Thread: Heroes For Gods?

Originally Posted by richmondesi

Does freedom of the press = freedom from the press, or is freedom of speech = freedom from speech? Such a policy would trample all over the first amendment, and as such would be a bad move, IMO.

Setting aside for the moment that these are Americocentic notions (though good ones) on an international forum, you are drawing the wrong conclusion entirely. Freedom of religion including freedom from religion does not mean that freedom of religion equals freedom from religion. To argue otherwise would mean that you would force citizens to adopt a religion. The next step would be to adopt a specific religion which is completely counter productive to the notion of freedom of religion. Freedom of speech includes freedom from speech as well because you may remain silent. The right to bear arms includes the right to choose not bear arms. I'm sure you follow me.

Originally Posted by xman

Setting aside for the moment that these are Americocentic notions (though good ones) on an international forum, you are drawing the wrong conclusion entirely. Freedom of religion including freedom from religion does not mean that freedom of religion equals freedom from religion. To argue otherwise would mean that you would force citizens to adopt a religion. The next step would be to adopt a specific religion which is completely counter productive to the notion of freedom of religion. Freedom of speech includes freedom from speech as well because you may remain silent. The right to bear arms includes the right to choose not bear arms. I'm sure you follow me.

I do follow you, but I disagree with your point. We could choose to remain silent, but that's not the same as the government making you remain silent in public only to speak in your home or designated space (which would be a great comparison to what was proposed). I wholly disagree with people being free from the press, speech, religion etc. If we want to be free of those things, then we have to stay away from everyone else. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's the way it is.

FWIW, you're right about the international forum comment. Sometimes that kind of stuff happens when Americans are talking to each other about these types of things... Which brings up another point. Isn't it strange that only citizens of the US are thought of when the term American is thrown out? What about Canada, Mexio, and every other country in Central and South America

Originally Posted by richmondesi

Isn't it strange that only citizens of the US are thought of when the term American is thrown out? What about Canada, Mexio, and every other country in Central and South America

This is a typical anglo misinterpretation. Latin Americans refer to themselves as Americans as well and Spanish speaking Europeans (and others perhaps) will also mean the entire western continents when they say America. OAS PAHO ALBA

To return to our first discussion, are you saying Americans (USAnians) should be forced to adopt a religion (and which) or are they permitted freedom from religion? Do you understand the notion that freedom of religion should include freedom from religion is not compulsory atheism?

Originally Posted by xman

This is a typical anglo misinterpretation. Latin Americans refer to themselves as Americans as well and Spanish speaking Europeans (and others perhaps) will also mean the entire western continents when they say America. OAS PAHO ALBA

To return to our first discussion, are you saying Americans (USAnians) should be forced to adopt a religion (and which) or are they permitted freedom from religion? Do you understand the notion that freedom of religion should include freedom from religion is not compulsory atheism?

I'm not saying that any one should be forced to adopt a religion by any stretch. I'm saying that freedom from religion doesn't mean freedom from religious exposure in public, but rather the freedom to refuse to participate in it, the freedom to belittle it, the freedom to antagonize believers, etc.

What was proposed was making it illegal to proselytize in public, confining it to churches or a person's home because of the implied freedom from religion inherent in freedom of religion. Sorry for not being clear about that.

The whole idea of "protecting" people from "offensive" religious talk in public is ridiculous.

Why would the public display of a view contrary to what someoen else may have need to be outlawed? Are you not able to make up your own minds?

Should not then all contrary views, of any sort also be outlawed in the name of fairness?

When they pass that law, I also propose a ban on all advertising; cars, TVs, any damn thing. Ads are by their very nature trying to sway your opinion, and thus should also be banned under the "freedom from religion/contrary views in public" law.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

I would never go that far Chris but I bet it becomes Illegal in many countries to proselytize ones religion rather quickly... I see that change on the horizon, we are way into personal rights to ever stop anything that goes on in private, in a home, or a church but anything that spills into the street, I could see being made into a "Disturbing the peace issue" I would never agree to stop any religion in the home or church of ones choice....At this point with so many problems with Radical Islam and Fundamental Christianity just to name the two most prevalent to me, I would support a total public ban...

I do believe that Freedom of Religion can also be Freedom from Religion....

edit: In fact I was just thinking that really we are getting close to that in the US right now with Christianity, but for some reason we are treading lightly on the next two largest religions Islam and Judaism they sorta get a public pass right now....

Progress is being made in freeing all people from the bonds of religion:

Mass. 2nd-grader sent home for crucifix drawing - Yahoo! News

TAUNTON, Mass. – An 8-year-old boy was sent home from school and ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation after he was asked to make a Christmas drawing and sketched what appeared to be a stick figure of Jesus on a cross, the child's father said Tuesday.
Chester Johnson said his son made the drawing on Dec. 2 after his second-grade teacher asked children to sketch something that reminded them of the holiday. The assignment came just days after the family had visited the holiday lights display at the National Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette in Attleboro, where Johnson said his son seemed taken with the religious statues he saw there.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Progress is being made in freeing all people from the bonds of religion:

I don't understand how you come to that conclusion from this story.

Johnson, who works at the school as a janitor on a per diem basis, said administrators were concerned the boy drew Xs for Jesus' eyes, and particularly worried when his son said he'd drawn himself on the cross after officials pressed him about who he'd drawn.

Johnson said his son might have been worried about getting in trouble if he said he drew Jesus. "If he said it was him, it was more like a cartoon," Johnson said.

He got the holiday wrong and was afraid he'd done something wrong by drawing Jebus dead. (actually tortured and murdered, but whose keeping score) A perfectly valid explanation, but if I were the teacher in the moment I might do just the same thing. This should be taken care of with a post evaluation apology even though no harm was done.

Regardless of Atheist or Religious, I think time needs to be taken to look at how similarly easy it is for us to judge each other. A discussion over the internet where tone cannot be discerned and is up to the bias of the person reading it doesn't seem to me like an opportunity for enlightenment of any party.
I read a post and think a person is saying one thing, and another one of you responds with a long rant-like post disagreeing with something I didn't think was even there.

Dr. Tiller was murdered, that may have made some misguided religious people happy, but it didn't make God happy.

Yes, people do some crazy things- I daresay some wrong things- in the name of religion. But I would ask if any of you who would see religion abolished taken the time to see how many thousands of people who would die if religions didn't exist?

There are hundreds of Christian organizations that help feed the starving, help build homes for the homeless, dig wells, build schools, fight to free people from sex slavery, help suicidal and at-risk youth(suicide is the second biggest cause of death for youth).
Not to mention the average Christian believer who simply wants to help people in poor situations and donates time and money to helping people.

On any given day, you can walk into a Sikh temple during lunch-time and receive a meal, no matter who you are. Did you know that? I guarantee you that homeless people near a Sikh temple know that.

We are free to get on our adult high-chairs and argue and point out what's wrong with people and what bad things people are doing, but I would ask: What good are you doing? This applies to all of us, religious or atheist.

Condemning a murderer for murder seems great, but how many people could we save if we just took the time and energy to do so into helping people instead?

As an atheist who believes there is no God and that the one life is all we have, should there not be effort to save all the lives being snuffed out?

As a Christian who believes there is a God and He tells us to love one another and to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, should there not be an effort in that?

<------in the end this just fills the air with noise, it doesn't actually make a difference.

Abolished? No. Willingly abandoned? Yes.

And please don't suggest that religion or the religious are responsible for the existence of humanitarian action. Without churches people still find and make many ways to help their fellow man in need. Indeed this is the only way it happens. People to people.

Originally Posted by xman

He got the holiday wrong and was afraid he'd done something wrong by drawing Jebus dead. (actually tortured and murdered, but whose keeping score) A perfectly valid explanation, but if I were the teacher in the moment I might do just the same thing. This should be taken care of with a post evaluation apology even though no harm was done.

An 8-year-old boy was sent home from school and ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation after he was asked to make a Christmas drawing...

When was the last time you were asked to undergo a psychological evaluation?
Do you think it may be at the very least a bit off-putting, to anyone, let alone a 8 year old?

And add to that being sent home, which is singling that one child out from his peer group as having done something innapropriate.


He was asked BY HIS TEACHER to draw somethingh that reminded him of Christmas. Well, guess what? It appears that to this child the important thing about Christmas is Jesus Christ! Imagine that!?

Not presents, not Santa Claus, not Rudolph, not candy canes, etc....but the fact (that most of us seem to oftentimes forget) that it is a celebration of the birth of Jesus. So he draws an image that is familiar to him of Jesus. Next thing you know he is whisked out of the classroom, sent home, and ordered to undergo psychological testing????

Nope, I'm sure there was no harm done. We all know how kids easily shrug off being humiliated in front of their peers.