Man's Successor

quote:

---

Fascism is banned all over the world.

​

Fascism has not been banned all over the world. It simply carries a social stygma thanks to the Nazis and other fascist societies. In the US, people don't even know what fascism means any more for the most part, as demonstrated when some right-winders use the term "Islamo-fascists." The term "fascist" is used to denote any oppressive regime, rather than a unification of state and corporate interests. As further demonstrated in the US, we have a far greater aversion to the word "fascist" than to the policies of fascist governments.

​

So why should we put up with fascist and extremist religious BS, trying to break up our societies? Why? Because we live in democracies?? That'd be pathetic if you look at it this way.
Radical religions should be banned the world over for the sake of our future/our successor, as the OP states/. It's a growing problem and the last thing we shoud do is pretend we don't see it.

​

The problem with banning religions of any sort has been demonstrated ample times throughout history. Realistically, there is no difference between forcing atheism and forcing Christianity. You're claiming a moral high ground based on atheism's strict basis on objective evidence, but when it comes down to it, forcing a system of beliefs on a society throuh legal means is basically the same regardless of the motive or set of beliefs being forced.

​

It's not a back and white problem - don't fall into the same trap the fundamentalists set for themselves. Religion may be inherently detached from reality, but it is not inherently evil. That a better world may result from a lack of religion does not mean that a better world may result by making religion illegal.

​

Look at the abuses of previous governments who tried to enforce religious rules, whether it be making all religious practice illegal, or simply forcing a single religion above others. Could you really justify putting someone in jail only for believing in Jesus, or in Emperor Xenu? That smacks of the Orwellian thought police. Or the Inquisition. Or Communist Russia.

​

"Harmful" religions could be considered those which foment or promote violence. Most societies already have laws against inciting violence, or harassment, or any number of other "cult" - style behaviors. Let those laws simply apply to all religions equally, just as they should apply in non-religious circumstances. The problem is solved without additional legislation that, by its very nature, is bigoted. If a Muslim radical preaches that his followers should martyr themselves, arrest him for promoting violence - not for being a Muslim. If a Christian harasses people outside of an abortion clinic, arrest him for harassment, not for being a Christian. We cannot, no matter how bad they are, equate the extremists with the rational members of a given religion.

​

The only way to reach the "better world" envisioned by atheists of a world without religion is through education, and the eventual winning of the argument. Forcing the issue will only ever repeat exactly the same sins we blast religion for.

---

So since brainwashing is legal all over the world(US incl.), that means you leave the door open to radical religeous group to take over the vulnerable and young and exploit them to the fullest/no breaking of any law here/. Everything is completely legal. Have a look at Turkey - a complete religious brainwash in a secular country and now the people have already denounced secularity(secular since 1921). All done peacefully and without breaking a law. Now if the religeous leader goes out and shouts to the masses "America is evil, God told me last night - "hate America", then all the followers will hate America". They could even go further than just hate you, and that's the danger of leaving so much freedom to religions.I think you are grossly exaggerating the abilities of your legal systems to neutralise all kind of threats. You think your legal and justice systems are prepared for that. Well, I don't. It's a battle that we are doomed to lose, as our means to fight back are limited to what's been given to us by the law. And the law is all but perfect.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Leaving yourself open to certain forms of attacks or insidious movements is the price of freedom.Besides, religious persecution does not stamp out the belief system. Christianity was attacked vigorously in its early days - all that does is make martyrs for the cause. Again, the only way, both ethically and realistically, to eliminate religion, is through education and winning the argument. The legal system is certainly flawed, true. A lot of that has to do with current society, which makes allowances for religion that it does not make for anything else. Tax exempt status, anyone?But let's be honest here - if you get to claim a world where we can make religion illegal, certainly I can posit a few relatively minor changes to the legal system.With equal treatment for religions, individuals can be prosecuted and their power taken away when violence is incited or inflicted. Individuals can be jailed for harassment. Individuals, Agobot, not belief systems.Making Christianity or any other religion illegal would result in exactly the same abuses and atrocities that lead you to hate religion so much. The only way your ideal actually gets reached is through education and winning the argument.

quote:

---

So since brainwashing is legal all over the world(US incl.), that means you leave the door open to radical religeous group to take over the vulnerable and young and exploit them to the fullest/no breaking of any law here/. Everything is completely legal. Have a look at Turkey - a complete religious brainwash in a secular country and now the people have already denounced secularity(secular since 1921). All done peacefully and without breaking a law. Now if the religeous leader goes out and shouts to the masses "America is evil, God told me last night - "hate America", then all the followers will hate America". They could even go further than just hate you, and that's the danger of leaving so much freedom to religions.

​

Leaving yourself open to certain forms of attacks or insidious movements is the price of freedom.

​

Besides, religious persecution does not stamp out the belief system. Christianity was attacked vigorously in its early days - all that does is make martyrs for the cause. Again, the only way, both ethically and realistically, to eliminate religion, is through education and winning the argument.

​

I think you are grossly exaggerating the abilities of your legal systems to neutralise all kind of threats. You think your legal and justice systems are prepared for that. Well, I don't. It's a battle that we are doomed to lose, as our means to fight back are limited to what's been given to us by the law. And the law is all but perfect.

​

The legal system is certainly flawed, true. A lot of that has to do with current society, which makes allowances for religion that it does not make for anything else. Tax exempt status, anyone?

​

But let's be honest here - if you get to claim a world where we can make religion illegal, certainly I can posit a few relatively minor changes to the legal system.

​

With equal treatment for religions, individuals can be prosecuted and their power taken away when violence is incited or inflicted. Individuals can be jailed for harassment. Individuals, Agobot, not belief systems.

---

I agree with most of what you say.

quote:

---

Making Christianity or any other religion illegal would result in exactly the same abuses and atrocities that lead you to hate religion so much. The only way your ideal actually gets reached is through education and winning the argument.

---

Most of the fundamentalists are followers of radical islam and I see you are afraid to say the word "islam". That's what is going in much of the world today. People are afraid to voice their opinion that most radical religious movements are islamic. Why are you afraid? Do you fear that you would angry the muslims? If yes, where is the freedom you so vehementally stand up for? Why do you keep blaming the christians for radicalism when I have never spoken of christians? There are cetain sects outside radical islam - like the Scientology, etc. which should be banned altoghether with radical islam, or radical whatsoever religion.

I'm not. I simply see no intrinsic difference between Islam and many other religions. Islam very closely resembles Christianity several hundred years ago, given explosive devices and a wider acceptance of suicide missions. I see no intrinsic difference from one faith-based belief system to another - I find the damaging aspect to be the detachment from objective reality, not necessarily the physical death and destruction they can cause. It's the detachment from objective reality that causes the irresolvable difference of worldview people of any religion squabble over. The fact that certain sects of Islam consider violence to be an acceptable course of action to continue that squabble is immaterial - Christianity used to do the same thing.Let me be clear: those who you or I would likely identify as an "Islamic Radical" would be those who are actively fomenting violence. I fully support the existing laws that make such activities illegal. If you instruct your followers to blow themselves up to kill a market full of people, you should be arrested, and then barred from communicating with the outside world to prevent further violence. I don't care what religion you are a member of - you can be Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, or anything else - if you actively support murder, destruction of property, harassment, terrorism, or anything of the like, you should be arrested and tried in accordance with the law.The problem we get into is with the more moderate members of any given religion. Let's take teen4christ as an example, here. He's a Christian. If we make Christianity illegal because of the actions of Fred Phelps or one of the abortion clinic shooters, t4c is now criminalized by association, not for anything he's done himself. This sort of injustice breeds resentment and hightens conviction! Remember, most religions rightly or wrongly have a persecution complex - like our friend Ray here at evc, they see opposition from outsiders as confirmation of their beliefs.So outlawing even a violent branch of a religion is not only unethical, it also fails to solve the problem - it even makes the problem worse.Again, the only way to reach your ideal world without religion either ethically or even effectively is by winning the argument through education.

My contention is that people are pretty much irrational beings. The law that you have is not enough to stop or prevent the religious propaganda enticing violence and hatred. People are irrational and need as much or more guidance and attention by the state than they can get from sects and violent fundamentalism. I see nothing done about it, nothing that could deter people from falling for the cheap tricks offered by radicalism. Where is the state to explain with facts that what religious sects feed the public is complete BS? Only Germany had the courage to outlaw Scientology, but that's a far cry from what needs to be done in this area. If we cannot afford to ban some harmful segments of religions, we can always engage the information media to blast the public with correct information about our world and to warn them about the dangers radical religions pose. Unfortunately, I do not see anything like that happening in any part of the world today. No one and nobody is trying to even pretend that they are protecting our societies from harmful sects and harmful religious influences. There will be gov't institutions that will do their utmost, in a multitude of ways, to convince you that cigarettes are dangerous, drugs are lethal, alcohol is bad, speeding is wrong, and yet none of them will educate our children about the dangers of radical religions or help prevent fundamentalism from settling in the minds of the most vulnerable.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.