• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Who believes in freedom from religion?

Amadeus said:
It's not about you. I'm making a point using your posts. You are not bothered by religion because you agree with the majority religion (Christianity) in most cases. However, if another religion intruded on your life or attempted to influence public policy, maybe you wouldn't be as un-bothered.

My posts are absolutely on-point with this thread.
Click to expand...

Your posts are a fabrication of your imagination attempting to paint me as you wish I was in order to rail against that fabrication. But you're free to do so if that floats your boat.
 
CriticalThought said:
I feel if you do not want to be proselytized to or pressured to participate in prayers or services then you should be free from it.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

If you don't want to be proselytized to or pressured to participate in prayers or services then when approached in such a manner that you're invited to be included in such things you should simply and politely say, "No thanks".

But we can't just outlaw proselytization or invitations to participate in prayers because 1st Amendment.

You should not be compelled to look at religious imagery...
Click to expand...

You're not.

You're free to look away.

...and your children should not be approached on topics of spirituality or faith without your consent.
Click to expand...

Why?

I believe the government and its officials should serve the public without invoking matters of faith...
Click to expand...

Public servants are citizens, just like you and me, and enjoy the same rights as any other citizen. If they want to belong to religious organizations and their religious beliefs inform their policy decisions they're well within their rights as Americans.

Does anyone disagree?
Click to expand...

Clearly I do.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Your posts are a fabrication of your imagination attempting to paint me as you wish I was in order to rail against that fabrication. But you're free to do so if that floats your boat.
Click to expand...

Okay, thanks for your permission in referencing you correctly.
 
Amadeus said:
There's nothing militant about wanting religion to not influence public policy. Certainly as a libertarian you'd have to agree.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but weren't you recently, in other threads, extolling the opinions of Pope Francis as they relate to public policy?
 
Amadeus said:
Having policies which can be defended by referencing religion does not suggest that these policies are derived from religious arguments.
Click to expand...

How ironic that you would post this after chastising me for my moral views that often mirror religious teachings.
 
CriticalThought said:
I do. I feel if you do not want to be proselytized to or pressured to participate in prayers or services then you should be free from it. You should not be compelled to look at religious imagery and your children should not be approached on topics of spirituality or faith without your consent. I believe the government and its officials should serve the public without invoking matters of faith, and those incapable of those duties should resign.

Does anyone disagree?
Click to expand...



You think you have a right to not be exposed to beliefs you don't like?


Well, I didn't know we had such a right. I'm exposed to beliefs I dislike daily, carried on almost every TV and radio station in existence.


Be quite a trick purging all beliefs/ideas that anybody anywhere dislikes from public exposure.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I could be wrong, but weren't you recently, in other threads, extolling the opinions of Pope Francis as they relate to public policy?
Click to expand...

The Pope can do whatever he wants, as long as he's not doing it as a government official.
 
Amadeus said:
Nope. It doesn't require silencing or banning religion. It does require that policies are absent of religious influence. Meaning that policy makers must have a non-religious argument.
Click to expand...

Well, that would take out secular humanisn, then, since the Supreme Court has found it to be a religion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins

And if you don't like that then there's this:

In the landmark case School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that "the State may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus 'preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." - Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225 (1963)
 
CanadaJohn said:
How ironic that you would post this after chastising me for my moral views that often mirror religious teachings.
Click to expand...

What's ironic about it? I explained myself quite clearly.
 
CriticalThought said:
I do. I feel if you do not want to be proselytized to or pressured to participate in prayers or services then you should be free from it. You should not be compelled to look at religious imagery and your children should not be approached on topics of spirituality or faith without your consent. I believe the government and its officials should serve the public without invoking matters of faith, and those incapable of those duties should resign.

Does anyone disagree?
Click to expand...

Yea but Christians will view that as the government banning Christians. [Just read the responses thus far]
 
Amadeus said:
What's ironic about it? I explained myself quite clearly.
Click to expand...

Your posts in this thread are so conflicted, I'm pretty sure you're dizzy with all the spinning you're doing.

Why don't you just admit that you're fine when religion supports your ideology and when it doesn't you want it silenced. That's the liberal approach to religion in a nutshell.
 
soot said:
Agreed.

If you don't want to be proselytized to or pressured to participate in prayers or services then when approached in such a manner that you're invited to be included in such things you should simply and politely say, "No thanks".

But we can't just outlaw proselytization or invitations to participate in prayers because 1st Amendment.

You're not.

You're free to look away.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Your posts in this thread are so conflicted, I'm pretty sure you're dizzy with all the spinning you're doing.

Why don't you just admit that you're fine when religion supports your ideology and when it doesn't you want it silenced. That's the liberal approach to religion in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm fine with religion when it agrees with me. Which is why you should support my position regarding religion within government. One of these days religion will not support your policy positions, and you'll have to deal with religion AND government working against you. Many theists are already turning against Catholicism because of Pope Francis.
 
CriticalThought said:
I do. I feel if you do not want to be proselytized to or pressured to participate in prayers or services then you should be free from it. You should not be compelled to look at religious imagery and your children should not be approached on topics of spirituality or faith without your consent. I believe the government and its officials should serve the public without invoking matters of faith, and those incapable of those duties should resign.

Does anyone disagree?
Click to expand...

I am 100% against that. Why? Because then it creates a society that is FOR intolerance and oppression. If I want to talk about my faith I Cannot. If I want to pray before a meal and I'm in public? I cannot.

The fact is you have freedom of or lack of religion. Not freedom From. And there is a good reason. You can't impose on freedom of speech like that. Just because you don't want to hear, doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to say it.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Yea but Christians will view that as the government banning Christians. [Just read the responses thus far]
Click to expand...

It would be. That would unfairly support the lack of faith. It would also violate freedom of speech. Not just free religion.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm not religious - and yes, I was raised in the Catholic Church, however I haven't been a member of the Catholic Church or supported the Catholic Church for most of my adult life and for the better part of the last half century. The simple fact that I have morals that align with many religious teachings does not mean they are religious arguments. Being opposed to murder isn't a religious argument. Defending moral positions that I hold that perhaps some religious affiliations also hold does not mean that I support those religious affiliations at all.

As for bigotry - yes, indeed, I call out several kinds of bigotry when I see it. One of the most prevailing kinds of bigotry seen here on DP threads is religious bigotry - a visceral hatred of large swaths of the population simply because they are people of faith. I'm not a person of faith but that doesn't mean I can't recognize bigotry against people of faith when I see it. I'm also not black, but I can recognize racial bigotry as well.

Perhaps your life and your views are dictated by your affiliations - after all, you're self described as very liberal, so a need to exercise tribal servitude may be deep within you. My life and my views aren't dictated in such a way.
Click to expand...

It's like those who think someone must be Jewish to defend Jews. Some people just cannot fathom having an opinion on something that may not directly affect them.
 
Amadeus said:
Yes, I'm fine with religion when it agrees with me. Which is why you should support my position regarding religion within government. One of these days religion will not support your policy positions, and you'll have to deal with religion AND government working against you. Many theists are already turning against Catholicism because of Pope Francis.
Click to expand...

I don't care about religion one way or another. You never see me promoting what a religious leader says in relationship to public policy - I think they should shut up on all public policy issues but I'm also not opposed to letting them "preach" because I just ignore it. But you seem to have no problem with promoting Pope Francis's views, as they relate to income inequality, OWS, etc., and crowing about how the Pope is for these things so people of faith should also be for these things. I believe you've even posted threads here on DP about Pope Francis's bleatings. But when the Pope speaks about abortion or the Obamacare mandates around contraceptives or SSM, etc., you want him to shut up and stop trying to imposing religious beliefs on the public policy debate.

You can choose to be hypocritical if that suits your ideological agenda - I won't be hypocritical. You see, I don't need spokesmodels from Hollywood or the Vatican or wherever to make me feel comfortable and confident in my moral views. But if you need that crutch, go for it. But don't for a minute think that everyone is like you.
 
X Factor said:
It's like those who think someone must be Jewish to defend Jews. Some people just cannot fathom having an opinion on something that may not directly affect them.
Click to expand...

:lol:

What a loaded comment. I would unpack it and embarrass you, but I don't think it would benefit the conversation.
 
Last edited:
CanadaJohn said:
I don't care about religion one way or another. You never see me promoting what a religious leader says in relationship to public policy - I think they should shut up on all public policy issues but I'm also not opposed to letting them "preach" because I just ignore it. But you seem to have no problem with promoting Pope Francis's views, as they relate to income inequality, OWS, etc., and crowing about how the Pope is for these things so people of faith should also be for these things. I believe you've even posted threads here on DP about Pope Francis's bleatings. But when the Pope speaks about abortion or the Obamacare mandates around contraceptives or SSM, etc., you want him to shut up and stop trying to imposing religious beliefs on the public policy debate.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that I'm not allowed to agree with religious people when their views align with my own, and that I cannot disagree with them when they don't align?
 
Amadeus said:
Are you suggesting that I'm not allowed to agree with religious people when their views align with my own, and that I cannot disagree with them when they don't align?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that at all - in fact, I said "go for it". I said I don't need that crutch, but you seem to.

You're the one in this thread who attacked me and claimed I'm not bothered by religion because I promote religious positions and I call out bigotry against people of faith, implying I do so because I'm some kind of toady for religion when in fact my positions on various issues have nothing to do with religion. And then, out of the other side of your mouth, you promote using religious beliefs and teachings to affect public policy if you agree with those religious beliefs.

I think your comments in this thread represent incredible confusion, but you're entitled to be confused, inconsistent, and hypocritical.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm not saying that at all - in fact, I said "go for it".

You're the one in this thread who attacked me and claimed I'm not bothered by religion because I promote religious positions and I call out bigotry against people of faith, implying I do so because I'm some kind of toady for religion when in fact my positions on various issues have nothing to do with religion. And then, out of the other side of your mouth, you promote using religious believes and teachings to affect public policy if you agree with those religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

What's your opinion of Pope Francis, since you bring him up? I already know, but humor the audience.
 
Last edited:
Amadeus said:
What's your opinion about Pope Francis, since you bring him up? I already know, but humor the audience.
Click to expand...

I've said many times in several threads that the minute that Pope Francis announces that he is divesting the Catholic Church of all its material treasures, $billions of dollars worth and much unavailable to even view by the general public, is the minute I start listening to anything Pope Francis has to say about income inequality, social justice, my charity and my care for the less fortunate in this world.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I've said many times in several threads that the minute that Pope Francis announces that he is divesting the Catholic Church of all its material treasures, $billions of dollars worth and much unavailable to even view by the general public, is the minute I start listening to anything Pope Francis has to say about income inequality, social justice, my charity and my care for the less fortunate in this world.
Click to expand...

Specifically, you have said stuff like:

I have to laugh a little at the leftists here who are all for the Pope, no greater a representative of religion as doctrine and rigidity of lifestyle, entering the halls of the greatest republic in the world and lecturing political leaders about policy and economics. The same leftists would be and are aghast if an American religious leader of any stripe dares to offer an opinion on matters of the state, bleating endlessly about the separation of church and state, and demanding that religions that so dare be striped of their charitable tax status for the affront.

I'll have to chalk it up to the left's utter fascination and fealty to celebrity. The Pope is simply George Clooney in different garb and, because his message on some issues appears to be theirs, they fawn and coo and wonder why the Pope and the GOP may be at odds.
Click to expand...

You seem willing to insult Catholics when their messenger doesn't align with your politics.
 
CriticalThought said:
I do. I feel if you do not want to be proselytized to or pressured to participate in prayers or services then you should be free from it. You should not be compelled to look at religious imagery and your children should not be approached on topics of spirituality or faith without your consent. I believe the government and its officials should serve the public without invoking matters of faith, and those incapable of those duties should resign.

Does anyone disagree?
Click to expand...

I do. Nobody is able to pressure me to participate in prayers or religion. Why would you let anyone pressure you that way. Don't like religion? Don't participate in it. Ignore it. It isn't hurting you. Why do you need government to protect you from things that you don't like but don't hurt you? The constitution even provides for freedom of religion.
 
Amadeus said:
There's nothing militant about wanting religion to not influence public policy. Certainly as a libertarian you'd have to agree.
Click to expand...



yet somehow I doubt you would start a thread on:

Muslim-Majority City Council Elected in Michigan - Breitbart



in all reality, people have a right to believe what they want. To suggest if one believe in a god they should be excluded from being elected to a seat is far more dangerous than thier belief in a god.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom