atheists" instead people would be bitching about being typecasted and not to mention I'd have used the term wrong, so I asked the specific audience of the group I wanted to ask instead.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 18, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Like when someone tries to argue for gay rights and someone else says "well you're just saying that because you're gay" that is offensive if the person is straight.


That is _by least_ a stupid rebuttal. To me it seems offensive regardless if the person in question is straight or not.

"Well, you're just saying that because you're a woman."

...

D:<



Blutide said:


> Fair ones.
> 
> :|
> 
> Don't start with that, " But what is your definition of fair? " Shit either.


What is your definition of fair? :V


----------



## Aleu (Sep 18, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> *headdesk*
> *blood*
> I understand that while anti-theism and atheism is similar, there can be a anti-theist religious person, just like there can be a theist atheist.  If I had asked, "atheists" instead people would be bitching about being typecasted and not to mention I'd have used the term wrong, so I asked the specific audience of the group I wanted to ask instead.



What? No. You can't have a theist atheist. A religious atheist, yes, but not a theist atheist.


----------



## Fay V (Sep 18, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> That is _by least_ a stupid rebuttal. To me it seems offensive regardless if the person in question is straight or not.
> 
> "Well, you're just saying that because you're a woman."
> 
> ...


It is a very stupid argument yes. I was just trying to point out that mislabels are really insulting sometimes.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 18, 2011)

Aleu said:


> What? No. You can't have a theist atheist. A religious atheist, yes, but not a theist atheist.


What if the person was raised religious and as a atheist they still follow the moral guidelines of their exreligion even though they left it?  Like if they didn't believe any of the religious stories actually happened, they just thought it teaches good moral lessons?


----------



## Fay V (Sep 18, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What if the person was raised religious and as a atheist they still follow the moral guidelines of their exreligion even though they left it?  Like if they didn't believe any of the religious stories actually happened, they just thought it teaches good moral lessons?


oh ethics 
I'm not sure why you believe that religious families are moral only because religion. When I came out Atheist my mother said the same thing, that I would drop my cultural heritage and the lessons they taught me...ethics don't really work like that. Most ethical reactions are emotional and engrained, so someone raised to believe stealing is wrong would continue to believe that. 
However that doesn't really mean anything. You can't really say that I don't murder because I was raised on the bible.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 18, 2011)

Fay V said:


> I'm not sure why you believe that religious families are moral only because religion.


Not what I meant.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Sep 18, 2011)

Now I'm wondering just how many 'anti-theists' there are on this board.  I'm guessing it's a small number.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Sep 18, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What if the person was raised religious and as a atheist they still follow the moral guidelines of their exreligion even though they left it?  Like if they didn't believe any of the religious stories actually happened, they just thought it teaches good moral lessons?


That would be a description of me, but I'm not an "atheist theist," I'm just an atheist. Theism comes from the prefix "theo-," which means "god," and specifically refers to belief in the divine. (And atheism, the absence of belief.) You can't both believe in the existence of divinity and not believe in the existence of divinity at the same time. It's like saying you're a vegetarian meat-eater. 

What you're describing is would be more aptly referred to as, oh. I guess I would say atheist moralist, or perhaps you could specify the religion in question, but there's probably another word for it. It's not atheist theist though.


----------



## Unsilenced (Sep 18, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What if the person was raised religious and as a atheist they still follow the moral guidelines of their exreligion even though they left it?  Like if they didn't believe any of the religious stories actually happened, they just thought it teaches good moral lessons?



A religious atheist. They practice the customs of the religion, but don't actually believe in the god/deity(s) involved. Theism however means the belief that the god exists. 

"Theist atheist" means "believes in god without the belief in god."



M. Le Renard said:


> Now I'm wondering just how many  'anti-theists' there are on this board.  I'm guessing it's a small  number.



A few have shown up in this thread, but they seem rather outnumbered by not anti-theistic atheists.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 18, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> That would be a description of me, but I'm not an "atheist theist," I'm just an atheist. Theism comes from the prefix "theo-," which means "god," and specifically refers to belief in the divine. (And atheism, the absence of belief.) You can't both believe in the existence of divinity and not believe in the existence of divinity at the same time. It's like saying you're a vegetarian meat-eater.
> 
> What you're describing is would be more aptly referred to as, oh. I guess I would say atheist moralist, or perhaps you could specify the religion in question, but there's probably another word for it. It's not atheist theist though.


I'm sure there's a actual term for this, but does anyone know it?


----------



## Unsilenced (Sep 18, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I'm sure there's a actual term for this, but does anyone know it?





Aleu said:


> A religious atheist,





Unsilenced said:


> A religious atheist.


:I

You can be religious without believing in god. You just can't be theistic.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Sep 18, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Reminds me of the time I got stuck in Utah. Long story short if you have a really shitty day, don't get stuck in Utah. you can only have 1 shot.



One day, I got stuck in Utah and came back married to six women and John Huntsman.


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 18, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> Now I'm wondering just how many 'anti-theists' there are on this board.  I'm guessing it's a small number.



I think what would be more interesting would be to see age they all are.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 18, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> :I
> 
> You can be religious without believing in god. You just can't be theistic.



Usually people assume that just because one is religious then that must mean that they are theistic as well. I'm just being specific so not to cause any confusion.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 19, 2011)

The hell happened here, we playing semantics?

Atheist - Lacking belief in a god or gods
Theist - belief in a god
Anti-theist - Against the belief in a god or gods, sometimes against religions who preach god(s).
Agnostic-theist - Belief that a god exist, but is inherently unknowable
I(L?)etsism - Belief in a higher power
Apatheism - The don't-give-a-fuck about religion/deities

"Atheistic-theism" doesn't exist, because Atheism doesn't regard religion, and religion pretty much follows theism, though it's not required/not directly connected.

The thought of not believing religious stories, but thinking they give a good message is silly (Shall we get into all the fun stories of the Bible :v they teach fantastic morals), however it doesn't need a term...and I'm fairly certain it doesn't have one. 

I learned my morals thru my parents, and television shows guided specifically at virtues and morals, and just in general peoples reactions to being killed/stolen from/etc. This is really not that much different with learning from the Bible, albeit the morals there are all over the place - But in regards to what you call it, I'm fairly certain there is no term, because we get our morals from somewhere >.> it'd be silly to name every thing.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 19, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I'm sure there's a actual term for this, but does anyone know it?


Humanist?  Moral code (be good to other people), absent a belief in God.

"Religious Athiest" sounds like someone who wants to "convert" Theists into Atheists, which I know is not what you're driving at.


----------



## Unsilenced (Sep 19, 2011)

Most people who aren't sociopaths have some sort of moral code. The idea here is someone who practices a religion without (literally) believing in the god/deity associated with it.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 19, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Most people who aren't sociopaths have some sort of moral code. The idea here is someone who practices a religion without (literally) believing in the god/deity associated with it.



This sounds like just "being spiritual".


----------



## Fay V (Sep 19, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Most people who aren't sociopaths have some sort of moral code. The idea here is someone who practices a religion without (literally) believing in the god/deity associated with it.


Fun fact. Sociopaths also have moral codes (in general.) They just have a tendency to be utilitarian.

Edit: For clarity. I am refering to people that don't have emotions, or the emotion is severely muted. Not the type of person that kills 12 people.


----------



## BRN (Sep 19, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Edit: For clarity. I am refering to people that don't have emotions, or the emotion is severely muted. Not the type of person that kills 12 people.



 All sociopaths have no or muted emotion, but by extension are pretty calculating thinkers. A sociopath would only kill 12 people if it profited them more than the consequences of doing it - hired assassin, rather than random killing spree - while the type to go on a rampage is a paranoid and particularly psychotic schizophrenic.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 19, 2011)

SIX said:


> the type to go on a rampage is a paranoid and particularly psychotic schizophrenic.


Do you have actual statistics/proof or did you get this from TV shows? >:I


----------



## BRN (Sep 19, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Do you have actual statistics/proof or did you get this from TV shows? >:I


I have experience; nothing so incredible as a man on a killing spree, but I've been in contact with a schizophrenic and watched his psychosis grow and grow. He was later detained.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 19, 2011)

SIX said:


> I have experience; nothing so incredible as a man on a killing spree, but I've been in contact with a schizophrenic and watched his psychosis grow and grow. He was later detained.


Sure, blame it on schizos. 'Contacts' are hardly anything to amount at all. :V


----------



## BRN (Sep 19, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Sure, blame it on schizos. 'Contacts' are hardly anything to amount at all. :V



Blame? :?

I'm saying that a particularly psychotic paranoid schizophrenic has more chance of felicitating a random killing spree than a sociopath, who's murders are far more likely to be subtle machinations of a network he or she created for the purpose. Merely semantics.

Sociopathy is about a lack of emotional response leading to a manipulative desire for self-profit, whereas schizophrenia is about the breaking down of the ability to comprehend reality. One is controlled; the other, in extreme cases, can be violent.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 19, 2011)

SIX said:


> I have experience; nothing so incredible as a man on a killing spree, but I've been in contact with a schizophrenic and watched his psychosis grow and grow. He was later detained.



>:E there are different sorts of schizophrenics, not all of them are a danger to others


----------



## BRN (Sep 19, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> >:E there are different sorts of schizophrenics, not all of them are a danger to others



Which is why I've only ever talked about the particularly psychotic types. God dammit, guys.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 19, 2011)

SIX said:


> I'm saying that a particularly psychotic paranoid schizophrenic has more chance of felicitating a random killing spree than a sociopath, who's murders are far more likely to be subtle machinations of a network he or she created for the purpose. Merely semantics.





SIX said:


> Which is why I've only ever talked about the particularly psychotic types. God dammit, guys.


I don't think you got this schizophrenic thing right. It is like... outsourcing.

Believe it or not, rather 'normal' people are capable and willing to do the same.


----------



## Fay V (Sep 19, 2011)

SIX said:


> All sociopaths have no or muted emotion, but by extension are pretty calculating thinkers. A sociopath would only kill 12 people if it profited them more than the consequences of doing it - hired assassin, rather than random killing spree - while the type to go on a rampage is a paranoid and particularly psychotic schizophrenic.


People have a habit of equating sociopath with psychopath. Sociopathy does not mean someone will be a serial killer. It is a trait many killers have, but they aren't automatically murderers. There are plenty of cases where sociopaths function perfectly fine without breaking laws (more than the average person). They are more likely to answer with utilitarian answers when asked moral questions. This goes along with the research by greene that shows a majority of people have an emtional reaction first then think rationally about it.
Also, no. Sociopath murderers aren't always the perfectly rational killer. Sometimes they will go on a killing spree simply because murder is the only thing that will get through their muted emotions (think dexter) the urges are highly irrational, the excuses and methodology less so. There are also those that are just psychotic. A man that is a sociopath but kills people and poses them in his house because they were "better that way"


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 19, 2011)

Aleu said:


> The church cannot mingle with political affairs and the government cannot make any law that affects the churches. (*Like forcing them to marry gay people as an easy example*)



Funny, but earlier today, I read this:  http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/0...d=maing-grid7|hp-desktop|dl15|sec1_lnk3|96935




Mojotech said:


> In regards to the specific examples, religion texts and sermons are fine if being studied as literature/public speaking, and not as actual proselytizing.  Banning places of worship outright is something I wouldn't support, but I'd be fine if places of worship and preaching were confined to properly zoned areas much like commercial and industrial businesses and advertising are. And given how much money churches get each year, taxing them is not out of the question either.
> 
> 
> Atheists don't necessarily want the complete abolition of religion, (While they wouldn't mind it not being there entirely there's no practical or ethical way to force it's removal like that.), *they just wish religious people weren't able to fuck things up for everyone else*. :V



This would seem to imply that only "religious people" can fuck things up... and yes, I noted the sarcasm.   :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 19, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Funny, but earlier today, I read this:  http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/09/19/new-york-clerk-refuses-to-do-her-job-marry-gay-couples/?icid=maing-grid7|hp-desktop|dl15|sec1_lnk3|96935
> 
> This would seem to imply that only "religious people" can fuck things up... and yes, I noted the sarcasm.   :V


Thanks for re-railing the thread.
Alright folks on the topic of gay marriage should if a person is a clerk, should they be forced to marry same-sex couples?


----------



## Aleu (Sep 19, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Thanks for re-railing the thread.
> Alright folks on the topic of gay marriage should if a person is a clerk, should they be forced to marry same-sex couples?



No. No church official should be forced to do anything if they are not law bound. However, since she is a GOVERNMENT official then tough shit for her. She should find another line of work.

EDIT: I think I mixed up "clerk" and "cleric"...point still stands.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 19, 2011)

Aleu said:


> No. No church official should be forced to do anything if they are not law bound. However, since she is a GOVERNMENT official then tough shit for her. She should find another line of work.


I agree with this, if someone is a government official tough shit.


----------



## Fay V (Sep 19, 2011)

Yup pretty much the same. if it's government then tough shit. Just like pharmacists can't be like "lol no condoms or birth control"


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 19, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Yup pretty much the same. if it's government then tough shit. Just like pharmacists can't be like "lol no condoms or birth control"


I hope that woman loses her job.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 19, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I hope that woman loses her job.



You know religious nuts would be all over that though and bitching about "liberal" this and such.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 19, 2011)

Aleu said:


> You know religious nuts would be all over that though and bitching about "liberal" this and such.


In response they should say, "She broke the law, she's lucky we just fired her cause if the same-sex couple sued we'd get raped metaphorically cause she refused to do her job properly".


----------



## Aleu (Sep 20, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> In response they should say, "She broke the law, she's lucky we just fired her cause if the same-sex couple sued we'd get raped metaphorically cause she refused to do her job properly".



They'd counter with "religious freedom" and such.


RABBLE getting off topic...kinda? Anyway, I don't see the point in religious people getting into government jobs that put them in a situation where it contradicts their beliefs.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 20, 2011)

I'm happy that the law is stepping in and making her do her job despite her religious inclinations making her want to fuck things up for gay people. If she was a religious cleric rather than a government clerk, I wouldn't expect or want her to be obligated to perform duties outside the scope of her religion. But it ain't the church paying her in this case.


Also Roose you really need to stop following me around from thread to thread singling out my posts. It's creepy. Stop it. :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 20, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Also Roose you really need to stop following me around from thread to thread singling out my posts. It's creepy. Stop it. :V


Oh is this your first time?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 20, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Oh is this your first time?


 
Not by a long shot. :V


----------



## Trpdwarf (Sep 20, 2011)

I'm not really against religion. However laws that prevent certain crimes against humanity are something that interest me. (note not all of these are crimes against humanity but they are but a few things I would personally back).

It should be against the law for any and all religions to practice child mutilation. Furthermore if children die as a result of some religious practice it should be considered child abuse and not be given a get free card. It should be considered murder/manslaughter. Stop allowing churches and religion in general to murder children this way or disfigure them.

I would also be for banning any form of preaching or protest based on religion if it is done via mega-phones or voice amplification. Also funerals should be immune to any and all forms of picketing. There is a time and place to preach your case. At the funeral of someone is unacceptable.

I would not be opposed to banning religion from having the ability to force anyone into a lifestyle. There should be an option. If it is discovered that any group is black-mailing, or threatening any person in any way to force them to adhere to religious tradition or associated customs than that group should be put on trial for intimidation and harassment of a human being.

I also want to see a complete removal of religion and creationism from our public schools. The place for religion is in your home and your church. It is not in the schools or the science classes.

Also if any law is proposed that is found to be based strictly on the religious views of others it should automatically be thrown out. If people are found to be misusing office to promote their own religion they should be removed from their position.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 20, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> I would also be for banning any form of preaching or protest based on religion if it is done via mega-phones or voice amplification. Also funerals should be immune to any and all forms of picketing. There is a time and place to preach your case. At the funeral of someone is unacceptable.


What if it's at like a convention or something?


----------



## Lobar (Sep 20, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What if it's at like a convention or something?



Who has a funeral at a convention?  And I hate "free speech zone" laws, but I can't wrap my head around that as long as they exist why aren't they being used to shield funerals?  Those are one of the few things that should be inviolate from unwanted intrusion.

A megaphone ban would cross the line for me (except at funerals).


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 20, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Who has a funeral at a convention?
> 
> A megaphone ban would cross the line for me.


I think what Trpdwarf meant was like how some people soapbox preach, but the implication of that is if it's for something like a convention or a very large church how else would they convey their voice?


----------



## Lobar (Sep 20, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I think what Trpdwarf meant was like how some people soapbox preach, but the implication of that is if it's for something like a convention or a very large church how else would they convey their voice?



You clipped her post down but left the funeral stuff in so it was confusing.  That's a pretty easily distinguished situation, just allow an exemption if it's on their own property or inside a building they've rented.  But as already noted I'm opposed to megaphone bans, that's too much of a free speech infringement.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 20, 2011)

Lobar said:


> You clipped her post down but left the funeral stuff in so it was confusing.  That's a pretty easily distinguished situation, just allow an exemption if it's on their own property or inside a building they've rented.  But as already noted I'm opposed to megaphone bans, that's too much of a free speech infringement.


Sorry I was trying to reply to like five people at the same time, 90% of the time I'm on here I'm multitasking.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 20, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> In response they should say, "*She broke the law*, she's lucky we just fired her cause if the same-sex couple sued we'd get raped metaphorically cause she refused to do her job properly".



Actually, if you read the article more closely, you'll learn that she didn't actually break the law... she simply told them they would have to wait until a deputy was available, and that was a legal thing for her to do (according to the law).  Notwithstanding that little town had no deputy available to take on the task.




Aleu said:


> They'd counter with "religious freedom" and such.
> 
> 
> RABBLE getting off topic...kinda? Anyway, *I don't see the point in religious people getting into government jobs that put them in a situation where it contradicts their beliefs*.



Except, when she got into the job, same-sex marriage was illegal in New York.




Mojotech said:


> I'm happy that the law is stepping in and making her do her job despite her religious inclinations making her want to fuck things up for gay people. If she was a religious cleric rather than a government clerk, I wouldn't expect or want her to be obligated to perform duties outside the scope of her religion. But it ain't the church paying her in this case.*
> 
> 
> Also Roose you really need to stop following me around from thread to thread singling out my posts. It's creepy. Stop it.* :V



You're not important enough to follow around, so don't let your head get so big, Mojo.  And I stand on my comment... care to counter my words with reasonable discussion, rather that just saying "It's Roose" and ignoring the issues I bring up?  Please, by all means, clarify your statement for everybody here, so we can understand what you meant by that bolded comment, in light of my own understanding of the implied meaning.




CannonFodder said:


> Oh is this your first time?



Actually, Mojo tends to "follow" me around, if anything...




Trpdwarf said:


> *I also want to see a complete removal of religion and creationism from our public schools.* The place for religion is in your home and your church. It is not in the schools or the science classes.



So, you don't consider the study of religion (theism) or religious history to be an allowable subject to teach in public schools?  Sounds like censorship, to me.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 20, 2011)

A town clerk is a secular post.  She should do her job, or resign... period.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 20, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> So, you don't consider the study of religion (theism) or religious history to be an allowable subject to teach in public schools?  Sounds like censorship, to me.



I know you might've 'meant' it, but it bares emphasis that this would be OPTIONAL learning. I have no issue with them teaching Creationism and Theology, and all sorts of nonsense....as long as it cannot be construed as a mandatory class, and cannot be used for credits towards a public-school degree or diploma of any sort.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 20, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I know you might've 'meant' it, but it bares emphasis that this would be OPTIONAL learning. I have no issue with them teaching Creationism and Theology, and all sorts of nonsense....as long as it cannot be construed as a mandatory class, and cannot be used for credits towards a public-school degree or diploma of any sort.


What about a optional history of religions class that studied the history of all religions up until present day?


----------



## Fay V (Sep 20, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I know you might've 'meant' it, but it bares emphasis that this would be OPTIONAL learning. I have no issue with them teaching Creationism and Theology, and all sorts of nonsense....as long as it cannot be construed as a mandatory class, and cannot be used for credits towards a public-school degree or diploma of any sort.


I disagree with this. Sort of. Teaching the idea of creationism can be a optional, but I wouldn't be opposed to a history course that goes over religion, or a class which goes of the basics of the theology beliefs. It depends on the level and how it's dealt with. For instance when studying literature you have to study the bible at some point. It had a huge impact on literature. I would rather a teacher say "This is a reference to a story in the bible" than having to skirt around it and people completely miss that. 
Religion is a big part of history and understanding the motivations behind religious wars is important.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 20, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What about a optional history of religions class that studied the history of all religions up until present day?



Same qualifications as what I said above. Optional, but cannot be used as credits or anything construed as mandatory (i.e. if you needed history credits for diploma/degree, you could have say...world history, US history, Euro history, and so forth)


----------



## Kyrodo (Sep 20, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Same qualifications as what I said above. Optional, but cannot be used as credits or anything construed as mandatory (i.e. if you needed history credits for diploma/degree, you could have say...world history, US history, Euro history, and so forth)


A lot of which contains religious histories, such as Henry VIII, the Salem Witch Trials, the crusades and other such events spawned over religion. You can't just block out religion completely.

My opinion on the OP is stated quite clearly in SIX's first response.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 20, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Same qualifications as what I said above. Optional, but cannot be used as credits or anything construed as mandatory (i.e. if you needed history credits for diploma/degree, you could have say...world history, US history, Euro history, and so forth)


What if the degrees requires a class as a filler?  Forgive me I can't remember the terminology for the life of me right now, but you know how some degrees you can take a class just for the credits?  Like if a degree requires you take one class of anything under the sun just for filling the credits?  For example if you can take math/history/miscellaneous/humanities/religious history/physical education/golf/anything and the person decides to take a religious history class, would you be opposed to the class counting towards credits even though the degree doesn't require them to take that class?


Kyrodo said:


> A lot of which contains religious histories, such  as Henry VIII, the Salem Witch Trials, the crusades and other such  events spawned over religion. You can't just block out religion  completely.


Yeah if you block out religion completely history class would go, "welcome to history class, the end, you all get a free A+".


----------



## Fay V (Sep 20, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What if the degrees requires a class as a filler?  Forgive me I can't remember the terminology for the life of me right now, but you know how some degrees you can take a class just for the credits?  Like if a degree requires you take one class of anything under the sun just for filling the credits?  For example if you can take math/history/miscellaneous/humanities/religious history/physical education/golf/anything and the person decides to take a religious history class, would you be opposed to the class counting towards credits even though the degree doesn't require them to take that class?
> 
> Yeah if you block out religion completely history class would go, "welcome to history class, the end, you all get a free A+".


Now now. there's a few things you can learn about. 
"welcome to history class. We discovered fire, there was a natural disaster here...then here, and here, and here..."


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 20, 2011)

Kyrodo said:


> A lot of which contains religious histories, such as Henry VIII, the Salem Witch Trials, the crusades and other such events spawned over religion. You can't just block out religion completely.



We're talking about dedicated classes, not the content of various regular history classes. 



CannonFodder said:


> What if the degrees requires a class as a  filler?  Forgive me I can't remember the terminology for the life of me  right now, but you know how some degrees you can take a class just for  the credits?  Like if a degree requires you take one class of anything  under the sun just for filling the credits?  For example if you can take  math/history/miscellaneous/humanities/religious history/physical  education/golf/anything and the person decides to take a religious  history class, would you be opposed to the class counting towards  credits even though the degree doesn't require them to take that class?
> 
> Yeah if you block out religion completely history class would go,  "welcome to history class, the end, you all get a free A+".



I think I could be flexible there if the degree had some random open slot where you can literally take any class to fill it (however it cannot fill in 'history' credits, for example)and also: if the class wasn't preachy, and was solely focused on the history of all major religions with their use in making the world we know today and what not, with some time dedicated to smaller obscure ones too. 

I never said to block religion from history classes, just block classes dedicated to it from being useful towards a diploma or degree - Except maybe in the scenario above, where you could literally take any course the school offered for some random one-point credit or something.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 20, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What if the degrees requires a class as a filler?



The word you're looking for is "elective."


----------



## Trpdwarf (Sep 20, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What if it's at like a convention or something?



This goes to show that one should not post in depth when tired.

That the intent of the idea is to disallow public use of the megaphone to preach but would not prohibit it in private settings. However a private area should have the option to say "No not in my house" so to speak.



Roose Hurro said:


> So, you don't consider the study of religion (theism) or religious  history to be an allowable subject to teach in public schools?  Sounds  like censorship, to me.



The intention of that idea is remove it from public federally funded schools. If people want to teach it private schools, or people want to pursue the subject historically or otherwise in higher levels of education or on their own they are free to do so. I do not trust this matter to be taught fairly on a consistent basis in public schools, or to not become mostly a stomping ground for people looking to twist the intent of the classes in order to favor one religion over others.

In a college if a person takes up a theology class or some religious history thing they can choose to leave the class should it turn out to be a teacher abusing the class for preaching. It becomes more difficult and has various entanglements when it happens in a public school.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 20, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> The word you're looking for is "elective."


Thanks, for some reason I couldn't seem to remember it.


Back on topic, what about religious history electives?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 20, 2011)

Religion as it relates to global history and society is fine. Studying the catholics or jews is little different than studying the aztecs or africans. Religion in publicly funded schools for the sake of conversion or theology is not.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 20, 2011)

We have to study religion. Namely what is yours.

I have none, so I'm in the Ethics class.


----------



## Aetius (Sep 20, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> We have to study religion. Namely what is yours.
> 
> I have none, so I'm in the Ethics class.



I remember being taught Roman Catholicism over here for 10 years by clerics.

They really hate Dan brown D:


----------



## Bliss (Sep 20, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> I remember being taught Roman Catholicism over here for 10 years by clerics.


The teachers don't actually _need_ to be church members. They need a master's degree in theology, though.



> They really hate Dan brown D:


I know. <3


----------



## Aleu (Sep 20, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Except, when she got into the job, same-sex marriage was illegal in New York.


That doesn't matter. Laws are subject to change. If she can't figure that out then...well too bad for her.



Roose Hurro said:


> So, you don't consider the study of religion (theism) or religious history to be an allowable subject to teach in public schools?  Sounds like censorship, to me.


There's a difference between the two. Theology teaches about all religions because that's the point. It's also not a requirement. I don't even remember a course about it in high school (which saddens me because it's interesting).

Then there is teaching only ONE religion as if it is fact.


----------



## Aetius (Sep 20, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> The teachers don't actually _need_ to be church members. They need a master's degree in theology, though.
> 
> I know. <3



Ehh, it could really be ANYONE for religious schools, its....strange...

Lol onetime during class we were discussing about which historical spiritual person we should write a report about, someone mentioned Dan Brown.
The Nun slammed a book on the ground and yelled "DAN BROWN IS A HERETIC!"


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 20, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I know you might've 'meant' it, but it bares emphasis that this would be OPTIONAL learning. I have no issue with them teaching Creationism and Theology, and all sorts of nonsense....as long as it cannot be construed as a mandatory class, *and cannot be used for credits towards a public-school degree or diploma of any sort*.



So, you're saying it can't be madatory, only elective, and yet, unlike other elective classes, because it has to do with religion, the student who chooses to take such a class shouldn't be credited for their work?




CannonFodder said:


> What about a optional history of religions class that studied the history of all religions up until present day?



Indeed... this is, in fact, what I "meant", in part.




Fay V said:


> I disagree with this. Sort of. Teaching the idea of creationism can be a optional, but I wouldn't be opposed to a history course that goes over religion, or a class which goes of the basics of the theology beliefs. It depends on the level and how it's dealt with. For instance when studying literature you have to study the bible at some point. It had a huge impact on literature. I would rather a teacher say "This is a reference to a story in the bible" than having to skirt around it and people completely miss that.
> *Religion is a big part of history and understanding the motivations behind religious wars is important.*



Exactly.




Lastdirewolf said:


> Same qualifications as what I said above. Optional, but cannot be used as credits or anything construed as mandatory (*i.e. if you needed history credits for diploma/degree, you could have say...world history, US history, Euro history, and so forth*)



But then you're saying, if any "religion" is brought up as a facet of those histories, then the class should be an uncredited elective, right?  What you seem to be saying is, if "religion" isn't edited out of history (and when you consider how big religion is in the history of the world, well), then those who study history, and the unavoidable religious contexts within it, shouldn't get credit.  That would mean no one can study any form of history if any form of religion is in it, if they want to get credit for their work.  That would be discriminatory.




Kyrodo said:


> A lot of which contains religious histories, such as Henry VIII, the Salem Witch Trials, the crusades and other such events spawned over religion. *You can't just block out religion completely.
> *
> My opinion on the OP is stated quite clearly in SIX's first response.



Indeed, you can't.




Lastdirewolf said:


> I never said to block religion from history classes, *just block classes dedicated to it from being useful towards a diploma or degree* - Except maybe in the scenario above, where you could literally take any course the school offered for some random one-point credit or something.



Why?  Why block any subject from earning credits for the student who takes it?  Why single out "dedicated" religious classes?  Unless you just happen to be biased against religion, of course...




Trpdwarf said:


> The intention of that idea is remove it from public federally funded schools. If people want to teach it private schools, or people want to pursue the subject historically or otherwise in higher levels of education or on their own they are free to do so. *I do not trust this matter to be taught fairly on a consistent basis in public schools, or to not become mostly a stomping ground for people looking to twist the intent of the classes in order to favor one religion over others.*
> 
> In a college if a person takes up a theology class or some religious history thing they can choose to leave the class should it turn out to be a teacher abusing the class for preaching. It becomes more difficult and has various entanglements when it happens in a public school.



Ahhh, that makes sense, then.  But really, it's possible for a teacher/professor to use any subject as a stomping ground... especially politics.  So, if we have this problem with religious classes, then why not apply the same thought to political classes?  And say that all "dedicated" political subjects are elective, and cannot be used for credits?




Mojotech said:


> Religion as it relates to global history and society is fine. Studying the catholics or jews is little different than studying the aztecs or africans. *Religion in publicly funded schools for the sake of conversion or theology is not.*



True... this is why we have churches.




Aleu said:


> *That doesn't matter.* Laws are subject to change. If she can't figure that out then...well too bad for her.



It doesn't?  So, she shouldn't have ever taken such a job, simply based on the fact that the law _may_ change in the future?  This would make it very hard for religious people to gain employment, if they had to second-guess changes in the law.




Aleu said:


> There's a difference between the two. Theology teaches about all religions because that's the point. It's also not a requirement. I don't even remember a course about it in high school (which saddens me because it's interesting).
> 
> *Then there is teaching only ONE religion as if it is fact.*



As I said above, this is the realm of churches... schools simply need the freedom to teach religious _history_ without the atheists/anti-theists going batshit with this "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!" crap.




Crusader Mike said:


> Ehh, it could really be ANYONE for religious schools, its....strange...
> 
> Lol onetime during class we were discussing about which historical spiritual person we should write a report about, someone mentioned Dan Brown.
> *The Nun slammed a book on the ground and yelled "DAN BROWN IS A HERETIC!"*



Heh... from that reaction alone, it sounds like he'd make a perfect subject for a report.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 21, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> *So, you're saying it can't be madatory, *only elective, and yet, unlike other elective classes, because it has to do with religion, the student who chooses to take such a class shouldn't be credited for their work?
> 
> *But then you're saying, if any "religion" is brought up as a facet of those histories, then the class should be an uncredited elective, right?*  What you seem to be saying is, if "religion" isn't edited out of history (and when you consider how big religion is in the history of the world, well), then those who study history, and the unavoidable religious contexts within it, shouldn't get credit.  That would mean no one can study any form of history if any form of religion is in it, if they want to get credit for their work.  That would be discriminatory.
> 
> Why?  Why block any subject from earning credits for the student who takes it?  Why single out "dedicated" religious classes?  Unless you just happen to be biased against religion, of course...



I really don't like it when people try to summarize or "tell me what I'm saying", when I'm outlining it decently enough as it is...What I'm saying is what I'm saying. 

The only thing more I really have to offer is - That public schools don't have to offer religious classes, students don't have to take them, and the gubment shouldn't be paying directly for religious studies. However I will add on that you're simply wrong on your 2nd point. I want religion taught in general history classes - People need to be aware of the atrocities that have happened in the name of, and they need to be aware of how far held back society is, because of such.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 21, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I really don't like it when people try to summarize or "tell me what I'm saying", *when I'm outlining it decently enough as it is*...What I'm saying is what I'm saying.



Sorry if you brought it up and I missed it, and thanks for clarifying.




Lastdirewolf said:


> The only thing more I really have to offer is - That public schools don't have to offer religious classes, students don't have to take them, and the gubment shouldn't be paying directly for religious studies. *However I will add on that you're simply wrong on your 2nd point. I want religion taught in general history classes* - People need to be aware of the atrocities that have happened in the name of, and they need to be aware of how far held back society is, because of such.



Good.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 21, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Good.



Yeup, it is good that we teach the horrible things that people have done in the name of~


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 21, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Yeup, it is good that we teach the horrible things that people have done in the name of~



And bad that you have to keep rubbing faces with such repetition.  Especially when horrible things are done NOT in the name of~

And given that it isn't the fault of religion, but of humanity, for tolerating radically violent views.  Such behavior should have been scrubbed out a long, long time ago... but it wasn't.  Humans create "religion", just as they create many other things, all open to abuse.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 21, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> And bad that you have to keep rubbing faces  with such repetition.  Especially when horrible things are done NOT in  the name of~
> 
> And given that it isn't the fault of religion, but of humanity, for  tolerating radically violent views.  Such behavior should have been  scrubbed out a long, long time ago... but it wasn't.  Humans create  "religion", just as they create many other things, all open to  abuse.



That's a fancy round-about way of saying religion itself is not a physical or entity that can actually do these acts,  which is agreeable...However, humanity didn't just tolerate radical  religious views, but created them, created more (Variety IS the spice of  life), and insists upon them to this very day.

I agree, all this behaviour should've been scrubbed  out a long time ago....but it also shouldn't have been created in the  first place, shouldn't have been used for what it has been, and should  and shouldn't have been a lot of things...but it has, and as it's a  choice, it's something we can change.


----------



## Ikrit (Sep 21, 2011)

religious non profit organizations

my god i swear most of them only exist to sway the government to their liking by saying "if you do this we will stop funding the salvation army"

because you know, christian morals are more important then people's lives 

(and no spell check, i will NOT capitalize christian)


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 21, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> That's a fancy round-about way of saying religion itself is not a physical or entity that can actually do these acts,  which is agreeable...However, humanity didn't just tolerate radical  religious views, but created them, created more (Variety IS the spice of  life), and insists upon them to this very day.
> 
> I agree, all this behaviour should've been scrubbed  out a long time ago....but it also shouldn't have been created in the  first place, shouldn't have been used for what it has been, and should  and shouldn't have been a lot of things...but it has, and as it's a  choice, it's something we can change.


 
You also have to remember that these same people will often insist tons of good things are done solely because of religion, but that nothing ever bad is ever done because of religion. It's simply not a tenable position to say that, because if it has capacity to do one it certainly has potential to do the other.

Also, because religions aren't things you can hold in your hands doesn't mean they're not actual entities, and they do, in fact, exist entirely on the physical plane- they are a collection of people with certain beliefs and practices, the organizations they create and spread these views through, and things like their holy texts and buildings and various sacred sites and implements. These people can engage in coercion and bigotry, these organizations can aid, abet and encourage them, and holy texts certainly seem convincing enough to a lot of people who read them and can contain both wonderful things and horrible atrocities. Mostly horrible atrocities dressed up as wonderful things.

In short, religions can be interacted with, studied, and can influence the world just the same as corporations, fraternities, governments, or other organizations- for good and for bad.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 21, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> That's a fancy round-about way of saying religion itself is not a physical or entity that can actually do these acts,  which is agreeable...*However, humanity didn't just tolerate radical  religious views, but created them, created more (Variety IS the spice of  life), and insists upon them to this very day.*



True... however, humanity tolerates many things, both religious and not that are, unfortunately, all part of being human.  A vicious circle, if you will.  Anything to excuse our inhumanity to man.




Lastdirewolf said:


> I agree, all this behaviour should've been scrubbed  out a long time ago....*but it also shouldn't have been created in the  first place*, shouldn't have been used for what it has been, and should  and shouldn't have been a lot of things...but it has, and as it's a  choice, it's something we can change.



If this were so, we'd still be living naked in the woods.  We created "religion" to serve a purpose, then corrupted that purpose.  We created many things to serve a purpose, but then went about abusing them.  We shouldn't have created the internal combustion engine, due to the polution of its exhaust.  We shouldn't have put lead in gasoline, because it is highly toxic and damaging.  In fact, we should never have had the Industrial Revolution, because of all the damage it's done and is still doing to our environment.  But we did it all anyway.  We fight wars and kill each other for stupid, childish things.

But that's humanity's fault, not the fault of religion or technology or anything else.  We made the choices, we chose to abuse.  To hate those not part of "Our Group"... or whatever.  Yes, something we could change, but so far, our record is rather dismal, due mostly to the fact no one wants to change.  I can point to the Middle East as an example... a common people, torn apart by sectarian strife, unwilling to change for the better.  People still hate people just for the color of their skin.  And more on topic, for their religion.  Yes, this very thread is an example of attitudes that need to change.  Whatever its form, Prejudice is ugly.




Mojotech said:


> You also have to remember that these same people will often insist tons of good things are done solely because of religion, but that nothing ever bad is ever done because of religion. *It's simply not a tenable position to say that, because if it has capacity to do one it certainly has potential to do the other.*



Definitely not a tenable position.  But that can be said for politics and finance, as well.




Mojotech said:


> Also, *because religions aren't things you can hold in your hands doesn't mean they're not actual entities*, and they do, in fact, exist entirely on the physical plane- they are a collection of people with certain beliefs and practices, the organizations they create and spread these views through, and things like their holy texts and buildings and various sacred sites and implements. These people can engage in coercion and bigotry, these organizations can aid, abet and encourage them, and holy texts certainly seem convincing enough to a lot of people who read them and can contain both wonderful things and horrible atrocities. Mostly horrible atrocities dressed up as wonderful things.



It does indeed mean that.  If religion could exist without humanity, then it would be an "actual" entity.  But since it can't, it is simply an "imaginary" entity.  Tied to the humans who practice it... emphemeral.





Mojotech said:


> In short, religions can be interacted with, studied, and can influence the world just the same as corporations, fraternities, governments, or other organizations- for good and for bad.



Mojo, you're forgetting something very, very important:  Religions, corporations, fraternities, governments... any organization... cannot exist without people.  Living, breathing humans are needed to sustain their creations.  Wipe humanity off the face of the earth, and religions, corporations, fraternities, governments and the like simply disappear.  Therefore, they are not self-sustaining, but created and controlled by human beings, for good or bad.  It is those human beings who influence the world through their creations, not the other way around.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 22, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> True... however, humanity tolerates many things, both religious and not that are, unfortunately, all part of being human.  A vicious circle, if you will.  Anything to excuse our inhumanity to man.
> 
> If this were so, we'd still be living naked in the woods.  We created "religion" to serve a purpose, then corrupted that purpose.
> 
> ...



Yes, humanity does tolerate a lot of things, but not too many things as violent or as divisive as religion. 

Leaders created religion...It was never all that pure and shiny to begin with. If they had simply left it as a story on par with Santa Clause or something (i.e. fairy tales to make you a better person, or whatever), it'd be considered harmless, and eventually twisted into something bad. I actually believe the Santa Clause thing (being good for goodness sake, and what not) to possibly be more pure and peace-bringing than the Bible-stories xD

...but from the get-go (at least with Christianity), Christian leaders intentionally designed the Bible, Christiandom, and all who follow it to be divisive, fearful/fear-mongering, controlling, and out-right horrible. If you don't do X, and/or don't believe in X, you will be sent to the most horrible place man as a whole can think of.

...THEN, it was further designed/corrupted for other leaders personal gains, or exemplified by other people creating similar religions to do virtually similar things.

We fight wars for many silly things, much of it having to do with religion for the main purpose, or an underlying cause.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 22, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Yes, humanity does tolerate a lot of things, but not too many things as violent or as divisive as religion.
> 
> Leaders created religion...It was never all that pure and shiny to begin with. If they had simply left it as a story on par with Santa Clause or something (i.e. fairy tales to make you a better person, or whatever), it'd be considered harmless, and eventually twisted into something bad. I actually believe the Santa Clause thing (being good for goodness sake, and what not) to possibly be more pure and peace-bringing than the Bible-stories xD
> 
> ...but from the get-go (at least with Christianity), Christian leaders intentionally designed the Bible, Christiandom, and all who follow it to be divisive, fearful/fear-mongering, controlling, and out-right horrible. If you don't do X, and/or don't believe in X, you will be sent to the most horrible place man as a whole can think of.




Yeah, because 12 uneducated men, most whom were fishermen were leaders in society... Because they were so manipulating and trying to lie to the masses that they all willingly let themselves be killed, many in horrendous ways.

Seriously, grow up.


----------



## Gavrill (Sep 22, 2011)

Oh I totally wasn't expecting this to turn into a shitfest


nope not at all


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yeah, because 12 uneducated men, most whom were fishermen were leaders in society... Because they were so manipulating and trying to lie to the masses that they all willingly let themselves be killed, many in horrendous ways.
> 
> Seriously, grow up.



Oh Rukh, is was only a matter of time before you came here - And right out of the gates confusing my point, and attacking me with an insult  This'll be fun for sure.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yeah, because 12 uneducated men, most whom were fishermen were leaders in society... Because they were so manipulating and trying to lie to the masses that they all willingly let themselves be killed, many in horrendous ways.
> 
> Seriously, grow up.



OR the 12 men were a lie to gain sympathizers... seriously Rukh, if you're going to push that the Bible is 100% truth again you don't really belong in this thread.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 22, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Oh Rukh, is was only a matter of time before you came here - And right out of the gates confusing my point, and attacking me with an insult  This'll be fun for sure.


 Wouldn't have if it wasn't for what you wrote. But, now I am here.


Aleu said:


> OR the 12 men were a lie to gain sympathizers... seriously Rukh, if you're going to push that the Bible is 100% truth again you don't really belong in this thread.


Except the fact that everyone would have known that because when they wrote everything down, many, many people were still alive that saw everything happen.

Try again Aleu.


Now, I will say the only law I support is separation of church and state (which may shock a few people).


----------



## Fay V (Sep 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Wouldn't have if it wasn't for what you wrote. But, now I am here.
> 
> Except the fact that everyone would have known that because when they wrote everything down, many, many people were still alive that saw everything happen.
> 
> ...



You know the reason they release information 60-70 years after the fact with the american government? Most of the people alive and old enough to understand what happened were dead. 
The accounts of the apostles were at the soonest point written roughly 60 years after christ died.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Wouldn't have if it wasn't for what you wrote. But, now I am here.
> 
> Except the fact that everyone would have known that because when they wrote everything down, many, many people were still alive that saw everything happen.



Multiple people seeing something doesn't make it any more valid.

Yet this has nothing to do with the thread, however I'm glad you at least support separation of church and state, which is on topic at least.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 22, 2011)

Fay V said:


> The accounts of the apostles were at the soonest point written roughly 60 years after christ died.



Wrong. The accounts were written BEFORE 70 A.D, which was only 30 years after Christ's death and resurrection.
Now, how is this a known fact?, well, for one, not one account in the NT talks about how the Temple was destroyed (which occurred in 70 A.D)




Lastdirewolf said:


> Multiple people seeing something doesn't make it any more valid.



Thousands of people Dire. It was thousands of people who witnessed many things. No human is that good of a liar.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 22, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Wrong. The accounts were written BEFORE 70 A.D, which was only 30 years after Christ's death and resurrection.
> Now, how is this a known fact?, well, for one, not one account in the NT talks about how the Temple was destroyed (which occurred in 70 A.D)
> 
> 
> ...



And every single person had written an account of it?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 22, 2011)

Aleu said:


> And every single person had written an account of it?



Actually, many people have believe it or not. That is why one can literally reconstruct nearly all of the NT except for a few verses in John using anything but actual ancient Bible manuscripts. Quite the remarkable feat.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 22, 2011)

I sincerely doubt it, but this isn't the thread for religious debate :v just debate on which laws might be okay or should be denied.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Sep 22, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I sincerely doubt it, but this isn't the thread for religious debate :v just debate on which laws might be okay or should be denied.



I can get you the proof. Anyways, thats why I also said in my comments that I support separation of church and state.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Sep 22, 2011)

- The redistribution of all the church property of churches owned by televangelists to actual poor people. (This especially goes for John Hagee, whose church is a couple of blocks from my house).

-Banning the right for televangelists to access broadcasting via television and radio (FCC shouldn't give licenses to religious organizations, because it is an act that requires the government to extend certain rights to certain groups and not to all groups).

-Giving fines to every religious figure who has a doomsday prediction for breaking the peace.

-World Religion classes in Public Schools, taught by figures from each of the World's major religions, and featuring critiques by Nietzsche, Dawkins, and Carl Sagan.

-We must have a massive sacrifice of the entirety of the state of Kansas, so that the ashes can be used to fertilize the corn in Iowa and Nebraska, and so that it will finally have a purpose other than to bring the rest of the United States behind with laws and regulations in the Public Education system that are on the same level of absurdity of this very suggestion.

Other than that, I have no problem with religious persons. They're going to do what they're going to do, and so long as it doesn't affect me or my children, i'm fine with it.

For me, Religion and Sex are both things that are best kept to one's self, and I view religious nutjobs in the same manner I view gays that flaunt their homosexuality for the whole world to see: I would much prefer that they keep their personal matters to themselves, and restricted to their own houses/bedrooms, and if they don't, I'm going to get-a ANGRY.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 22, 2011)

JesusFish said:


> - The redistribution of all the church property of churches owned by televangelists to actual poor people. (This especially goes for John Hagee, whose church is a couple of blocks from my house).
> 
> -Banning the right for televangelists to access broadcasting via television and radio (FCC shouldn't give licenses to religious organizations, because it is an act that requires the government to extend certain rights to certain groups and not to all groups).
> 
> -Giving fines to every religious figure who has a doomsday prediction for breaking the peace.



I totally forgot about that too - It goes beyond free speech when you cause a panic (albeit most people were intelligent enough to disregard it, there were still a few nutsos that flipped out).

And getting evangelists off non-internet broadcasting would be sweet.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 22, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Yes, humanity does tolerate a lot of things, *but not too many things as violent or as divisive as religion*.



I note you didn't mention anything about politics.  I don't know where you'd find the comfirmative info, but I suspect more people have been subjected to violence and divisiveness due to politics than religion.  Or, at the very least, they're both running neck to neck.  After all, we know both religion AND politics are the two most argued over subjects any time two people with differing views meet.





Lastdirewolf said:


> *
> Leaders created religion*...It was never all that pure and shiny to begin with. If they had simply left it as a story on par with Santa Clause or something (i.e. fairy tales to make you a better person, or whatever), it'd be considered harmless, and eventually twisted into something bad. I actually believe the Santa Clause thing (being good for goodness sake, and what not) to possibly be more pure and peace-bringing than the Bible-stories xD



Citation needed, LD...

And are you aware "Santa Clause" was the patron saint of thieves?

Oh, yes, before I forget:  From what I've seen/read, archeologists quite some time ago discovered that "cavemen" ritually buried their dead... that would imply that some belief, some "religious spirituality" existed back in the stone age, before anything like a government existed.  So, like I said, citation needed.





Lastdirewolf said:


> ...but from the get-go (at least with Christianity), Christian leaders intentionally designed the Bible, Christiandom, and all who follow it to be divisive, fearful/fear-mongering, controlling, and out-right horrible. *If you don't do X, and/or don't believe in X, you will be sent to the most horrible place man as a whole can think of.*



Are you aware that Hell is simply eternal separation from God?  That the torment of the damned will be to see the Paradise they could have shared, for all eternity?  You can't be unaware that "Christianity" didn't start with any leaders, but with a simple carpenter from Bethlehem.  What humanity did with all that afterwards is the fault of humanity, not of religion.





Lastdirewolf said:


> ...THEN, it was further designed/corrupted for other leaders personal gains, *or exemplified by other people creating similar religions to do virtually similar things*.



Indeed, but "religion" also tells us that Man is corrupt, so this is to be expected.





Lastdirewolf said:


> We fight wars for many silly things, much of it having to do with religion for the main purpose, *or an underlying cause*.



Tell me, what started WWI and WWII?  What started Vietnam, Korea, and so on...?  Religion?  Or just that "underlying cause"...?  As I said above about Religion vs Politics, I'd say more wars were started due to politics than religion, if the two are not equally guilty.  So, you see, if you condemn religion, you must also condemn politics.  Quite often, the two work hand in hand.




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Yeah, because 12 uneducated men, most whom were fishermen were leaders in society... Because they were so manipulating and trying to lie to the masses that *they all willingly let themselves be killed*, many in horrendous ways.



Like I said, it was a simple carpenter from Bethlehem who started it, and he was killed by the actual "leaders" of his day.  So, no, religion is not created by leaders, it is only corrupted by leaders.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 22, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> I note you didn't mention anything about politics.  I don't know where you'd find the comfirmative info, but I suspect more people have been subjected to violence and divisiveness due to politics than religion.  Or, at the very least, they're both running neck to neck.  After all, we know both religion AND politics are the two most argued over subjects any time two people with differing views meet.


I'd argue when politics and religion meets is when it makes a extremely volatile mixture that if you start shaking it like a martini is a bad idea.


----------



## Aetius (Sep 22, 2011)

A horrible example of when State and the church team up to fight a common enemy....


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 22, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I'd argue when politics and religion meets is when it makes a extremely volatile mixture that if you start shaking it like a martini is a bad idea.



True... but who is more annoying, a preacher or a politician?


----------



## Aleu (Sep 22, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> True... but who is more annoying, a preacher or a politician?



Well...preachers are annoying BUT I can choose to avoid them. Politicians however....


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 23, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> True... but who is more annoying, a preacher or a politician?


Politician cause they can actively fuck up your life, such as if they cut funding for college loans or cut your job or make a law saying glb can't be open about their sexuality, etc.


----------



## Icen (Sep 23, 2011)

Veganarchism.

Or socialism.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Sep 23, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> True... but who is more annoying, a preacher or a politician?


Both


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 23, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> A horrible example of when State and the church team up to fight a common enemy....


That show was awesome.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Sep 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Politician cause they can actively fuck up your life, such as if they cut funding for college loans or cut your job or make a law saying glbt can't be open about their sexuality, etc.


 
Don't think preachers don't have the capacity or motivation to fuck up people's lives, albeit in different ways than politicians. Unless there aren't politicians to more reasonably fill the power vacuum, in which case they take over both roles and the deep hurting truly begins.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 23, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Well...preachers are annoying BUT I can choose to avoid them. *Politicians however....*



Exactly...




CannonFodder said:


> Politician cause they can actively fuck up your life, such as if they cut funding for college loans or cut your job *or make a law saying glb can't be open about their sexuality, etc.*



That's as stupid as saying a straight person can't be open with their sexuality, though personally speaking, I don't give a fig what a person's sexuality is, so long as they behave themselves.  Sexuality is not the first thing I consider when I look at a person.  In fact, I support "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"... I don't even want to know if you're straight, because it has no bearing on how I'll interact with you.  Just doesn't matter.




PenningtontheSkunk said:


> Both



More annoying than what, then?




Kit H. Ruppell said:


> That show was awesome.



Yes:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_lXNfpxkBo&feature=related




Mojotech said:


> Don't think preachers don't have the capacity or motivation to fuck up people's lives, *albeit in different ways than politicians*. Unless there aren't politicians to more reasonably fill the power vacuum, in which case they take over both roles and the deep hurting truly begins.



Indeed... politicians get to make laws, preachers don't.


----------



## Deo (Sep 23, 2011)

I would not support any law that violates other people's rights. I may not like region, but I will fight for their right to practice it so long as their beliefs and practices harm no one. 

I would however like to change the U.S. currency to no longer say "In God we trust". It would take a long time to cycle out the current currency and I don't advocate extra spending on printing more than we usually do to replace damaged bills in circulation. 

I would also like to take out "under God" from the pledge of allegiance. And "So help me god" from the court systems oaths and from oaths of political office.

I do not want creationism taught in schools. It is not a science. It is not fit for our education systems into which taxpayers of all faiths and non-faiths pay into.

The Bible being taught as literature in public schools is a more open subject. I do not mind if the Bible is taught as literature in college, but it's not really material that young minds are open to discuss and read objectively or from different standpoints. So I do believe that in public education of k-12 the Bible should not be taught even in literature classes. Biblical references, yes! Because Biblical references, allusions, and symbolism are a large part of the subtle nuances of literature. The Bible itself though is touchy and more often than not highschool teachers are unable to teach it without preaching it.

I would like places of worship to pay taxes. At the very least for the land they occupy. And possibly income taxes as if they were a business (on a sliding scale so that smaller places of worship are exempt if they do not make enough but where large "mega-churches" and such do pay a reasonable percentage for their massive earnings).





Also, I don't think I've ever mentioned this but I am an Admin on the Freedom From Religion group on DA. \o/


----------



## BRN (Sep 23, 2011)

Deo said:


> The Bible being taught as literature in public schools is a more open subject. I do not mind if the Bible is taught as literature in college, but it's not really material that young minds are open to discuss and read objectively or from different standpoints. So I do believe that in public education of k-12 the Bible should not be taught even in literature classes. Biblical references, yes! Because Biblical references, allusions, and symbolism are a large part of the subtle nuances of literature. The Bible itself though is touchy and more often than not highschool teachers are unable to teach it without preaching it.



I disagree with this point. As a kid in a public school, I yearned for the stuff that was way over my head; mastering the nature of books designed for the age group was no achievement at all, and it was access to Shakespeare, Mary Shelley and similar that really opened up the rich depth of literature to me. Provided there's regulation - enforced discussion intentionally leading the students to rational thinking - of the material and the way its taught, the Bible could well be brought up as a piece of literature without being brought up as a tool of faith to be exploited or dismantled by the teacher on their own whims. 

Discussing the structure and meanings of, say, Corinthians 12, can be academically fulfilling. Children will never be charged with reading and comprehending an entire book; particular sections would be chosen by exam boards, and choosing 'particular sections' limits the Bible to being really just literature.

Of course, this really means there's no academic difference between studying the Bible and studying Macbeth. The choice becomes less a matter of ethics, and more of an abitrary one - "which has more literary merit which can be exploited for class discussion?" becomes the defining question. I don't think the Bible should be barred simply for being a book of faith.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 23, 2011)

Deo said:


> I would like places of worship to pay taxes. At the very least for the land they occupy. And possibly income taxes as if they were a business (on a sliding scale so that smaller places of worship are exempt if they do not make enough but where large "mega-churches" and such do pay a reasonable percentage for their massive earnings).


I have a idea, what about if a church or church convention(that's what they call the groups that oversee the denomination) donate money to a political cause that automatically voids them from being called a "non-profit" organization?  Cause that way if a church is just popular they won't get taxed, cause I have seen a couple that just have a popular preacher, but if they are handing money to a politician then that's not non-profit.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 23, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> That's as stupid as saying a straight person can't be open with their sexuality, though personally speaking, I don't give a fig what a person's sexuality is, so long as they behave themselves.  Sexuality is not the first thing I consider when I look at a person.  In fact, I support "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"... I don't even want to know if you're straight, because it has no bearing on how I'll interact with you.  Just doesn't matter.



DADT was iffy even in theory. Now it's basically turned in to "if we even THINK you're gay, you're out of here."



SIX said:


> I disagree with this point. As a kid in a public  school, I yearned for the stuff that was way over my head; mastering the  nature of books designed for the age group was no achievement at all,  and it was access to Shakespeare, Mary Shelley and similar that really  opened up the rich depth of literature to me. Provided there's  regulation - enforced discussion intentionally leading the students to  rational thinking - of the material and the way its taught, the Bible  could well be brought up as a piece of literature without being brought  up as a tool of faith to be exploited or dismantled by the teacher on  their own whims.
> 
> Discussing the structure and meanings of, say, Corinthians 12, can be  academically fulfilling. Children will never be charged with reading and  comprehending an entire book; particular sections would be chosen by  exam boards, and choosing 'particular sections' limits the Bible to  being really just literature.
> 
> Of course, this really means there's no academic difference between  studying the Bible and studying Macbeth. The choice becomes less a  matter of ethics, and more of an abitrary one - "which has more literary  merit which can be exploited for class discussion?" becomes the  defining question. I don't think the Bible should be barred simply for  being a book of faith.



Except that here, America is more  Christianity oriented. If teachers start bringing the Bible, chances are  they're not going to look at it as "literature". They're more likely to  use the Bible as a history book.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 24, 2011)

SIX said:


> I disagree with this point. As a kid in a public school, I yearned for the stuff that was way over my head; mastering the nature of books designed for the age group was no achievement at all, and it was access to Shakespeare, Mary Shelley and similar that really opened up the rich depth of literature to me. Provided there's regulation - enforced discussion intentionally leading the students to rational thinking - of the material and the way its taught, the Bible could well be brought up as a piece of literature without being brought up as a tool of faith to be exploited or dismantled by the teacher on their own whims.
> 
> Discussing the structure and meanings of, say, Corinthians 12, can be academically fulfilling. Children will never be charged with reading and comprehending an entire book; particular sections would be chosen by exam boards, and choosing 'particular sections' limits the Bible to being really just literature.
> 
> Of course, this really means there's no academic difference between studying the Bible and studying Macbeth. The choice becomes less a matter of ethics, and more of an abitrary one - "which has more literary merit which can be exploited for class discussion?" becomes the defining question. I don't think the Bible should be barred simply for being a book of faith.



Agreed with all of the above, but nonetheless I don't trust American public school teachers to not take the opportunity to cross the line over to preaching.  Our high school standards for literature are already a joke so it's not that big a loss.

I don't think churches need to be taxed directly (provided they stay within the confines seperation of church and state entails) but I support ending special tax exemptions for clergy.  Some of the loopholes they get are obscene.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 24, 2011)

SIX said:


> I disagree with this point. *As a kid in a public school, I yearned for the stuff that was way over my head*; mastering the nature of books designed for the age group was no achievement at all, and it was access to Shakespeare, Mary Shelley and similar that really opened up the rich depth of literature to me. Provided there's regulation - enforced discussion intentionally leading the students to rational thinking - of the material and the way its taught, the Bible could well be brought up as a piece of literature without being brought up as a tool of faith to be exploited or dismantled by the teacher on their own whims.
> 
> Discussing the structure and meanings of, say, Corinthians 12, can be academically fulfilling. Children will never be charged with reading and comprehending an entire book; particular sections would be chosen by exam boards, and choosing 'particular sections' limits the Bible to being really just literature.
> 
> Of course, this really means there's no academic difference between studying the Bible and studying Macbeth. The choice becomes less a matter of ethics, and more of an abitrary one - "which has more literary merit which can be exploited for class discussion?" becomes the defining question. I don't think the Bible should be barred simply for being a book of faith.



As a kid in public school... grade school... I was reading at a high-school level of comprehension, according to formal testing and evaluation provided by the school, itself.  But I've been a bookworm since I was introduced to my first library, which was shortly after I learned to read by myself.  But yes, the Bible would make a good read in the manner you describe.




Aleu said:


> *DADT was iffy even in theory.* Now it's basically turned in to "if we even THINK you're gay, you're out of here."



The problem with DADT is, in and of itself, it makes an issue out of what should be a non-issue.  Like I said, don't ask, don't tell, because it doesn't matter, isn't important or relevant to the job, militarily speaking.  Or anywhere else in life, except in romance... but then, that's something private between two people.  No need to shout that from the rooftops either, whether you're straight or gay.  Or whatever.


----------



## Fay V (Sep 24, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I have a idea, what about if a church or church convention(that's what they call the groups that oversee the denomination) donate money to a political cause that automatically voids them from being called a "non-profit" organization?  Cause that way if a church is just popular they won't get taxed, cause I have seen a couple that just have a popular preacher, but if they are handing money to a politician then that's not non-profit.


I think it depends on exactly what they are doing with the money they receive. 
For instance if a church is taking in money and building more church with coffee shops and what not then I think it is still fair to ask them to pay for land. This could be circumvented with outreach programs for communities. The church helps the homeless, AA meetings, yadda yadda. 
However a church can't discriminate with this. If they want to be free from government the programs have to be secular. So they can't say "well it doesn't matter if you need soup, you're gay." or something like that. 

to be honest this is what pisses me off about Boy scouts. I despise that they can discriminate and get government funding. If you want to be a private property or group you need to do it yourself. 

But yeah. I think churches and places of worship can have tax benefits (as long as it's not being abused) but complete exemption should be if they go through steps to help out the community without discrimination.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Sep 24, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> As a kid in public school... grade school... I was reading at a high-school level of comprehension, according to formal testing and evaluation provided by the school, itself.  But I've been a bookworm since I was introduced to my first library, which was shortly after I learned to read by myself.  But yes, the Bible would make a good read in the manner you describe.



And yet, you still take the name of the policy at face value without any consideration for what it actually is.






> The problem with DADT is, in and of itself, it makes an issue out of what should be a non-issue.  Like I said, don't ask, don't tell, because it doesn't matter, isn't important or relevant to the job, militarily speaking.  Or anywhere else in life, except in romance... but then, that's something private between two people.  No need to shout that from the rooftops either, whether you're straight or gay.  Or whatever.



The problem with DADT is that if you were suspected of being homosexual you were dishonorably discharged; you were denied liberties that other heterosexual service-people were given without a moments consideration. I really hope I don't have to explain the implications of that to someone who is so obviously a man of higher intellect.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 24, 2011)

Fay V said:


> I think it depends on exactly what they are doing with the money they receive.
> For instance if a church is taking in money and building more church with coffee shops and what not then I think it is still fair to ask them to pay for land. This could be circumvented with outreach programs for communities. The church helps the homeless, AA meetings, yadda yadda.
> However a church can't discriminate with this. If they want to be free from government the programs have to be secular. So they can't say "well it doesn't matter if you need soup, you're gay." or something like that.
> 
> ...


I agree with this, it depends on what they are doing with the money.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 24, 2011)

Zaraphayx said:


> And yet, you still take the name of the policy at face value *without any consideration for what it actually is*.



Oh, I know full well what it actually is, what I'm saying is, it shouldn't exist at all.  Which is, I believe, the whole point of its repeal.  That still doesn't eliminate my belief in "Don't ask, don't tell" as a philosopy.  Your sexual orientation is something completely unimportant, not something I need or care to know.  I have no desire to ask, and you really shouldn't tell me, either... unless you're hitting on me.  And that can have its own complications, depending.





Zaraphayx said:


> The problem with DADT is that if you were suspected of being homosexual you were dishonorably discharged; you were denied liberties that other heterosexual service-people were given without a moments consideration. *I really hope I don't have to explain the implications of that to someone who is so obviously a man of higher intellect.*



You don't.  Like I said, I don't agree with this... sexual orientation has nothing to do with how well a person does their job.  Unless they're the kind who flaunts their sexuality, in which case, gay or straight, they can become a problem.  Far as I'm concerned, a person's sexuality is at the very bottom of the list of Important Things To Know, if not completely off the list.  But that's a concession... I put it off the list.

In other words, when I make friends or meet new people, I never ask, and usually, they never tell.  Though I did belong to a club, and the president of said club brought his boyfriend to the monthly meetings, so, in that case, I didn't need to ask, and he didn't need to tell.  That's the way things should be.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 25, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> I note you didn't mention anything about  politics.
> 
> And are you aware "Santa Clause" was the patron saint of thieves?
> 
> ...



Why would I need to mention politics...? Is my statement any less true  now, than if I added politics? I do agree, but it's more of a given than  a necessity to mention.

I don't know who Santa Clause you are  delving in to, but I'm talk about the standard fat jolly dude that  Children know Santa to be - Not his dark twisted origins or sinister  different-country stories. 

Separation from God is one portion of  Hell (depending on which religion we're talking about), and meant to be  the true "oh shit I better be good" moment, but in general, it's a  place of eternal punishment as well. 

I'm not too sure if I  believe a Jesus of any caliber ever existed, however, I do know the  tall tale of the Carpenter and what not. Humans created religion, I  believe they did it for ill purposes, and specifically speaking about  Christianity - Religious (and probably political, can't recall at the  moment) Leader repeatedly got together and determined what good and evil  was going to go in the Bible. 

I don't recall specifying those particular wars, or even a country...state...continent...time period . Good job jumping to the most recent wars though - Read deeper into a few of those wars, and you'll find bouts of religious unrest along side the political unrest - Which is why I do sparingly and vaguely agree with your point about politics and religion can and do regularly go in hand.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Sep 25, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Oh, I know full well what it actually is, what I'm saying is, it shouldn't exist at all.  Which is, I believe, the whole point of its repeal.  That still doesn't eliminate my belief in "Don't ask, don't tell" as a philosopy.  Your sexual orientation is something completely unimportant, not something I need or care to know.  I have no desire to ask, and you really shouldn't tell me, either... unless you're hitting on me.  And that can have its own complications, depending.



It's a bad philosophy to build rules around though; by it's nature it assumes fault on behalf of the person who does not fit into the majority, because of the fact that it is assumed someone is heterosexual unless stated otherwise. That philosophy promotes the suppression of expression via communication. (lol)




> You don't.  Like I said, I don't agree with this... sexual orientation has nothing to do with how well a person does their job.  Unless they're the kind who flaunts their sexuality, in which case, gay or straight, they can become a problem.  Far as I'm concerned, a person's sexuality is at the very bottom of the list of Important Things To Know, if not completely off the list.  But that's a concession... I put it off the list.



I agree, but there is a sliding scale between being open about their sexuality and 'flaunting' it. 



> In other words, when I make friends or meet new people, I never ask, and usually, they never tell.  Though I did belong to a club, and the president of said club brought his boyfriend to the monthly meetings, so, in that case, I didn't need to ask, and he didn't need to tell.



As someone who is 'openly' bisexual and doesn't tell except on a need to know basis, I don't feel it is inappropriate to speak of such things as long as it is within reason and taste. That whole 'know your audience' thing comes into play too.



> That's the way things should be.



If we lived in a world where people didn't have to worry about the social stigma associated with being gay I would agree with you; I want you to consider the (hypothetical) possibility that someone among your group was homophobic and made a scene when he was surprised by the sudden unannounced guest. Sometimes being upfront and forthcoming with things like this can save a lot of trouble in the long term. 

It's often why closeted individuals undergo so much emotional despair, because eventually they feel that being true to themselves can cause a destabilization in their established interpersonal relationships.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Sep 25, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Why would I need to mention politics...? Is my statement any less true  now, than if I added politics? I do agree, *but it's more of a given than  a necessity to mention*.



Heh... in this crowd, it needs mentioning.  "Givens" are not always apparent or obvious to people.





Lastdirewolf said:


> I don't know who Santa Clause you are  delving in to, but I'm talk about the standard fat jolly dude that Children know Santa to be - *Not his dark twisted origins or sinister  different-country stories.*



Aren't origins important?  Aren't how others see things also important, any time you discuss either religion or politics?





Lastdirewolf said:


> Separation from God is one portion of  Hell (depending on which religion we're talking about), and meant to be  the true "oh shit I better be good" moment, but in general, *it's a  place of eternal punishment as well*.



Eternal torment, actually.  Its hot, dry, isolated... and, like I said, you get to see what you missed for all eternity.  That is the torment.  At least according to the Christian Bible.





Lastdirewolf said:


> I'm not too sure if I  believe a Jesus of any caliber ever existed, however, I do know the tall tale of the Carpenter and what not. *Humans created religion, I  believe they did it for ill purposes, and specifically speaking about  Christianity - Religious (and probably political, can't recall at the  moment) Leader repeatedly got together and determined what good and evil  was going to go in the Bible.*



But that is the fault of the leaders, not of the religion.  The "leaders" took what was there and used it as a weapon to further their own selfish ends.  In other words, they were being human.  You can't have "leaders" in a religion until you have "followers".




Lastdirewolf said:


> *I don't recall specifying those particular wars*, or even a country...state...continent...time period . Good job jumping to the most recent wars though - Read deeper into a few of those wars, and you'll find bouts of religious unrest along side the political unrest - Which is why I do sparingly and vaguely agree with your point about politics and religion can and do regularly go in hand.



No, you didn't, but, as you've noted and I've noted, religion and politics are quite often mixed.  But not always.  Which is why it is not always a "given", and needs to be said.  Too many people focus on the religious and ignore the political wrongs of the world.  Question is, would we be better off without religion, or without politics?  Since, you know, politics is what corrupts religion, from what I can see of the matter.  Not the other way around.




Zaraphayx said:


> *It's a bad philosophy to build rules around though*; by it's nature it assumes fault on behalf of the person who does not fit into the majority, because of the fact that it is assumed someone is heterosexual unless stated otherwise. That philosophy promotes the suppression of expression via communication. (lol)



True... philosophy needs to remain philosophical.  Don't try to use it in a "practical" application, right?  





Zaraphayx said:


> I agree, *but there is a sliding scale between being open about their sexuality and 'flaunting' it*.



Again, true.  But there are some people who just can't stop rubbing other people's faces in it.






Zaraphayx said:


> As someone who is 'openly' bisexual and doesn't tell except on a need to know basis, I don't feel it is inappropriate to speak of such things as long as it is within reason and taste. *That whole 'know your audience' thing comes into play too.*



Very true!  But again, some people... heh.





Zaraphayx said:


> If we lived in a world where people didn't have to worry about the social stigma associated with being gay I would agree with you; I want you to consider the (hypothetical) possibility that someone among your group was homophobic and made a scene when he was surprised by the sudden unannounced guest. *Sometimes being upfront and forthcoming with things like this can save a lot of trouble in the long term.*
> 
> It's often why closeted individuals undergo so much emotional despair, because eventually they feel that being true to themselves can cause a destabilization in their established interpersonal relationships.



Yes, that's a consideration.  It would seem situational, something each person would have to take into account in making such decisions.  And really, at least to me, "established interpersonal relationships" shouldn't be affected by a person's sexual orientation, unless the relationship has the potential for becoming intimate.  To those who are "just friends", it shouldn't matter.  But yes, quite often it does, and that can be a shame.

I guess YMMV would apply here, in spades.


----------

