Should religion be outlawed as it seems to be at the epicenter of most

[madokie]

of the worlds strife. What exactly is the purpose of it. If it is so good why so much bad comes of it.:shrug:

[Jim__]

1. Who will enforce that law? The thought police?

Thought police don't have an especially good record either.

[The2ndWheel]

2. You could say the same about science

Religion never made a bomb, much less THE bomb.

They both share the same goal, in a way. Religion told us we could live forever in some respect, science tries to apply that practically in some respect.

I'd be happy with both of them gone, but that's not happening.

[Bill McBlueState]

16. wow, just wow.

You'd be happy with science gone, huh?

Would you have liked it better when the average person lived to 35? When people were so ignorant as to think that the gods made thunderstorms and that the sun circled the earth? When they didn't have, you know, internet discussion forums?

It's almost a shame that people who are so ignorant of science still get to benefit so much from it.

By the way, you're confusing the science of nuclear fission with the policy decision to unleash it on civilian populations.

[The2ndWheel]

30. Mind blowing, huh? Amazing that someone in 2006 could think like that!

"Would you have liked it better when the average person lived to 35?"

But did they know they "only" lived that long? What if they lived in a society that had no concept of time?

"When people were so ignorant as to think that the gods made thunderstorms and that the sun circled the earth?"

As long as you don't kill anyone because you think that way, what the hell do I care?

"When they didn't have, you know, internet discussion forums?"

Life couldn't go on without them.

"It's almost a shame that people who are so ignorant of science still get to benefit so much from it."

It's almost a shame that people can feel so superior to other people. I mean, those Indian savages that the Declaration of Independence refers to did need to be civilized, and thank God that they were. They didn't understand how bad they had it.

"By the way, you're confusing the science of nuclear fission with the policy decision to unleash it on civilian populations."

But those bombs were made specifically to threaten other human beings.

[Bill McBlueState]

43. for all of your equivocating

You're trying to set up this picture where pre-scientific people were just as happy with their lives as people who live in an age of science. That's probably true. Three hundred years ago, people may have been just as likely to be happy as they are today. Who knows?

But, when people are given the opportunity to take advantage of modern medicine and technology, they tend to. They like to belittle the hard work others have done to make modern life possible, but they sure aren't willing to turn off their computers, sell their cars, forgo all their medicine, and go live in the forest.

And as for your "as long as you don't kill anyone .., what the hell do I care": I belong to a political party and associate with people who value knowledge over superstition. Superstition has put us in some pretty deep holes as a species, and the understanding brought about by the scientific method is all that's going to get us out. I mean really, who would you rather have in charge of the country? The people who think Earth is 6000 years old, or people who understand how to collect data and draw the right conclusions from it?

[The2ndWheel]

44. I never said I'd stop anyone

from taking advantage of modern medicine and technology. I couldn't, nor would I want to. That would be imposing my will on others, and I'm not that guy.

I have no religious affiliation, so I don't question science/the scientific method/nuclear fission/whatever because it's an afront to God. I do it strictly from whoever I am as a person. I don't put all my faith in science to solve the world's problems. In some cases, I think it's only made problems even bigger and more difficult to handle.

"I mean really, who would you rather have in charge of the country? The people who think Earth is 6000 years old, or people who understand how to collect data and draw the right conclusions from it?"

Honestly? Neither. It's far too big an entity for anyone to be in charge.

Those are just my opinions. I live in this modern world. It's like paying taxes. Very few people are going to protest the war by not paying their taxes so as to try and destroy our global military empire. It's the same with the forrest/computer/medicine analogy. This is the world I was born into. I actually don't have a car, try my best not to use modern medicine(but hey, sometimes those headaches are too much), and those other two examples...you never know. So I think the umbrella category of science has more of a negative effect than positive. I'm not forcing that view on anyone.

[Odin2005]

67. Ugh, I hate luddites...

:puke:

[Codeine]

76. But I love the delicious irony

of Luddites on the internet. :rofl:

[Odin2005]

85. I know. Pathetic, ain't it?

:rofl:

[The2ndWheel]

100. Well if you haven't noticed, it's 2006

Just because I may have a thought or two about science that apparently shakes the very foundation of the industry, doesn't mean I'm not a functioning human in today's society.

[cgrindley]

94. I think you've got the wrong idea of Luddites

Luddites, properly speaking, don't hate science or technology of progress, but fight against applications of those technologies that directly reduce the quality of life for average people.

Here's a perfect example:

fricking god damn voice telephone maze menu fucking things.

1. they displace actual humans from working

2. they don't make life any better for the people using them

Solution: smash the machines.

The term is pretty specific as far as its historical roots go. It's a term that comes from the industrial revolution. Lord Byron's first speech in the House of Lords was to argue for mercy for Luddites, who were facing the death penalty for smashing mill equipment.

A good novel is Kurt Vonnegut's Player Piano.

[The2ndWheel]

98. See, but I love you

I mean, I really love you.

Why would you hate someone for a thought they have that is so beyond possibility, that it really is meaningless?

Have a broken one machine? No. Have I stopped science? No. Is science going anywhere? No. It's just a thought in my head.

But I'm pathetic, so I know my feelings for you can never be.

[Lindacooks]

83. Yes, if people die when they reach the age of 35

others know that they will most likely die at that age too. Humans have always had a concept of time.

You're literally comparing the advance of science to the genocide of the Native American population? Please. That's so far out in right field you're out of the ballpark.

Science isn't a religion. It's based on facts and repeatable, verified experiments, and the laws of physics and mathematics.

Sheesh.

[The2ndWheel]

95. Always?

"Humans have always had a concept of time."

No we haven't.

"You're literally comparing the advance of science to the genocide of the Native American population?"

It didn't hurt the process.

"Science isn't a religion. It's based on facts and repeatable, verified experiments, and the laws of physics and mathematics."

But if the scientific process is held as the be all, end all, that's exactly how religion created God. All I'm saying is the absolute trust we put into science can be just as, if not more dangerous, in some instances.

Don't worry though, science isn't going anywhere just because I might see a few problems with it. I'm not the kid from The Twilight Zone.

[Lindacooks]

101. That's ridiculous.

Didn't you read what I wrote? We don't 'place trust' or 'believe in' science; theories are put forward which are tested, and the theories are changed, are proven correct, or are discarded. There is no other discovery method that IS the 'be all and the end all'.

Faith is just that - believing in something that cannot be proven. Sheesh.

[Dorian Gray]

81. That's very true.

Science is benign. What people DO with it is what might make it dangerous. (In respect to scientific exploration of weaponry.) That is what I meant earlier about religion, as well. Religion is not bad in and of itself. It's when it's used by humans with the propensity towards harming other individuals that it becomes dangerous.

Neither religion NOR science should ever be banned.

[fishwax]

24. you'd be happy with science gone?

:shrug:

[The2ndWheel]

36. Yes

I think we're completely out of whack with the rest of life because of it. But I'm just an ignorant fool who's pointless opinion(since I'm in no position to have a say it what happens, which is a good thing) shouldn't be listened to because it's slightly different than the majority.

[Lindacooks]

104. Then I assume that you haven't had any dental work done, or

ever gone to a doctor, don't drive a car, live in a mud hut, grow your own food and hunt, make your own clothes and shoes, etc.

None of those things would exist without science.

[The2ndWheel]

110. Absolutely I've had work done

Bascially all before I was legally able to not do it. I went to the doctor once for a knee injury I had in highschool. I don't drive a car. Don't live in a mud hut, or make any of my own food or clothes. I never said I was perfect. I do live in 2006 America.

Just because I may have a different thought about science, doesn't mean that I don't live in reality. I know what would and wouldn't exist with and without science. I wouldn't worry about it, because science isn't going anywhere. All I said was that both science and religion could go. I didn't say I would ban it. I wouldn't want that kind of power. I'm in the vast minority of opinion, and that's fine. I'm not stopping anyone from going to the dentist, the doctor, living in a big house, shopping here and there, etc.

Science, religion, globalization, these are forces that nobody has control over. They've been going on for thousands of years. One expendable consumers thought about science isn't going to make it go away.

[melm00se]

32. bill and fishwax

how did you get that from nomoremyths post?

he posed an interesting point of view but I can't see where that could be interpreted as doing away with science.

[SammyWinstonJack]

40. Well, maybe from this?

Religion told us we could live forever in some respect, science tries to apply that practically in some respect. I'd be happy with both of them gone, but that's not happening.:shrug:

[The2ndWheel]

42. It can go

I have no problem saying that. It's just my opinion. I won't stop the scientific community from doing what they want, I don't have that kind of power. I wouldn't want that kind of power, as I'm opposed to the exact structure upon which that power is based on.

[fishwax]

51. It was the part where he said "I'd be happy with both of them gone"

With the "both" referring to religion and science. :)

[Fox Mulder]

33. That's the most idiotic thing I have ever read here on the DU.

Seriously.

[The2ndWheel]

39. Well thank you kindly

I always thought my typed ramblings didn't make much an an impact. Just another post in the few million. But look at me now baby!

[madokie]

41. as I clean my keyboard and monitor

they needed a good cleaning anyway

[Codeine]

80. Damn, if you think *that* was stupid

you need to hit the 9-11 Dungeon. :crazy:

[nam78_two]

69. huh???

wow....

[Codeine]

73. Get rid of science?

I hope you like living in the dark, colder than ice or hotter than hell, crawliing with bugs and starving your ass off; until you die at 40, of course.

[The2ndWheel]

99. Well it wouldn't be dark all the time

We all live in colder and hotter weather, we only artificially manipulate those conditions.

Crawling with bugs? Crawling? Would I still have two arms to swat them away with? Or am I going in armless?

As for the starving part, that's why you get food. You make it all sound so helpless.

Damn, you would think I was some kind of heretic. Just instead of stoning, I'd be pilled to death.

[RethugAssKicker]

3. It should be outlawed from the government !

But I say on ly the Western Regligions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism)

These are the ones that want Armageddon!

[porphyrian]

4. No, how anti-American is that sentiment?

I mean, maybe we should ban cars because automotive accidents are in the top causes of death. The thing is that there already are rules for war and laws regulating behavior that causes death, but our own government has been flagrantly disregarding them all for so long that it's difficult for us to stand up and point out others who do so without being huge fucking hypocrites. You want things to change? Get the criminals and traitors out of your own government.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

5. It should not be outlawed but should be eliminated from politics

as the Constitution mandates.

[onenote]

88. where does the constitution say that

There should be separation of church and state. But how do you take politics out of religion (or religion out of politics). People are going to believe things for a variety of reasons. A lot of folks who support civil rights and oppose war do so based on their very heartfelt religious beliefs. How do you separate them?

[Zensea]

6. Only politicos get ideas like this ...

...stupid ideas in my opinion.
How can you outlaw something that comes from the internal psyche of humans?
Outlaw it and it will remanifest immediately.
Humans are at the epicenter of the world's strife.
Religion is simply a manifestation of human consciousness.

[smirkymonkey]

86. The concept of god or spirit may be internal, but religion most

certainly isn't. That's like saying Capitalism is part of the internal psyche of humans.

The human constructs of Capitalism and Religion take advantage of humanity's greed and superstition.

[ixion]

7. outlawing something doesn't work... it must simply not be allowed

to drive the policies of civilzation, IMO.

Religion/Spirituality is a private matter, not one to be paraded around.

[melm00se]

34. an absolutely great quote

Religion is like good underwear. It supports you; it comforts you. It's worn on the inside, and it's bad manners to show it off. I wish certain people would remember this.

[ixion]

45. exactly

great quote, thanks! :hi:

[Perky]

8. Good Grief

If you took that position we would still have slavery in this country. Look at the roots of the Abolitionist movement.

[tocqueville]

9. no, but regulated as in France and some other European countries

1) religion is a private matter and cannot interfere whatsoever with public affairs
2) no exception legislation can be made for religion, example taxes
3) no religious signs can interfere with the political debate, civil servants and public schools or services
4) when religions turn into scams and cults, they can be forbidden (example scientology)
5) democratically voted decisions rule over religious beliefs (abortion etc..)

[cgrindley]

13. That's reasonable enough

I'd vote for it, except a) I can't vote, and b) isn't that more or less what the situation in America is supposed to be?

[smirkymonkey]

87. I must move to France immediately.

I've had enough of this superstitious religious tripe.

[jonnyblitz]

10. no, because then it would fester underground into something

uglier than it already is. at least with it legal and out in the open we can keep our eye on it better.

[Warpy]

11. Yes, outlaw it. Outlawing other personal choice has such a great

record of success. We've managed to outlaw adultery, homosexuality, drugs, kinky sex, pornography, and prostitution. Now it's time to start working on the mental perversion of religion. Hey, we might be able to outlaw conservatism, itself, if we keep being this successful!

Even if it were possible, bullies would just pick something else to use to batter their fellow humans with.

[cgrindley]

12. Not outlawed but tightly regulated

1. no minor should be allowed to possess a religious text, participate in a religious ritual or enter a church

2. no adult should be allowed to possess a religious text without taking a course in comparative world religion at the first year university level, and all such courses should be taught by Unitarians or Atheists.

I've actually taught graduate studies as a visiting faculty member at an ivy league divinity school, and I can tell you that the people I taught weren't a danger to anyone. They all were going to have at least 8 years of highly specialized education, and all were forced to learn the texts in the original languages and learn about the way those texts were created, transmitted and copied. These were excellently trained and screened students. No nutjobs among them. Sweet kids. Bright kids.

I'm also a practicing High Church Anglican, although it would be more proper to call me a Neo-Platonist, (for example, I do not literally believe in the actual divinity of Christ, but I do believe in the metaphorical divinity of the philosophy of Christ: the difference between the two positions, to me, is reasonably immaterial. Neither do I believe that "god" exists in the way that say your dining room table exists or is conscious even in the way that your pet is conscious). My parents were and still are strict Atheists and until I was 18, I never set foot in a church. I think that religion is something that you have to rationally approach and study. It has to be something that is voluntary. To force it on a child is a crime. My children, for example, have never been to a church and were not baptized. If it's something for them, it'll be their decision.

The problem with religion is that the vast majority of religious people don't know anything about the religions they apparently believe in. How many Catholic laypeople, do you figure, even know the Cathecism by heart? Here's a test: ask a typical Catholic whether or not you go to hell for killing yourself. Ask them if it's okay to pray to St. Anthony to find your lost car keys.

Education and age restrictions could probably do a lot to clear this up, but it can't be fundie education. It's got to be dispassionate.

[fishwax]

27. so restricting access to information will make people more knowledgable

about what they believe in? Only those who have the time, money, etc. to take a university-level religious class can possess religious texts? And everyone else has to just trust them on it? Jesus, what an elitist idea. I don't trust ANYONE to control other people's access to philosophy (even unitarians and atheists ;))

[madokie]

28. better yet, I don't trust anyone to do what is best for me except me,

myself and I

[fishwax]

29. i'm with you there

i'm willing to take advice, just not direction :evilgrin:

[madokie]

35. and only advice from someone who didn't just talk in half truths

or outright lies, their words me nothing to me.

[cgrindley]

37. So you don't trust radiologists or dentists?

Or structural engineers? Or vets? Or any other profession that requires a certain quantity of education prior to their ability to inflict it on the general public? Do you believe that a lay person can acquire enough knowledge from a non-college source in order to have an intelligent, informed opinion on radiology? On dentistry? On, say, forensic accounting?

[fishwax]

47. i don't blindly trust their word, and my access to their info is not

restricted. You're saying access to information should be restricted. Nobody but the educated elite should be allowed to possess religious texts.

The analogies you draw to radiologists, etc. are completely irrelevant, since they are professions and not merely collections of information. Besides, exploring the bible or the koran or the sruti for your own edification in the manner that you see fit is hardly the same as, say, overseeing the construction of a bridge over which millions of cars must pass.

I don't generally support banning books, and disallowing all but the educated elite to possess religious texts is close enough to that to be dangerous. I support regulations which protect the safety of people who use bridges or have oral surgery or get themselves x-rayed. But I can do without the thought police.

[cgrindley]

49. But that's not entirely true

The analogies you draw to radiologists, etc. are completely irrelevant, since they are professions and not merely collections of information. Besides, exploring the bible or the koran or the sruti for your own edification in the manner that you see fit is hardly the same as, say, overseeing the construction of a bridge over which millions of cars must pass.


Seeing as you fleshed it out for me, I'd have to repeat, yes. It's an entirely apt analogy.

Would you feel more comfortable if we switched this to literature? Say, Moby Dick? How about this? Would you feel comfortable leading a group discussion of Moby Dick? Perhaps teaching the text to grade school children or high school children? That scene in the try works? What was that all about, really? What about the crazy cabin boy? Should I interpret the tattooed harpooner's relationship with the narrator as being a homosexual relationship?

I think that what most people forget about is that the Bible is an extremely difficult text and it is entirely possible to utterly misread it in a zillion different ways. For example, what do you know about the Documentary Hypothesis? How would that bit of knowledge affect your ability to discuss, for example, the Sacrifice of Isaac episode? Or the days of creation?

The material is so difficult that I don't really think that a lay audience can self-educate themselves on it, but certainly require a trained guide. Historically, the Catholics were right to discourage reading the Bible. The damn thing is huge and periodically makes little sense.

[fishwax]

50. should possession of moby dick be restricted to those who have completed

a university level class on moby dick? :shrug:

Further, to make the analogy closer to what you originally advanced, should possession of Moby Dick be restricted to those who have completed a university level class on moby dick, taught by people with a specific and restricted interpretation of the book?

Yes, by all means, we should remove Moby Dick from bookstores and libraries, lest someone without a university education try to read it. :eyes: Whether I'd feel comfortable leading a group discussion on Moby Dick, the Bible, and/or the Documentary Hypothesis has nothing to do with it. You said that only experts should be able to possess the material. I have a hard time taking any suggestion that we should ban a massive category of books or restrict people's access to vast amounts of literature, philosophy, and religion particularly seriously.

Seeing as you fleshed it out for me, I'd have to repeat, yes. It's an entirely apt analogy.

No, it's still a very bad analogy. With a little work, I could have access to all the same texts that are used to train structural engineers. I could read them for whatever purpose I want to. My access to those materials has not at all been restricted. Are you suggesting that somehow it should be? That somehow if I, a mere layperson, were to flip through a copy of The Journal of Structural Engineering in the privacy of my own home then bridges around the world would be in danger of collapsing?

A structural engineer (or a radiologist or a dentist) can do serious damage to the health and safety of others if incompetent or poorly trained. An incompetent engineer may build a bridge that collapses. An incompetent dentist may shove the drill through the roof of the patient's mouth. An incompetent radiologist may not properly protect a patient from the effects of radiation. How any of these compares to some schmuck leafing through a copy of "The Life of the Buddha" in his local Barnes and Noble eludes me. If you really think it an apt analogy, can you perhaps explain the connection a little more clearly?

[cgrindley]

52. No, I overstated the case to be dramatic

The problem is that many people who do privately study various religions without competent assistance do go ahead and construct little dnagerous bridges in their backyards, they create their own ideosyncratic interpretations of works they don't really understand and come up with some really hurtful conclusions or make absurd decisions, or worse, transmit their flawed understanding to others.

A lot of neo-conservative fundamentalist thought is based on really poor understandings of biblical texts. Look, for example, at all of the hysterical rants against homosexuals, rants that repeatedly refer to Leviticus. This is an excellent example of people making dangerous little structures that have the habit of routinely hurting those who encounter them. It's that instinct that I'm dead against. The idea that just because something is a bunch of words on a page that it can be readily understood to the point where it can be taught to others.

No one, other than someone who has at least a general familiarity with the history of the American novel, should be teaching Moby Dick. And, as a society, we have a bunch of safeguards to protect us even from that small mischief. We require teachers to be certified, and, although I am by no means a friend to the way that NCLB operates, soon enough the majority of teachers will be required to at least hold a BA. And yet any idiot can stand up on a street corner and declaim all manner of religious nonsense. If we were to see a passing lecturer on speaker's corner earnestly lecturing on the impossibility of salvation in the works of Melville, we would certainly only approach with scepticism. And yet for religion, a lot of these people end up with highly visible ministries. Some even given the vague sheen of respectability through the auspices of unaccredited universities.

Can you imagine going into the park one day and watching someone rant on and on about dentistry? You'd think that person insane, and yet you can turn on the television on a Sunday morning and see far worse.

[fishwax]

58. i agree with you about the fundies, I just don't see your suggestion as a

solution. I don't need a university-endorsed unitarian or atheist to help me build my metaphorical religious bridges. I'll go ahead and reserve the right to decide for myself which experts to follow.

Perhaps nobody without a general familiarity with the history of the American novel can teach moby dick in an accredited classroom setting, but anybody who wants to can talk about it with distant relatives at a family reunion or friends on a fishing trip or, indeed, strangers on a street corner. As it should be.

When it comes to matters of health and safety, I sometimes have to rely on the credibility of regulatory forces: when I drive across a bridge, I'm trusting that the government and civil regualations and agencies which oversaw its construction (including the training of engineers, etc.) have sufficiently safeguarded me from incompetence.

But when it comes to matters of personal thought, I trust noone's expertise more than my own--not even ivy league educated unitarians. That doesn't mean I don't consider what such experts say or that I don't acknowledge their expertise, which is likely greater than my own in some areas. Same goes with literature: I've never felt compelled to accept the interpretation proffered by any of my professors if it runs counter to my own experience, knowledge, etc. And as a university instructor myself, I tell my students that a big part of education is realizing that they may well have insight that their professors don't, and that they shouldn't hesitate to challenge "official" sources of information, including me. :)

[cgrindley]

59. That's all fine and well

if you first equip students with the ability to analyze the quality of the sources they rely upon, teach them good critical thinking skills, reading skills, research skills and so on. It's asinine to give them a blanket permission to challenge all official sources of information without providing them with the tools to distinguish crap from non crap. What if you get a history paper where a student uses freaking David Irving? That one is going to fail for sure.

[fishwax]

60. they'll never develop those abilities by simply trusting the experts

I didn't say anything about blanket permission. But even a misguided challenge to an authority (such as me) who happens to be right can be used to develop critical thinking skills.

[tritsofme]

105. While you seem very educated, it seems you fail to grasp any understanding

of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Keep government out of religion and keep religion out of government.

[JVS]

108. That is the most horrific idea I've heard here.

[sgxnk]

14. it's doesn't come from religion

it comes from people. people will use religion but it aint a religion thang. it's a people.

they will also use atheism. see: China

regimes have outlawed religion before

maoist china comes to mind

and it was OH so peaceful

murdering scores of millions of people

[madokie]

15. Thanks for all the replies and I can't argue against or for any of them

I was raised in the Southern Baptist religion but as I have aged I no longer believe in all this god thing. And I understand that to mean that is my right. All the while I believe in the Ten Commandants, a good basic set of laws to enable all to live peacefully.
I was just wondering thats all.

[TheFriedPiper]

17. not outlawed, just ridiculed

outlawing it would only make it stronger.

More and more public ridicule of religion is more effective.

Once people really take a look at their beliefs from outside the bubble, they tend to see reality a bit more.

[madokie]

19. I thnk this is where I am, btw, welcome to DU

Once people really take a look at their beliefs from outside the bubble, they tend to see reality a bit more.

[onenote]

89. yep, ridicule religion. That'll get more Democrats elected

NOT.

[smirkymonkey]

91. I actually think humanity will eventually "evolve" out of the need

for religion (although things aren't looking too good at the moment,)as we have seem to evolved out of polythiesm and earlier superstitions.

Unfortunately, I think by the time we do it will be too late. I would like to think some cataclysmic event will make all of humanity realize they are one and then stop hating one another, but I am not too optimistic.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." Napoleon

Except when the poor reach the breaking point.

[HornBuckler]

20. better yet - get rid of dumb ass morons that preach

n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. You mean like in Mao's China and Enver Hoxha's Albania?

:eyes:

Because those are the only nations that have ever outlawed religion, and they weren't exactly shining examples of human rights.

If you don't know what good religion ever did, then you know nothing about it that you didn't learn from anti-religious websites.

[madokie]

23. No anti anything here, see reply #15

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. What is its purpose

To quote Marx, the opium of the masses

[derby378]

25. Man, these anti-religion threads just crack me up

The problem, once again, isn't religion per se.

It's DOGMA.

Dogma doesn't have to be religious in nature. Just look at vitalism, objectivism, Communism, etc.

[madokie]

26. what do you think the pro-Religion ones do to us

same response :shrug:

[derby378]

31. I'm still convinced your real beef is with dogma

Dogma can make otherwise intelligent people do really weird and/or stupid things.

[madokie]

38. I don't really have a beef as such, I have what I at the present believe

always with an open mind, in fact that is why I believe what I do.
And you may be correct who knows. and I may just come away from this believing in something new for me.
peace

[woo me with science]

46. not ALL dogma

just pitbulls.

[nam78_two]

78. exactly right-look at the hard right libertarians for instance

As an environmentalist and animal welfare activist, dogmatic libertarians have been the bane of my existence as long as I can remember :).

They are my pet peeve....Ayn Rand says...blah blah.....

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. What a fascist idea!

Authoritarianism of the left is no better than authoritarianism of the right.

[RadiDem]

53. It should come with 'warning labels' and be highly taxed

just like tobacco

[NotGivingUp]

54. Let's rephrase the question... Should brainwashing be outlawed?

Religion is brainwashing. It breeds passivity. It negates critical thinking.

[onenote]

90. So what's your excuse

For a lack of critical thinking?

[adwon]

55. Ok

Short list of things that would have to be tossed along with religion:

Individual rights (heinously tainted forever with the thought that a deity could endow people with rights)
Western literature
Confucius
The Dalai Lama (he's the head of a religion, don't you know)
Abolitionism
Marx and his derivatives (founders of a political religion)
Most of Western history (religion is a prominent and recurring theme)
Most any philosophy (it's derived from theology in more ways than one)
The Declaration of Independence
Abraham Lincoln
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Jesse Jackson
Al Sharpton
Andrew Greeley
Environmentalism

Why toss these things and people? They're irrevocably tied to religion and would, in time, result in a resurgence of that which you seek to outlaw. Of course, that's assuming that a suppression of religion actually works. Short of mass genocide, it's quite difficult to imagine how to implement such a scheme and have it work.

Personally, I find the very idea of banning religion to be as silly as ordering people to bow down and worship the state. There's really no difference between the two in that both invade the individual's private sphere for the purpose of 'the greater good.' What of the right to privacy? Should it only matter when sex is involved in some way? Why shouldn't it matter when it comes to questions of conscience and belief?

As an aside, I'd note that official atheism hasn't been so hot, either. Mao and Stalin opposed religion, yet managed to slaughter tens of millions. Does that mean we should ban atheism? Not no but hell no. What you choose to believe is your business and what I choose to believe is mine. If you (hypothetically) are an atheist and I'm not, what the hell right do you have to dictate to me? Conversely, what the hell right do I have to dictate to you? We can attempt to persuade each other and that's fine (provided it's a mutual business, not this Cry Halleujah and pitch Jesus the football shit I get so much of in the South). We can agree to disagree or we can agree that each of us thinks the other is an idiot. That's fine. WE are the ones deciding. Imposing belief, or the lack thereof, is conversion by the sword. I'm sure it had a good beat and I know they danced just fine to it in the Middle Ages, but I'd like to believe we've progressed just a tiny bit since then.

[warrens]

56. No, but it shouldn't be tax exempt

You can't tell people they can't have a religion, but you don't have to encourage it by making it a money-maker par excellence, leading to the profit motive in converting otherwise sane people to your insane beliefs.

[enigma000]

57. If you could only outlaw one religious sect at a time

Where would you start?

The Quakers? Mennonites? How about Buddhism or Hinduism?

Or do you have another group at the top of the list?

[yurbud]

61. it is the EXCUSE for strife--the reason is greed. Someone wants what

someone else has got.

Arabs have oil. Our oil companies want it.

Arabs have land. Israelis want it.

Even Hitler was looking for 'lebensraum' or living room for his burgeoning population.

If you go as far back as the Brits and Irish, at one point they were ALL Catholic, but when HJenry VIII decided to bolt from the church, the Irish didn't feel inclined to join them since they had already been shit on so much by the Brits. The conflict predated the religous schism.

[yurbud]

62. I am no fan of religion but it doesn't cause behavior

Most people modify their behavior as little as possible to fit the constraints of their religion, and more often modify their interpretation of their religion to fit what they are going to do anyway.

[madokie]

64. I think what you are saying is true.

I see religion as a crutch more than anything but that is just me

[yurbud]

93. I'd say less that a crutch. More like a hat or a scarf.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

63. No, Cause That Would Be Stupid.

[calico1]

65. If you outlaw religion what are you going to

do with people who violate the law by continuing to practice religion? Lock them up? Put them in internment camps? Make them wear armbands?

Religion should not be outlawed. It should be taken out of government and out of public schools because it belongs in neither. I also believe that any church that insists on supporting any political candidate or movement should lose its tax exempt status. But religion should not be outlawed. I don't want to live in a theocracy but that doesn't mean I want to live in a country that is going to persecute religious people. That isn't any better.

[arwalden]

66. It Would Be Easier To Eliminate Stupidity ...

... the rest will naturally follow.

[ComerPerro]

68. No. It should just be kept the fuck out of government

[manic expression]

70. That's a very bad idea

and you aren't looking at the big picture. Religion is something that people disagree on and sometimes fight over, but so is nationality, ethnicity, language, culture, governmental structure, politics and more. Should we outlaw those things, too?

[ecstatic]

71. hate to say it, but religion keeps a lot of folks in line

Without the 'fear of God' that is present in many humans, can you imagine what type of world we'd live in? Of course, there's no way to know whether the type of incidents that occured under a Godless world would outnumber the deaths that occured in the name of religion. There's really no telling.

[DireStrike]

72. As an atheist/agnostic I say HELL NO

It's an integral part of human consciousness, and separable from bigotry, hatred, and so on.

If you waved a magic wand and religion went away, the reasons for wars might change but they would still be there.

If you outlawed religion, you would be killed in a religious uprising. And I would cheer.

[nam78_two]

74. Religion like anything else can be used for good or evil...dogmatic

thinking I think is what is causing the troubles....

[Dorian Gray]

75. Of course not.

The "evil" doesn't come intrinsically from religion. It comes from human beings and their propensity towards behaving selfishly.

[sweetheart]

77. "equilibrium" nt

[Cleita]

79. Soviet Russia and Red China tried.

It was a miserable failure. Read your history. You can't outlaw religion. What you can do is make sure they stay out of politics, a thing that's not happening today. Most of these fundie churches are in violation of the Constitution. Faith based funding of charities with our tax dollars is against the Constitution. Giving school vouchers to be used in church schools is against the Constitution.

We need to make our legislators obey the Constitution by fining and penalizing any church that tries to interfere in politics. They certainly must lose their tax free status if they do.

[Odin2005]

82. Religion is not the cause of violence, it is used to RATIONALIZE...

Our tribal instincts, which includes violence between groups. Religion is no different then Ideology in this respect.

[nam78_two]

84. Ayn Rand worshipping objectivists for instance...

hardly religious in the normal sense, but try telling one of them that "those awful homeless people" aren't out on the street out of "choice", or that compassion towards non-human creatures is in a sense the essence of humanity....

You will see dogmatic behavior at its height...

For people that claim to place such a high value on 'individualism' as a group they seem pretty much into conformity when it comes to echoing everything that Rand person said...

I am generalizing of course...and it is really just based on my experience with objectivists.

Ultimately any philosophy can be twisted and misused by a person who is not open-minded

[booley]

92. It didn't stop the communists

Some people can become dangerouse ideologues for just about anything.

[Zynx]

97. Exactly. People find ideologies and kill over them.

That can be religion, Communism, Capitalism, nationalism, etc

[Zynx]

96. Religion had very little to do with 20th century wars.

Actually, if one looked at it carefully throughout history, nationalism or some product thereof is the primary agent of destruction. Areligious people have caused plenty of damage over the years.

It is shear fanatasy to pretend that only religious people cause wars and suffering.

[Guy Fawkes]

102. Read the Constitution; Re: Bill of Rights

Freedoms guaranteed by the 1st Amendment (in case your forgot):
•Religion
•Association
•Press
•Protest
•Speech

[treestar]

103. The Soviets tried it

But they needed a totalitarian state to do it.

[leftofthedial]

106. "religion is mental illness" is a bumpersticker I have seen

I think it is a net negative

I think hominids are wired in a defective manner

[ToeBot]

107. Apocalyptic philosophies breed apocalyptic behaviors.

To oppose them is to strengthen their resolve, nothing can be done about it. Religion doesn't respond to the rational. Religion will be the death of humanity, one way or another. About the best you can hope for is that it doesn't happen in your lifetime and anymore, that's a slim hope. But on the bright side, I doubt that the Earth will be made lifeless. There is every possibility that a self-aware species will evolve that is also intelligent. A pity it wasn't us.

[timtom]

109. When it comes to religion

and you aren't comfortable with it, just hit the <ignore> button