A new chapter ?
Offline In theory, as set forth by many of our Constitutions, we, are to have a clear division of church and State, which has been debated many times as the topic of our sovereignty.
We have evolved greatly as the human race. At exponential rates, particularly over the last 100 or so years.
But not across the board.
Technologically, yes. Of this, there is absolutely no doubt.
Socially? Not nearly in a commensurate fashion.
There is a great think tank, among individuals in this organization, and others like it. And there is much that can still be accomplished, much like the huge gains to humanity that abolishing slavery, and the equal rights movements did to change (in some places) the societal landscape virtually overnight, leading us out of the dark ages, and propelling us into a more modern, just, and productive race.
These were the efforts of previous generations of rational thinkers. And that progression should not rest on it's laurels.
We are still not that much more evolved, in many aspects, socially, than centuries (perhaps millenia) ago.
A strategy would be instrumental to make the next quantum leap forwared, and to abolish the fairy tale 'goblins and demon' nightmares being bred into every new generation of a modern society.
To that end, a firm groundwork would need to be set, to firmly establish some new precedents, and enforce judiciary law, for the crimes that are clearly demonstrable in religious society, and hopefully, others here will be inspired to contribute (in any way they can, even if it's just to put forth ideas, and dialogue, and build momentum), and be instrumental, in furthering a conscious new effort in abolishing the freedom, and blind eye (hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil) that has been afforded by those religious zealots who commit these crimes by proxy, as moral agents for an absent 'leader'.
Among them, are:
1- The crime of fraud.
The legal definition of which appears most often as; fraud is a deliberate misrepresentation which causes another person to suffer damages.
2- The crime of tort.
The legal definition of which appears most often as; a tort is a civil wrong arising from an act or failure to act, independently of any contract, for which an action for personal injury or property damages may be brought .
3- The crime of menacing.
The legal definition of which appears most often as; menacing is something that threatens to cause evil, harm, injury, etc.; a threat The crime of terrorism.
The legal definition of which appears most often as; terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce.The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization, or a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
5- The crime of collusion.
The legal definition of which appears most often as; collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage
It occurred to me that even the very notion that the 'holy bible' is in fact 'holy' is a complete fraud, based on the etymology of the word, which defines the word 'holy' to mean 'uninjured, sound, healthy, entire, complete’, which it is demonstrably not.
Yet, it uses this method of declaration of 'holiness' as a means to certify itself and instill a false confidence. This can also be looked at, as conflict of interest, and collusion.
The effort of all this, would NOT be to abolish the human rights of individuals to live to a moral code of their choice, but to not abolish the coercion tactics of religions WRONGLY (and therefore ILLEGALLY) claiming unfalsifiable testimony as FACTS that individuals SHOULD behave in any proposed manner, or SUFFER the consequences, as put forth in their unfalsifiable (and therefore ILLEGAL, UNJUST, UNETHICAL) manifetsos.
Terrorising the human physche with the threat of eternal pain and suffering for non adherance to their individual manifestos, should be used to set a new precedent for terrorism, and psychological abuse.
Awareness of all these atrocities exists among us, but needs to be accompanied by it's strongest ally.
Action
Theism and dogma are spread like a virus. They are communicable from the host to the recipient, in a hostile method of delivery. The methods of delivery have been outlined, and demonstrated to be administered in a criminal fashion.
If 'we', as a collective of 'rationalistic' individuals, truly are as we claim, then we will be able to accomplish greatly propelling the next evolutionary step in the human race, by establishing new precendents, and perhaps, a new chapter...
4-
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
- Login to post comments
I think humanity's morality is on chapter 11
Signature ? How ?
Outlawing any speech because you disagree with it is a bad idea and a road you definitely don't want to go down. So they are crazy lying nuts. Being a crazy lying nut isn't and shouldn't be illegal. When are people going to stop looking to government force to solve all of our social problems? Talk about being backward.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Strawman.
I'm talking 'A', and you're talking about 'B'.
I never wrote that speech should be outlawed.
Strawman.
I'm talking 'A', and you're talking about 'B'.
I never wrote that being a crazy lying nut should be illegal.
Did you paste your responses in the right thread?
You're off on some other topic....
Ironic, considering this is supposed to be the 'Rational Response Squad' forum. I imagined a higher level of reading comprehension skills...
.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
How can this portion of your post be construed as anything other than wanting to outlaw the evangelism tactics of churches? You suggest that churches are breaking the law and therefore should be punished using the LAW which by definition is government force.
edit: BTW evangelism is speech. It is no different than any other political fear mongering people might participate in. All I'm saying is when you try to shut people up using government force you create a far greater problem. It is much better to use our own speech to argue against crazy theists than to try to use the law to stop them from spewing their garbage.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
There's no reason to interpret it any other way. It's what I meant.
But you went off on different tangents, that I illustrated in my previous reply to you.
Yes.
Now you're on topic.
Why are you defining that the 'law' is a government force? Who alleged otherwise?
That's a gross, and rhetorical oversimplification, and denial of what it is. Typical theist type denial.
What I wrote, didn't sink in with you. Or you are merely trying to be dismissive.
I get it.
It's no problem.
There are those who this will resonate with.
.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Come on Beyond, this is the RATIONAL response squad. We've now collectively defined rationality as: "whatever redenF says", so if you don't agree with what they say you don't belong here! Worse yet, THEISTS disagree with redenF and I think we all know your behavior makes you an angry, Shouting, STUPID THEIST!!!!
---------------------
Sorry, had to get that out of my system. What was this thread about again? Oh, right.
Seriously, good luck creating a functional and stable society where incorrect opinions are made illegal by whomever is in power at any given moment. You wouldn't be the first to try and I doubt you'll be the last.
It would work, but only in a society where everyone agreed on everything. I don't think that is a realistic goal.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Having lived in a communist state for the first 15 years of my life I feel for your idealism. Communism embraced most of those values and attempted to eradicate religion as fraud. It even went beyond that and sang a big happy utopia where everyone makes the same amount of money and everyone gets the same opportunities. It's all bullshit. Unfortunately the human race as an organism is not all that good at equality. Over time you will have the greedy and capable rise to the top and the ideological well meaning individual get trampled on. Everyone else just gets caught up like sheep. It was a good experiment in society development but it failed miserably.
I agree with you at small scale however. We should do as much as we can to eradicate religion, and the government for the most part attempts a facade of secularism. But let's face it, the majority of voters are jewelery store Christians and will vote with whomever goes to church on Sunday. It's easy for religious nuts to get elected. Just look at the Dover school district debate over teaching Creationism in school under the guise of Intelligent Design. We're ages away from a rational majority my friend.
Nice thought though
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
redneF, please elaborate further on what you think should or shouldn't be against the law?
Should all religious proselytizing be illegal?
Is it illegal to call the Bible the "Holy" Bible?
If so, what kind of punishments are the "felons" going to receive? A fine? A death sentence?
Edit: Btw, your version of Big Brother will likely not resonate with many people here. Sorry.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
If you want to say that we should use reason and debate to encourage people to move away from theism then I would agree with you. If you want the government to make it illegal for people to preach beliefs that the governing power believes are wrong you are going down a very dangerous road. Think about all the consequences if all of you suggestions were put into practice. Then consider that in a majority Christian country that atheism is the far more likely target of such laws than Christian evangelism.
On top of that, your claim that a restriction of freedom of speech and freedom of religious practice is social progress demonstrates a clear ignorance of world history. Acceptance of various religions within the same culture without extreme conflict is a rather new social progression as can easily be evidenced by looking at countries that remain traditional Muslim and obviously have far less social progress than the Western world whatever measure you use. To me, it sounds like your suggestions are a large step backwards.
So yeah, unless you have some kind of amazingly good argument for why my fellow countrymen should face criminal punishment because their beliefs happen to be different than mine and they profess those beliefs publicly I am just going to be dismissive. Just because you don't like the words they use or the beliefs they hold and try to convert people to is not a good enough reason to (collectively) sacrifice our freedom.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
The whole list of psychological abuse, terrorizing, and coercion tactics employed by theists. You know, making them 'god fearing'...
I thought that what I was referring to specifically, would have been clear.
I already answered that in the OP.
It would be nonsensical to have any issue whatsoever with people living by a moral code, and encouraging others that their 'template' of what is healthy, and what is not healthy, is a good idea to adopt, and trust that people will reason and reconcile within themselves, a likewise 'healthy' template of coexistance.
Which is what atheists seem to do. Be able to reconcile by themselves, the manner in which to conduct themselves in a benign, benevolent, and non desctructive fashion, to themselves, and others.
In the context of what I was talking about, the way the bible is presented, is that it's an instrument of coercion. It's not used to 'educate' people, it's used like a cattleprod, or a whip.
People are 'punished' for not accepting, or adhering to it's 'teachings'. It's not simply a 'textbook'.
A death sentence?? For 'fraud', 'tort', 'menacing', 'terrorism', 'collusion'? You're being rhetorical...
You're building quite a strawman, with your 'Big Brother' insinuation, and spinning what I'm discussing as if you are defending freedom of speech, and freedom of expression, and that I may be promoting 'thought police'.
Uttering death threats is a crime, even though it's also 'speech' and one 'expressing oneself'. But the distinction of why it's a crime to do so, is hardly difficult to understand. Religious teaching IS uttering threats of eternal damnation, and other horrible things to those who don't assimilate, AND misleading people that it's 'right' and justifiable to do so, according to the 'good book'.
Religion is breeding mindless drones, who are not only a threat to themselves, but each other. Religious 'teaching' is about the most severe type of psychological 'bullying' that exists.
I'm having a hard time believeing that I'm having to elaborate to this degree, to clarify and elaborate what I spoke about in the OP. Both Dawkins and Hitchens have spoken about how religious teachings should be considered as child abuse.
www.youtube.com/watch
www.youtube.com/watch
You have a habit of either oversimplifying, or overarching into some other idea....
If that is what I was 'thinking', I would have more than been capable of articulating such a basic concept.
But I didn't.
Why you insist on trying to 'decifer' my 'meaning, and paraphrase me, is beyond me...
I've thought clearly about the ones I wrote down, obviously. I'm not thinking about what you assume I 'meant'.
Don't misinterpret me, and criticize your misinterpretations, as if you're rebuking me.
It's an insult, and a waste of bandwidth.
I won't be defending your strawman...
You misinterpreted my comments.
Put down the pitchfork, and brush up on your comprehension skills.
A complete non sequitur.
That's like a lawyer arguing that a bank robber who passed a note threatening a bank teller with a gun, if she didn't give him the money, only offered her a poem...and only 'believed' that he would like to have more money, and there was no crime, or criminal intent or motivation apparent in his actions....
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Well obviously you are not because you have specifically said that you think at least some religious preaching should be illegal. Specifically that of most evangelical Christians. For example, you seem to be suggesting that the statement "If you don't believe in god you will burn in hell" should be equally as illegal as "If you don't do x I will kill you" as illustrated in your response to butterbattle
Which illustrates both your ignorance of current law and a problem with reading comprehension. There is a huge difference between someone saying "If you do x I will kill/torture you" and saying "If you do not do x you will die/be tortured by some invisible being." Even if said being existed the second saying is simply a warning and any legal recourse would have to be against the invisible being unless you could demonstrate the person had some form of control over the invisible being. It is really not that different from saying "If you don't stop polluting the world will end in 2050 and you will die" As much as you like to harp about reading comprehension I would think you could tell the difference. Countless political statements use similar types of fear mongering with warnings that electing certain people or supporting certain bills will cause economic or physical loss. While such rhetoric is often distasteful and usually completely false I see no reason to make it illegal.
Put down your book of logical fallacies and make an argument. So far the only clear argument you have made is that some religious statements are the same as non-religious statements that are illegal such as threats of violence, fraud etc. Since you have provided no evidence to support your argument and scream STRAWMAN when someone attempts to infer what type of statements/activities you would include I will wait for you to provide specific examples before shredding them to bits or agreeing with them.
No, it is an assumption of your reasoning since you have provided no real argument for your suggestions. So if you have some reason why it should be illegal that the Bible be labeled "Holy" and to say things like "If you don't believe in god you will go to hell" I would like to see a logical argument. One can be made, I have seen it before on this site. I doubt you are capable of making it but feel free to prove me wrong.
If it should be illegal to try to make people "god fearing" should it also be illegal to make people "global warming fearing" or "socialist fearing"? Both issues use very similar rhetoric of the type you seem to want illegal. Namely, the formula "If you don't do/believe in X, bad things will happen to you".
I'm sorry if you already answered these questions or have some great argument hidden away. My reading comprehension is as bad as butterbattle or mellestads or everybody else on this site. Must be the publik etyoumacashon sistum. You should read Jean Chauvins posts, the two of you apparently speak the same language much better than us lesser mortals.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Just to help you form a logical argument, some questions left unanswered in your OP.
So are you arguing that wrong and illegal are the same? That everything wrong should be/is illegal?
So are you claiming that because the manifestos are unfalsifiable they are "illegal, unjust, unethical"? Is everything that is unfalsifiable illegal, unjust and unethical? (I don't really care what you think is unjust or unethical. Let us focus on illegal and what should be illegal.)
Any reasoning for this? Or only because you think so? I don't feel particularly terrorized by empty threats but that is just me. Should all threats of future pain and suffering be illegal? And if it is only the "untrue" or unfalsifiable ones who decides what is true and unfalsifiable and why should we trust them?
What is the "hostile method" of delivery? Someone physically force you to go to church? Are ministers walking around behind you harassing you all day? You have hardly demonstrated any criminal fashion. Some examples would be nice.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Not nearly clear enough for me. What counts as psychological abuse, terrorizing, and coercion? Try this.
Christian parents telling their kids that non-Christians go to hell. Legal or illegal?
Missionaries proselytizing on my university campus. Legal or illegal?
Missionaries going door to door? Legal or illegal?
Billboards implying that nonbelievers go to hell. Legal or illegal?
Okay, so it is legal if they don't employ moral objectivism or mention hell?
What if I sarcastically threaten someone with Pastafarian hell? Is that legal?
That's great; I agree. But you didn't answer the question.
Please answer the question. How should a Christian be punished for using hell as an appeal to fear?
Well, you haven't proposed any thought crimes yet, only speech crimes. But, of course, last time I checked, speech was protected as well, with minor exceptions. So yes, I certainly intend on defending the freedom of expression in this thread.
Okay, so threatening people with hell should be illegal. What should the punishment be? What else do you think should be illegal?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
What happens if I tell someone their kid is going to die if they take a vaccine? Or don't take one? That is the same thing, right? In both cases someone believes, rightly or wrongly, that harm will come to a person if they do or do not do a particular thing. Is the arbiter of illegality scientific truth? It can't be intent, because the believer shouting about hell has a legitimate belief and they are legitimately trying to save someone from that fate. The anti-vaccine person is the same way, and so is a pro-vaccine person.
So if it is scientific truth, who gets to define that? What happens if I tell someone they will die if they eat too many eggs, but then next month a paper comes out that says eggs make people immortal? What if there are competing ideas?
What if I tell someone their political ideology is likely to result in death or suffering? What if I'm wrong?
We can make examples like this all day long...it comes down to the fact that the only way this is practical or 'fair' is if there is a perfect arbiter of what is permissible and not. As far as I know, theists are the only people that believe such a being exists.
Mod edit: ...of a mod's post. Quote function.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.