Gnostic Bishop wrote:

Harry Marks wrote:Sounds like an effort at thought control to me. Secular groups can promote homophobic ideas, but if a religious group does it, they are suddenly dangerous frauds? People can privately believe that women should be subject to their husbands, but if they cite holy writings, they are committing fraud? Get real, DL.

Every law is thought control, a demand and compulsion for us to discriminate, on pain of punishment, against certain actions and people ideas. We are to discriminate, for instance, against murderers and rapists etc. and those who harm society in various ways.

Why would you exempt immoral religions from common and intelligent law?

You should want the good religions to dominate. You do want good religions to dominate. Right?

Or do you enjoy a sprinkling of evil religions?

Regards
DL

Every law is thought control but you want more laws? I want to keep the government away from as many areas of life as possible. Government never gets things right. People keep asking the government to fix this and ban that and we're litigation happy and creating citizens who think running to mommy will solve every problem. Mixing government with religion is a nightmare. Good religions, evil religions, I'm no judge. Let Social Darwinism reign.

You take religion; I'll take a pass, thank you.

All religion is dangerous be it fraud or not....

Gnostic Bishop wrote:Every law is thought control, a demand and compulsion for us to discriminate, on pain of punishment, against certain actions and people ideas.

No, obviously not. You can be put in jail for burglary or drunk driving because we want to protect citizens from those who take certain actions. You cannot be put in jail for thinking burglary is a good idea, or drunk driving. In the U.S., not for advocating them either. The point of thought control is to punish thoughts we don't like, explicitly distinct from behavior we don't like.

Gnostic Bishop wrote:You should want the good religions to dominate. You do want good religions to dominate. Right?

Not if by governmental power. If a religion cannot persuade on its own, it should be left to die. That is the American contribution to church/state relations, and I must say it has been good for both church and state to do things that way.

Gnostic Bishop wrote:Or do you enjoy a sprinkling of evil religions?

Like something to gawk at on the internet? Well, it might have a good effect on people to be aware that there are snake-handlers and total chastity types out there. Help to keep people focused on the need for critical thinking, if you see what I mean.

Litwitlou wrote:

Gnostic Bishop wrote:

Harry Marks wrote:Sounds like an effort at thought control to me. Secular groups can promote homophobic ideas, but if a religious group does it, they are suddenly dangerous frauds? People can privately believe that women should be subject to their husbands, but if they cite holy writings, they are committing fraud? Get real, DL.

Every law is thought control, a demand and compulsion for us to discriminate, on pain of punishment, against certain actions and people ideas. We are to discriminate, for instance, against murderers and rapists etc. and those who harm society in various ways.

Why would you exempt immoral religions from common and intelligent law?

You should want the good religions to dominate. You do want good religions to dominate. Right?

Or do you enjoy a sprinkling of evil religions?

Regards
DL

Every law is thought control but you want more laws? I want to keep the government away from as many areas of life as possible. Government never gets things right. People keep asking the government to fix this and ban that and we're litigation happy and creating citizens who think running to mommy will solve every problem. Mixing government with religion is a nightmare. Good religions, evil religions, I'm no judge. Let Social Darwinism reign.

You take religion; I'll take a pass, thank you.

I gather that you have missed the fact that secular law is a lot better and more moral than religious laws.

But hey, if you do not mind the homophobia and misogyny that will have it's evil effect even in your family, then ignore religions.

Who cares about family anyway. Right

Regards
DL

Under_Taker wrote:All religion is dangerous be it fraud or not....

Since they have gifted us with 3,000 years of war, I agree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxoxPapPxXk

Regards
DL

Harry Marks wrote:[

quote="Gnostic Bishop"]Every law is thought control, a demand and compulsion for us to discriminate, on pain of punishment, against certain actions and people ideas.

No, obviously not. You can be put in jail for burglary or drunk driving because we want to protect citizens from those who take certain actions. You cannot be put in jail for thinking burglary is a good idea, or drunk driving. In the U.S., not for advocating them either. The point of thought control is to punish thoughts we don't like, explicitly distinct from behavior we don't like.

I will give you half mark on this because of my foolish inclusion of thoughts.

Otherwise, what I said was exact.

Gnostic Bishop wrote:You should want the good religions to dominate. You do want good religions to dominate. Right?

Not if by governmental power. If a religion cannot persuade on its own, it should be left to die. That is the American contribution to church/state relations, and I must say it has been good for both church and state to do things that way.

Really?
Even though our mainstream religions promote homophobia and misogyny?

Gnostic Bishop wrote:Or do you enjoy a sprinkling of evil religions?

Like something to gawk at on the internet? Well, it might have a good effect on people to be aware that there are snake-handlers and total chastity types out there. Help to keep people focused on the need for critical thinking, if you see what I mean.

[/quote]

Indeed. The more the loony religions are in our minds, the less growth will happen to religions.

Note how they are shrinking as we speak. That or are getting more moral as secular laws force them to think better.

Regards
DL

The Skeptic's Guide to the Galaxy had a similar discussion a few years back. In that case, they were discussing a law in Philadelphia that makes the practice of fortunetelling illegal. I argued (by email) that such a law overreaches. People get their fortunes told for a variety of reasons. But more importantly if people want to believe in mumbo jumbo it's their right. In the case of fortune-telling, some people willingly suspend disbelief and in that sense it's a form of entertainment they are willing to pay for. You're getting into very dodgy territory when you invite the state to say what is and what isn't okay to believe.

My other point was along the lines of Harry Marks' caveat emptor. We live in a free country and people are free to make choices. Religions offer spiritual comfort to those who want spiritual comfort. Obviously it's a service with a hell of a lot of demand.

Obviously there are exceptions, as in the case of making promises that are clearly of a fraudulent nature, such as an attempt to bilk money from a gullible person. That crosses a line to be sure. But religion means different things to different people. I don't think it's very productive or fair to make a blanket statement that all religions are fraudulent.

Gnostic Bishop wrote:I will give you half mark on this because of my foolish inclusion of thoughts.

Well, except that my point, to which you responded, was that your proposal smacks of thought control. I included thoughts, and you seemed, at first, to think it was a good idea.

Gnostic Bishop wrote:

Harry Marks wrote: That is the American contribution to church/state relations, and I must say it has been good for both church and state to do things that way.

Really?
Even though our mainstream religions promote homophobia and misogyny?

Umm, it sounds like you would compel them to stop taking the positions they do on issues. I do have trouble with that. Yes, I think it is good for the state to hold off on punishing people for unpopular views. Most views start out unpopular. And if we compelled society to agree with every thought that claimed the mantle of "progressive" our views would be bouncing around like the squirrel on caffeine in "Over the Hedge". Persuasion takes time, and attention, and engagement. And that's a good thing.

Do I think religion being out from under the state has been good for religion? Yes, of course. My wife and I have long been part of a denomination that rejected homophobia at least 35 years ago. Long before most of society. Ruled by the state, we would have been compelled to agree with the crowd or leave.

I'm not saying there is something to be proud of about conservative religion dragging its feet on social change. If not for evangelical Christianity, there would be no question of teaching anything but evolution in schools. What I am saying is that it warps religion horribly to take the instruments of violence in hand, as many Muslim sects do.

Maybe I am just a little soft, but from time to time I get warm fuzzy feeling about religion and think about it being a part of my life again. The other day I passed by a church that appeared to be one of the "Bible-fearing" ones. The sign announcing the sermon read, "What Is Your Impact on Others?" I could not think of any other public venue at which people come together to hear about such an important topic. No doubt the preacher would illustrate his talk with Bible parables and quotations, but I don't imagine that an atheist would find them objectionable.

That is off-topic. I agree with geo and Harry that religion should be left alone. Under our Constitution it is speech that is protected.

geo wrote:The Skeptic's Guide to the Galaxy had a similar discussion a few years back. In that case, they were discussing a law in Philadelphia that makes the practice of fortunetelling illegal. I argued (by email) that such a law overreaches. People get their fortunes told for a variety of reasons. But more importantly if people want to believe in mumbo jumbo it's their right. In the case of fortune-telling, some people willingly suspend disbelief and in that sense it's a form of entertainment they are willing to pay for. You're getting into very dodgy territory when you invite the state to say what is and what isn't okay to believe.

My other point was along the lines of Harry Marks' caveat emptor. We live in a free country and people are free to make choices. Religions offer spiritual comfort to those who want spiritual comfort. Obviously it's a service with a hell of a lot of demand.

Obviously there are exceptions, as in the case of making promises that are clearly of a fraudulent nature, such as an attempt to bilk money from a gullible person. That crosses a line to be sure. But religion means different things to different people. I don't think it's very productive or fair to make a blanket statement that all religions are fraudulent.

I did not state that all religions were fraudulent. Those that focus on knowledge and wisdom would likely get a pass as they do not need to lie to their adherents.

Basically, only those religions that are supernatural and fantasy based, with demonstrably immoral Gods would likely be asked to change their immoral dogma.

Yahweh, a genocidal son murdering God, would likely get a fail.

Regards
DL