100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Religion as a form of Social control | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Thu 06/02/11 11:46 AM
|
|
I was thinking more along the lines of a designated place and time either before or after school to have something like that, and those that wanted to attend could, those that didn't didn't have to. Right. When a congregation gathers together and instead of saying a prayer, they opt for a "moment of silence" everyone knows what's going on. Everyone is thinking, yeh right, we can't pray out loud so we have to have a moment of awkward silence. But if they announced that they were gathering for a moment of silence would anyone come? I doubt it. Even religious people would think that is a waste of their time. Personally I would not mind a public prayer in school as long as it was to God and not to a specific God like Lucifer, Allah, Jehovah, Jesus, etc. But an atheist has every right to object to that. thats another assumption, which I dont think children make when I was told in school that we had to be quiet , thats all I took it as I think in modern schools, if a student chose to bow their head during those times, there might be an issue,, and I dont think THAT is just,,, OH BULL CRAP. There might be an "issue" if a student chose to bow their head? Are you serious???? You Still don't know what the issue is about if you think that. It is about SAYING OUT LOUD to a captive audience of mixed religious people "In Jesus name we pray..." or even praying to God in front of a captive audience of atheists. Its not about what a person does on his own. Please tell me you understand this or I am going to start thinking it has something to do with 'intelligence." p.s. --and if it is an issue with anyone, then that person is just plain ignorant. its about tone, and volume, and speech,, for me its similar to a private conversation between me and a friend, if others choose to EAVESDROP That is one thing, If I am speaking at a tone that OTHERS can hear, that is another similarly with prayer, speaking it silently does not require anyone to be an 'audience', as people can choose to watch what they and whom they wish to wash The issue there is, you're still making them a part of the whole exercise, whether they pray or not. They have no option to opt out of the thing entirely. there are always options You're not getting the point. By doing it where EVERYONE is a part of it, even if they don't pray in that moment, they don't have a choice! If you wanna do prayer things or whatever, let people choose if they wanna attend or not. Not that hard. I get it ,there is STILL a choice, I have been in groups where EVERYONE was swearing, I still had the choice not to do so and took it,,,, there are ALWAYS choices, the only fact of the matter is how desirable of undesirable those choices are,, and thats life No you really don't. How the hell is there a choice when you are forced to sit in on the damn thing whether you want to or not?? Sure you can choose not to pray, but that doesn't matter. You should not be subjected to something you don't wish to be a part of, period. If people wanna have prayer services or whatever, they should do it on their own time, where only those that are interested can attend. Anything less, simply isn't good enough to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was thinking more along the lines of a designated place and time either before or after school to have something like that, and those that wanted to attend could, those that didn't didn't have to. Right. When a congregation gathers together and instead of saying a prayer, they opt for a "moment of silence" everyone knows what's going on. Everyone is thinking, yeh right, we can't pray out loud so we have to have a moment of awkward silence. But if they announced that they were gathering for a moment of silence would anyone come? I doubt it. Even religious people would think that is a waste of their time. Personally I would not mind a public prayer in school as long as it was to God and not to a specific God like Lucifer, Allah, Jehovah, Jesus, etc. But an atheist has every right to object to that. thats another assumption, which I dont think children make when I was told in school that we had to be quiet , thats all I took it as I think in modern schools, if a student chose to bow their head during those times, there might be an issue,, and I dont think THAT is just,,, OH BULL CRAP. There might be an "issue" if a student chose to bow their head? Are you serious???? You Still don't know what the issue is about if you think that. It is about SAYING OUT LOUD to a captive audience of mixed religious people "In Jesus name we pray..." or even praying to God in front of a captive audience of atheists. Its not about what a person does on his own. Please tell me you understand this or I am going to start thinking it has something to do with 'intelligence." p.s. --and if it is an issue with anyone, then that person is just plain ignorant. its about tone, and volume, and speech,, for me its similar to a private conversation between me and a friend, if others choose to EAVESDROP That is one thing, If I am speaking at a tone that OTHERS can hear, that is another similarly with prayer, speaking it silently does not require anyone to be an 'audience', as people can choose to watch what they and whom they wish to wash The issue there is, you're still making them a part of the whole exercise, whether they pray or not. They have no option to opt out of the thing entirely. there are always options You're not getting the point. By doing it where EVERYONE is a part of it, even if they don't pray in that moment, they don't have a choice! If you wanna do prayer things or whatever, let people choose if they wanna attend or not. Not that hard. I get it ,there is STILL a choice, I have been in groups where EVERYONE was swearing, I still had the choice not to do so and took it,,,, there are ALWAYS choices, the only fact of the matter is how desirable of undesirable those choices are,, and thats life No you really don't. How the hell is there a choice when you are forced to sit in on the damn thing whether you want to or not?? Im not sure what you are referring to Im not speaking of any EVENT that people would have to attend I was only speaking in terms of INDIVIDUAL moments of meditation/praise/silence, or whatever ones individual choice is or one could go on with what they were doing I wasnt speaking of a MANDATED prayer, that is the other extreme of DENYING prayer,, Im opposed to such extremes on either end |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems to me that most people today that have faith are choosing that. It is actually rebellious today to have faith. The revolution is over. Why does religion need to die for those that don't have faith to feel good about themselves??? Religion doesn't have to die and I don't think it ever really will. What does have to change however, is the idea that anyone could ever possibly have all the answers that are right for everyone. Cultures should be creating civil law around concern for human ethics, and the interconnectedness of all things within our environment; that is what the law should reflect. Every human should be entitled to the fulfillment of certain human needs and the freedom to pursue other needs. But INVARIABLY some people think they MUST MAKE others conform to their personal religious beliefs. Perhaps in doing so it becomes easier for the individual to stay in conformance to their own beliefs as well. Example: If you believe it's wrong to consume flesh in any form, it would sure be a lot easier if everyone believed it. Then you would no longer have to read food labels or worry about prepared foods at restaurants or in other poeple's homes. But that is not how civil law should be determined. Civil law should be determined in such a way as to protect the same freedoms and human rights that ALL poeple should have regardless of religious beliefs. When poeple can set aside their personal beliefs to give all people the same rights and freedoms - that will be when all those of different faiths or no faith can work together in peace and with trust. Until then, those who cannot separate their 'personal' religious obligations from their civil obligations will continue to hide in the thorny bush whose thorns make no distinction between the flesh of believers and non-believers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think personal beliefs are some of the only kind,,,,
just like personal feelings or personal anything else,,,,, they are hard to 'set' aside in a society that has agreed to (or at least had their majority) agree upon certain standards and guidelines |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
msharmony all we are saying is that we don't think some people's religious beliefs and misconceptions should be forced on society in the form of laws about how people conduct their personal and private lives.
Like Muslim women having to cover their faces, not being able to drive etc. are part of the culture of some countries. Men can freely beat their wives for disobeying them. In this country, marriage is defined by religions as a union between a man and a woman. SS marriage is prevented by religious beliefs. Marriage itself is nothing more than a contract that binds two people together as family or legal "relatives." A relative has certain natural and permanent rights. Some couples have even 'adopted' their mate in order to have this legal position and protection as a relative. Just because religions believe that this is "a sin" they attempt to force their beliefs on others when its really none of their business. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
msharmony all we are saying is that we don't think some people's religious beliefs and misconceptions should be forced on society in the form of laws about how people conduct their personal and private lives. Like Muslim women having to cover their faces, not being able to drive etc. are part of the culture of some countries. Men can freely beat their wives for disobeying them. In this country, marriage is defined by religions as a union between a man and a woman. SS marriage is prevented by religious beliefs. Marriage itself is nothing more than a contract that binds two people together as family or legal "relatives." A relative has certain natural and permanent rights. Some couples have even 'adopted' their mate in order to have this legal position and protection as a relative. Just because religions believe that this is "a sin" they attempt to force their beliefs on others when its really none of their business. I dont agree. I dont think religions force their beliefs. I think a government and POLITICS allow a majority to decide which definitions they will use for legal purposes. If it was merely about religious belief, there would be all types of UNIONS that would be OUTLAWED but instead, the majority view is for those unions to be personal choice that is neither CONDEMNED nor PROMOTED in other words, its not forcing anything, to the contrary, its STAYING OUT OF THOSE RELATIONSHIPS,,,where some wish to FORCE Them to get involved through some LEGAL validation and promotion of the relationship |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Fri 06/03/11 01:57 AM
|
|
msharmony all we are saying is that we don't think some people's religious beliefs and misconceptions should be forced on society in the form of laws about how people conduct their personal and private lives. Like Muslim women having to cover their faces, not being able to drive etc. are part of the culture of some countries. Men can freely beat their wives for disobeying them. In this country, marriage is defined by religions as a union between a man and a woman. SS marriage is prevented by religious beliefs. Marriage itself is nothing more than a contract that binds two people together as family or legal "relatives." A relative has certain natural and permanent rights. Some couples have even 'adopted' their mate in order to have this legal position and protection as a relative. Just because religions believe that this is "a sin" they attempt to force their beliefs on others when its really none of their business. I dont agree. I dont think religions force their beliefs. I think a government and POLITICS allow a majority to decide which definitions they will use for legal purposes. If it was merely about religious belief, there would be all types of UNIONS that would be OUTLAWED but instead, the majority view is for those unions to be personal choice that is neither CONDEMNED nor PROMOTED in other words, its not forcing anything, to the contrary, its STAYING OUT OF THOSE RELATIONSHIPS,,,where some wish to FORCE Them to get involved through some LEGAL validation and promotion of the relationship Do you not see the discrimination though here? If one group can get married and the other can't, the playing field is not level in short. If gays want to get married, they should have every right to do that. To say they can't because you don't agree with it, is forcing them to be subject to what you think, even when you have no right to dictate to them in such a way. Furthermore, as far as government involvement or lack there of goes, who do you think tends to push for such ideas as this but the religious right? They in effect do very much force their beliefs, using the government and the political system by which to do it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't remember who or where but someone in one of the threads said that marriage is essentially just a contract where two agree to raise a family. If they don't want kids then technically it wouldn't be a marriage. That was the statement.
In that regard, same sex marriage would be an oxymoron. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
msharmony all we are saying is that we don't think some people's religious beliefs and misconceptions should be forced on society in the form of laws about how people conduct their personal and private lives. Like Muslim women having to cover their faces, not being able to drive etc. are part of the culture of some countries. Men can freely beat their wives for disobeying them. In this country, marriage is defined by religions as a union between a man and a woman. SS marriage is prevented by religious beliefs. Marriage itself is nothing more than a contract that binds two people together as family or legal "relatives." A relative has certain natural and permanent rights. Some couples have even 'adopted' their mate in order to have this legal position and protection as a relative. Just because religions believe that this is "a sin" they attempt to force their beliefs on others when its really none of their business. we don't think some people's religious beliefs and misconceptions should be forced on society in the form of laws You do realize that in saying religious beliefs should not be forced in the form of law is saying that a good majority of our laws should be abolished. Thou shalt not kill thou shalt not steal thou shalt not bear false witness thou shalt not take the Lord's Name in vane. (this isn't a public law, but in a court room you can be fined or detained for swearing in court. You can be arrested for swearing at policeman) If we abandon these, then we should just open our jails as well. Are these laws "religious beliefs and misconceptions?" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems to me that most people today that have faith are choosing that. It is actually rebellious today to have faith. The revolution is over. Why does religion need to die for those that don't have faith to feel good about themselves??? Religion doesn't have to die and I don't think it ever really will. What does have to change however, is the idea that anyone could ever possibly have all the answers that are right for everyone. Cultures should be creating civil law around concern for human ethics, and the interconnectedness of all things within our environment; that is what the law should reflect. Every human should be entitled to the fulfillment of certain human needs and the freedom to pursue other needs. But INVARIABLY some people think they MUST MAKE others conform to their personal religious beliefs. Perhaps in doing so it becomes easier for the individual to stay in conformance to their own beliefs as well. Example: If you believe it's wrong to consume flesh in any form, it would sure be a lot easier if everyone believed it. Then you would no longer have to read food labels or worry about prepared foods at restaurants or in other poeple's homes. But that is not how civil law should be determined. Civil law should be determined in such a way as to protect the same freedoms and human rights that ALL poeple should have regardless of religious beliefs. When poeple can set aside their personal beliefs to give all people the same rights and freedoms - that will be when all those of different faiths or no faith can work together in peace and with trust. Until then, those who cannot separate their 'personal' religious obligations from their civil obligations will continue to hide in the thorny bush whose thorns make no distinction between the flesh of believers and non-believers. I don't know what kind of world you are envisioning here. separate personal religious obligations from civil obligations??? How would you do that and still have faith of any kind? All religions teach how to be good civil stewards. so, you would only have your religious faith in your home under lock and key. Whenever you are out in society you would need to denounce your faith and follow the "civil obligations religion." Whatever that is... Could you have your religious obligations in your own home if someone is visiting that is not of your faith? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
msharmony all we are saying is that we don't think some people's religious beliefs and misconceptions should be forced on society in the form of laws about how people conduct their personal and private lives. Like Muslim women having to cover their faces, not being able to drive etc. are part of the culture of some countries. Men can freely beat their wives for disobeying them. In this country, marriage is defined by religions as a union between a man and a woman. SS marriage is prevented by religious beliefs. Marriage itself is nothing more than a contract that binds two people together as family or legal "relatives." A relative has certain natural and permanent rights. Some couples have even 'adopted' their mate in order to have this legal position and protection as a relative. Just because religions believe that this is "a sin" they attempt to force their beliefs on others when its really none of their business. we don't think some people's religious beliefs and misconceptions should be forced on society in the form of laws You do realize that in saying religious beliefs should not be forced in the form of law is saying that a good majority of our laws should be abolished. Thou shalt not kill thou shalt not steal thou shalt not bear false witness thou shalt not take the Lord's Name in vane. (this isn't a public law, but in a court room you can be fined or detained for swearing in court. You can be arrested for swearing at policeman) The last one aside, religion really has little to do with those laws at all. Those are just basic common sense, we all know it's not good to kill, steal or lie. We don't need religion to tell us that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems to me that most people today that have faith are choosing that. It is actually rebellious today to have faith. The revolution is over. Why does religion need to die for those that don't have faith to feel good about themselves??? Religion doesn't have to die and I don't think it ever really will. What does have to change however, is the idea that anyone could ever possibly have all the answers that are right for everyone. Cultures should be creating civil law around concern for human ethics, and the interconnectedness of all things within our environment; that is what the law should reflect. Every human should be entitled to the fulfillment of certain human needs and the freedom to pursue other needs. But INVARIABLY some people think they MUST MAKE others conform to their personal religious beliefs. Perhaps in doing so it becomes easier for the individual to stay in conformance to their own beliefs as well. Example: If you believe it's wrong to consume flesh in any form, it would sure be a lot easier if everyone believed it. Then you would no longer have to read food labels or worry about prepared foods at restaurants or in other poeple's homes. But that is not how civil law should be determined. Civil law should be determined in such a way as to protect the same freedoms and human rights that ALL poeple should have regardless of religious beliefs. When poeple can set aside their personal beliefs to give all people the same rights and freedoms - that will be when all those of different faiths or no faith can work together in peace and with trust. Until then, those who cannot separate their 'personal' religious obligations from their civil obligations will continue to hide in the thorny bush whose thorns make no distinction between the flesh of believers and non-believers. I don't know what kind of world you are envisioning here. I think she's envisioning a world where everyone is free to believe and live as they wish, without having what others believe or think is better for them forced onto them even when they don't want it. Seems pretty simple to me....... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
msharmony all we are saying is that we don't think some people's religious beliefs and misconceptions should be forced on society in the form of laws about how people conduct their personal and private lives. Like Muslim women having to cover their faces, not being able to drive etc. are part of the culture of some countries. Men can freely beat their wives for disobeying them. In this country, marriage is defined by religions as a union between a man and a woman. SS marriage is prevented by religious beliefs. Marriage itself is nothing more than a contract that binds two people together as family or legal "relatives." A relative has certain natural and permanent rights. Some couples have even 'adopted' their mate in order to have this legal position and protection as a relative. Just because religions believe that this is "a sin" they attempt to force their beliefs on others when its really none of their business. we don't think some people's religious beliefs and misconceptions should be forced on society in the form of laws You do realize that in saying religious beliefs should not be forced in the form of law is saying that a good majority of our laws should be abolished. Thou shalt not kill thou shalt not steal thou shalt not bear false witness thou shalt not take the Lord's Name in vane. (this isn't a public law, but in a court room you can be fined or detained for swearing in court. You can be arrested for swearing at policeman) The last one aside, religion really has little to do with those laws at all. Those are just basic common sense, we all know it's not good to kill, steal or lie. We don't need religion to tell us that. Well that is Christian and Jewish law for sure. They are religious laws. There is a general thread going here that we need to do away with religious laws and ideas because they are bad. So, we need to get rid of these. Are you now saying that religious ideas are can be good? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think personal beliefs are some of the only kind,,,, just like personal feelings or personal anything else,,,,, they are hard to 'set' aside in a society that has agreed to (or at least had their majority) agree upon certain standards and guidelines And what does that say about THE MAJORITY? There are more of us than there are of you so YOU will have limited access to fulfilling your needs and you will have limited opportunity to be heard, for you are merely on the fringe of society. Seriously, don't you think THE MAJORITY has a larger share of the responsibility to turn around and lift up the minorities that so many pass by an overlook? That's exactly what the founders of this countries government believed and that is why so many pathways were developed for that fringe to be heard. Many people would consider it egotistical to assume that THE MAJORITY have greater rights simply by thier number. I consider it a flaw in the logical thought process that can short sight an individuals ethical development. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
msharmony all we are saying is that we don't think some people's religious beliefs and misconceptions should be forced on society in the form of laws about how people conduct their personal and private lives. Like Muslim women having to cover their faces, not being able to drive etc. are part of the culture of some countries. Men can freely beat their wives for disobeying them. In this country, marriage is defined by religions as a union between a man and a woman. SS marriage is prevented by religious beliefs. Marriage itself is nothing more than a contract that binds two people together as family or legal "relatives." A relative has certain natural and permanent rights. Some couples have even 'adopted' their mate in order to have this legal position and protection as a relative. Just because religions believe that this is "a sin" they attempt to force their beliefs on others when its really none of their business. I dont agree. I dont think religions force their beliefs. I think a government and POLITICS allow a majority to decide which definitions they will use for legal purposes. If it was merely about religious belief, there would be all types of UNIONS that would be OUTLAWED but instead, the majority view is for those unions to be personal choice that is neither CONDEMNED nor PROMOTED in other words, its not forcing anything, to the contrary, its STAYING OUT OF THOSE RELATIONSHIPS,,,where some wish to FORCE Them to get involved through some LEGAL validation and promotion of the relationship First - The majority of any country should never have the right to put to a popular vote the human rights of others. Second - How do we know that our REPRESENTATIVES are passing laws with consideration to THE MAJORITY? How do you know when YOU are in the majority? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't remember who or where but someone in one of the threads said that marriage is essentially just a contract where two agree to raise a family. If they don't want kids then technically it wouldn't be a marriage. That was the statement. In that regard, same sex marriage would be an oxymoron. I think that was the point that other person was trying to make. The counter is that children are then the reason for marriage. In that case it makes more sense that marriage should have the prerequisite of children. How a child comes into the picture, birth mother, adoption, or legal guardianship should then qualify a couple (any couple) to enter into a marriage contract. The contract would be term contract, ending when the child has attained some kind of goal that would signifiy their independence. BUT WAIT - that would offend the RELIGIOUS IDEAL of what a marriage is. So what is the religious ideal? Well that should be left in the hands of those most qualified to define it - the religious. Therefore, in keeping with the freedom to practice religious beliefs, we should, as we always have, allow the religiouly oriented to define and enter into their own ideal of marriage. NOW - if they want to also be married in sight of the law and benefit from the consequences of that legal marriage, a form can be sumbittet (as has been the preactice)for that recognition. But for those who do not seek a religious union, they should be married according to legal avenues. BUT WHO PREVENTS THIS? WHY? Well, the question of why has not yielded very good answers, could it be that there are no logical reasons to make this legal change? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
msharmony all we are saying is that we don't think some people's religious beliefs and misconceptions should be forced on society in the form of laws about how people conduct their personal and private lives. Like Muslim women having to cover their faces, not being able to drive etc. are part of the culture of some countries. Men can freely beat their wives for disobeying them. In this country, marriage is defined by religions as a union between a man and a woman. SS marriage is prevented by religious beliefs. Marriage itself is nothing more than a contract that binds two people together as family or legal "relatives." A relative has certain natural and permanent rights. Some couples have even 'adopted' their mate in order to have this legal position and protection as a relative. Just because religions believe that this is "a sin" they attempt to force their beliefs on others when its really none of their business. we don't think some people's religious beliefs and misconceptions should be forced on society in the form of laws You do realize that in saying religious beliefs should not be forced in the form of law is saying that a good majority of our laws should be abolished. Thou shalt not kill thou shalt not steal thou shalt not bear false witness thou shalt not take the Lord's Name in vane. (this isn't a public law, but in a court room you can be fined or detained for swearing in court. You can be arrested for swearing at policeman) The last one aside, religion really has little to do with those laws at all. Those are just basic common sense, we all know it's not good to kill, steal or lie. We don't need religion to tell us that. Well that is Christian and Jewish law for sure. They are religious laws. There is a general thread going here that we need to do away with religious laws and ideas because they are bad. So, we need to get rid of these. Are you now saying that religious ideas are can be good? Religious ideas stem from HUMANS - don't they? Therefore it seems logical that at least some of the morals and values within those beliefs will have qualities of value to humanity. However, just as some civilizations value different things that contradict overall human benefit, such are religious values and beliefs. Perhaps what we need to 'get rid of' is the practice of organized religions in which dogma becomes a kind of legal representation of what believers should think and believe and how they should act upon those beliefs. The root of faith is always personal and should not require organizational representation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
msharmony all we are saying is that we don't think some people's religious beliefs and misconceptions should be forced on society in the form of laws about how people conduct their personal and private lives. Like Muslim women having to cover their faces, not being able to drive etc. are part of the culture of some countries. Men can freely beat their wives for disobeying them. In this country, marriage is defined by religions as a union between a man and a woman. SS marriage is prevented by religious beliefs. Marriage itself is nothing more than a contract that binds two people together as family or legal "relatives." A relative has certain natural and permanent rights. Some couples have even 'adopted' their mate in order to have this legal position and protection as a relative. Just because religions believe that this is "a sin" they attempt to force their beliefs on others when its really none of their business. we don't think some people's religious beliefs and misconceptions should be forced on society in the form of laws You do realize that in saying religious beliefs should not be forced in the form of law is saying that a good majority of our laws should be abolished. Thou shalt not kill thou shalt not steal thou shalt not bear false witness thou shalt not take the Lord's Name in vane. (this isn't a public law, but in a court room you can be fined or detained for swearing in court. You can be arrested for swearing at policeman) If we abandon these, then we should just open our jails as well. Are these laws "religious beliefs and misconceptions?" Look at it from another perspective. If every religious person in the U.S. believed that 75% of all prison inmates should no be there, do you think we might get to the ROOT OF THE PROBLEM as to why they are? If religious were all that you tend to beleive, would their ethic not include enough concern, compassion, and empathy to figure out how to PREVENT the millions who go to prison from ending up there? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems to me that most people today that have faith are choosing that. It is actually rebellious today to have faith. The revolution is over. Why does religion need to die for those that don't have faith to feel good about themselves??? Religion doesn't have to die and I don't think it ever really will. What does have to change however, is the idea that anyone could ever possibly have all the answers that are right for everyone. Cultures should be creating civil law around concern for human ethics, and the interconnectedness of all things within our environment; that is what the law should reflect. Every human should be entitled to the fulfillment of certain human needs and the freedom to pursue other needs. But INVARIABLY some people think they MUST MAKE others conform to their personal religious beliefs. Perhaps in doing so it becomes easier for the individual to stay in conformance to their own beliefs as well. Example: If you believe it's wrong to consume flesh in any form, it would sure be a lot easier if everyone believed it. Then you would no longer have to read food labels or worry about prepared foods at restaurants or in other poeple's homes. But that is not how civil law should be determined. Civil law should be determined in such a way as to protect the same freedoms and human rights that ALL poeple should have regardless of religious beliefs. When poeple can set aside their personal beliefs to give all people the same rights and freedoms - that will be when all those of different faiths or no faith can work together in peace and with trust. Until then, those who cannot separate their 'personal' religious obligations from their civil obligations will continue to hide in the thorny bush whose thorns make no distinction between the flesh of believers and non-believers. I don't know what kind of world you are envisioning here. separate personal religious obligations from civil obligations??? How would you do that and still have faith of any kind? All religions teach how to be good civil stewards. so, you would only have your religious faith in your home under lock and key. Whenever you are out in society you would need to denounce your faith and follow the "civil obligations religion." Whatever that is... Could you have your religious obligations in your own home if someone is visiting that is not of your faith? AH HA! There we go again assuming that religion MUST be organized so that every religious person believes the same thing. You can't deny that because if every individual thought for themselves without support of religious dogma, they would be more prone to taking a critical assessment of the real social issues rather than accepting dogma when conflicts with logic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 06/03/11 09:29 AM
|
|
msharmony all we are saying is that we don't think some people's religious beliefs and misconceptions should be forced on society in the form of laws about how people conduct their personal and private lives. Like Muslim women having to cover their faces, not being able to drive etc. are part of the culture of some countries. Men can freely beat their wives for disobeying them. In this country, marriage is defined by religions as a union between a man and a woman. SS marriage is prevented by religious beliefs. Marriage itself is nothing more than a contract that binds two people together as family or legal "relatives." A relative has certain natural and permanent rights. Some couples have even 'adopted' their mate in order to have this legal position and protection as a relative. Just because religions believe that this is "a sin" they attempt to force their beliefs on others when its really none of their business. we don't think some people's religious beliefs and misconceptions should be forced on society in the form of laws You do realize that in saying religious beliefs should not be forced in the form of law is saying that a good majority of our laws should be abolished. Thou shalt not kill thou shalt not steal thou shalt not bear false witness thou shalt not take the Lord's Name in vane. (this isn't a public law, but in a court room you can be fined or detained for swearing in court. You can be arrested for swearing at policeman) The last one aside, religion really has little to do with those laws at all. Those are just basic common sense, we all know it's not good to kill, steal or lie. We don't need religion to tell us that. AMEN! Kleisto, You beat me to that. To think that if we did not have any religion that people would be allowed legally to go about killing each other is ridiculous. mylifetoday, You give religion way too much credit for people having an automatic sense of right and wrong. We are human beings, not animals. We are adults, not children. Give us some credit. Give yourself some credit. Would you be a vicious criminal if it were not for your religion??? |
|
|
|
|
