In the sense that she uses the word "pushing," she's "pushing" her beliefs on us by trying to convince us to be like her.

I agree we need a standard response. We need a standard response for much of what we get.

If one understands the right of freedome of speech and the right to peasably protest in public. Than, how is the RRS forcing there beleafs on others? The internet is public domane, Myspace is a public comunity, and holding a walk, march, or protest in downtown NJ speeking out agenst religon if they so wished is there right. So who the hell is one to sugjest another does'nt have that right just becas one does'nt compleatly agree with the words or openyans of the speech. Is that not a hipocritical atitude, stating, "I have the right to speech but you don't." Everyone in this country has the right to peasably debate in public, and the public openyans of others have no protection for respect frome the openyan of one who would publicly debate anothers openyan, and to destane frome excersising thoes rights invites social stagnation. If you decide to contribute little to nothing at all to the social and/or political develipment of the sociaty you live in, thus choosing complasency over action, than you are asking for your rights to be trampeld on by thoes that take advantige of the rights to freedome of speech and the right to peasably protest in public. So maby you should choos the option you like the least.

Then you're just asserting an opinion....

... based an a professed ignorance of the subject of heroin.

Your analogy fails, because the reason that religion leads to the problems Sapient identified is because it inculcates belief through faith. Government does not necessarily work through inculcating faith.

What he is saying is that basing beliefs on desire alone could lead to all sorts of danger, because it allows people to justify their hatreds as the commands of a god.

Every human is capable of being rational. It's not ethnocentrism to want people to think rationally. Your attempt to make this an attack on culture is silly.

No, it would be deconvert, as atheism is a return to the natural state. Religion must be inculcated, and the inculcation takes place in youth.

I shall defend my assertion that a heroine/religion analogy is a bad one. First, I appreciate the selective quoting that you have done Todangst. I said "I don't know much about herion, and I be willing to bet you don't either." You included only the former element not the latter. According to your precepts (at least those implied), one must have experience with the topic in order to make a comparison. Well then Sapient (and you too todangst) I would like to see a more explained comparison between the hope drawn from heroine and the hope drawn from religion - based off of personal expierience and knowledge. You cannot simply state something as you did without defending it. Furthermore, from what knowledge I do have of both herion and relgion, I find the comparison unfit, being that herion is a chemically dependant substance with negative physical effects. People take herione to escape pain, but succumb to an addiction that can be life threatening. Religion also may be an escape from pain, however, when practiced moderately it is not lifethreatning or physically delbiltating. However moderatley practicing herione can kill you and phsycially debilitate you.

As for your idea that government does not inculcates (good word, I had to look it up) faith or belief, I don't agree. Governement does enforces beliefs through repetition in many ways. The pledge of Alliegiance, phrases such as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", various holidays are all forced upon us since birth, in an effort to produce order. These are very similiar (in nature not content) to the Christian maxims (the ten Commandments) and holidays.

"Sapient is not saying that all religious groups endorse events like 9/11, so your argument is a strawman.
What he is saying is that basing beliefs on desire alone could lead to all sorts of danger, because it allows people to justify their hatreds as the commands of a god."

Actually in context, he was saying that religion (therefore all groups) endorse these events. "It" through the preceeding arguements was religion, and he connected "it" with acts of extremism, not specifying that the "it" was extremism itself. Its a grammar thing.

I wholeheartedly agree with you point that desire alone breeds all sorts of danger. However, throughout history people have justified hatred on more than God, particularly in the current era with regards to racism. The predominant justification of racism is biological infierioity rather than God. Since hatred is not always justified on God, it can not be because of religion. There must be another factor in humans that compels them to justify hatred. In other words God is just a means, rather than the act.

"Every human is capable of being rational. It's not ethnocentrism to want people to think rationally. Your attempt to make this an attack on culture is silly."

As for every human being capable of being rational, yes I agree, however I feel this is a deep question and should be discussed seperately. Now, I disagree that it is not ethnocentrism to want people to think rationally. The want for logic is a part of Western Culture. Your culture has made rationale the highest of highs, and you are compelled to spread it, since you have been told it is the absolute so to speak. So yes you are forcing your subconcious mantras on other cultures.

Finally, this atheism as the natural state is an interesting idea, which i disagree with, but that is a different topic. Also deconvert is not a word. Please go to a dictionary - a real dicitionary not wikipedia and guess what its non-existant. It is just a unique term developed from atheist activism, a term only exsistant in relation to this forum and not indepentaly exsistant in a umm... dictionary