Freedom from Religion

[McCulloch]

Many democracies have included protection of religion in their constitutions. We enjoy freedom of religion. There are some who claim that there can be freedom of religion without freedom from religion. I don't see how that is possible.

Questions for debate:

1. Does freedom of religion imply freedom from religion?
2. Is freedom from religion a good idea?
3. Is freedom from religion guaranteed by the constitutional law of your country?

[Beto]

Questions for debate:

1. Does freedom of religion imply freedom from religion?
2. Is freedom from religion a good idea?
3. Is freedom from religion guaranteed by the constitutional law of your country?

1. / 2. "Freedom from ideas" doesn't sound good to me. Doesn't seem to be able to coexist with "freedom of speech".

3. IMO any secular government (Portugal in my case) is, by definition, both atheist and a member of all religions. This constitutes real "religious freedom" in its broadest sense (both of and from).

[McCulloch]

1. / 2. "Freedom from ideas" doesn't sound good to me. Doesn't seem to be able to coexist with "freedom of speech".

Freedom of speech does not imply that I must comply with anything that is said, necessarily. You are free to speak whatever you wish. I am free to ignore or listen. Freedom from religion means that I should not be compelled to participate in or support any religions.

3. IMO any secular government (Portugal in my case) is, by definition, both atheist and a member of all religions. This constitutes real "religious freedom" in its broadest sense (both of and from).

IMO secular government, by definition is neither atheist nor a member of any religion.

[JoeyKnothead]

I agree every person has the right to freedom of religion.

I agree every person has the right to freedom FROM religion.

Freedom from religion means that governments should not be in the business of enforcing religion on anyone, in any shape or form.

When in the context of being out in public, and hearing about someone's religion, say a corner preacher, that is more a case of free speech. Of course by hearing it I am not technically free from religion, but that individual's right to free speech in this case is more important.

When people ask for freedom FROM religion they want to know their government is not going to legislate religion to them.

[Beto]

3. IMO any secular government (Portugal in my case) is, by definition, both atheist and a member of all religions. This constitutes real "religious freedom" in its broadest sense (both of and from).

IMO secular government, by definition is neither atheist nor a member of any religion.

Same thing, for any practical purpose. However, if one sees a difference between a glass half empty and a glass half full, they'll be more satisfied with the latter. People might not understand how a government can't choose sides. They'll assume the government HAS to pick a side. If they see the government as a sum of all the different positions held by people, they may be more receptive to why it can't choose one over another. I'm not entirely sure the difference isn't too subtle to be relevant, but I'm convinced it matters.

[JoeyKnothead]

Try again you say? thats easy! Of course we arent talking of abuse. All you have listed is abuses. Teaching your child is not an abuse it is a benefit.

Not necessarily. Teaching your child is only a benefit if it helps them down the line. If you teach your kid that left is right and up is down and red is blue, you're only screwing up their life and that's certainly not beneficial. The same is true if you teach them that some invisible boogieman in the sky is going to protect them so they should handle venomous snakes and go walking in traffic with no regard for their own safety.

So yes, try again.

Doesn't add one iota to whether there should be freedom from religion or not




What boogieman? And to mention that evolution would be teaching your child that red is blue.

Have you truly studied evolution? Well not studying and then teling your kids something as though you did that would be abuse!

Did you know you absolutly cannot add to the genetic code? This a major blow to evolution this alone destroys evolution.

How about the second and first law of thermo dynamics. This absolutly destroys evolution.

How about absolutly no evidence what soever for A bio genesis? This absolutly destroys evolution!

How about the fact that if the univerese was billions of years old the galaxies would have spun out long ago? this absolutly destroys evolution!


I could go on for days with this stuff. And did you know evolutionist will still try and defend themselves. when this is absolute sciences I have mentioned to you here and they will bring a NO evidence rebuttal to everyone of these statement s I just made here. When they in reality have NONE! And they claim to be the ones who are about science. hahaha!

How come when man finds disaster in life i.e. sexual disease you can trace it back to the complete disobedience of what is spoken of in the bible? Wow what a coincidence!

Or how about divorce? And the fact that most men in prison didnt have fathers. Wow what a coincidence!

etc...etc...etc...etc...etc...etc...etc...etc... Peace!

[JoeyKnothead]

Try again you say? thats easy! Of course we arent talking of abuse. All you have listed is abuses. Teaching your child is not an abuse it is a benefit.

Not necessarily. Teaching your child is only a benefit if it helps them down the line. If you teach your kid that left is right and up is down and red is blue, you're only screwing up their life and that's certainly not beneficial. The same is true if you teach them that some invisible boogieman in the sky is going to protect them so they should handle venomous snakes and go walking in traffic with no regard for their own safety.

So yes, try again.

What boogieman? And to mention that evolution would be teaching your child that red is blue.

Have you truly studied evolution? Well not studying and then teling your kids something as though you did that would be abuse!

Did you know you absolutly cannot add to the genetic code? This a major blow to evolution this alone destroys evolution.

How about the second and first law of thermo dynamics. This absolutly destroys evolution.

How about absolutly no evidence what soever for A bio genesis? This absolutly destroys evolution!

How about the fact that if the univerese was billions of years old the galaxies would have spun out long ago? this absolutly destroys evolution!


I could go on for days with this stuff. And did you know evolutionist will still try and defend themselves. when this is absolute sciences I have mentioned to you here and they will bring a NO evidence rebuttal to everyone of these statement s I just made here. When they in reality have NONE! And they claim to be the ones who are about science. hahaha!

How come when man finds disaster in life i.e. sexual disease you can trace it back to the complete disobedience of what is spoken of in the bible? Wow what a coincidence!

Or how about divorce? And the fact that most men in prison didnt have fathers. Wow what a coincidence!

etc...etc...etc...etc...etc...etc...etc...etc... Peace!

Regardless of the boneheadedness of these arguments, they have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic

[JoeyKnothead]

.... It is absolutly accurate that the Founders and framers were strongly Christian and layed down the principles of this nation on the very principles of Christianity.

What you and the propagandists you quote fail to realize is that the very reason the United States was established as a secular nation was that they valued their personal freedom of religion and freedom from the religions of others.

Jefferson said, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
(Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82)

I am not going to delve too deeply into this topic because it is obvious that you are merely reciting the opinions handed to you by others who have a vast ulterior motive in promoting the false "Christian Nation" meme. Yes, many U.S. Founders were both religiously and culturally Christian. Many were religiously Deists. But they all agreed that government must be separated, Jefferson used the analogy of a "wall", from religion. This includes the absence of religion. This includes freedom from religion.

What the modern theocrats desire is a cultural hegemony that no longer exists. The U.S. population is neither culturally or religiously "Christian" regardless of the lip-service given to the idea. The U.S. of today, much like the U.S. of the 1790's worships Pascal's Wager rather than Christ.

You have yet to refute the statement of the Treaty of Tripoli, but I understand that this is when taken in context anathema to the modern theocrats. As I have stated, the U.S. was created as a purposefully secular nation. The Constitution makes not a single mention of "God" or any deity. Once the various Amendments were incorporated under the Fourteenth, then this Federal Secularism became de jure State secularism. You are correct that until incorporation the States were under no obligation to follow the Constitution unless specifically instructed. An example of this is that the Second Amendment still does not apply to the States.

However, under incorporation of the Fourteenth, the First Amendment does apply to the States. The entire U.S. is a secular construct. We the People are free of and from religion.

I understand you have a science problem to address before we return to the study of history, I await your answer on that post with some excitement.

What he said!

[JoeyKnothead]

Have you truly studied evolution? Well not studying and then teling your kids something as though you did that would be abuse!

Yes actually, I have advanced degrees and have studied evolutionary theory in great detail. As usual, you're completely wrong.

Did you know you absolutly cannot add to the genetic code? This a major blow to evolution this alone destroys evolution.

It does? That's funny, we do it all the time in the lab.

How about the second and first law of thermo dynamics. This absolutly destroys evolution.

The only thing it destroys is your credibility. You haven't got a clue what thermodynamics says.

How about absolutly no evidence what soever for A bio genesis? This absolutly destroys evolution!

If you had any credibility left, you've lost it now. Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with abiogenesis, it only deals with existing life, evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life.

But you'd know that if you weren't so ignorant.

How about the fact that if the univerese was billions of years old the galaxies would have spun out long ago? this absolutly destroys evolution!

Please explain how biological evolution has anything whatsoever to do with astrophysics. Oh wait, it doesn't, silly me.

I could go on for days with this stuff.

Oh by all means, go ahead, you're just making yourself look foolish. Please, show us the wonders that the religion brings as your brain dribbles out your ears. It's great entertainment.

You are just like all the rest of evolutionist I debate no evidence and story telling contrivances!

First of all you do not add to the genetic code through natural means.

And Second of all you have no clue what I would say concerning the laws of thermodynamics yet you say I know nothing. Thats not very scientific!

Conservation of energy---major blow to evolution

Law of entropy or second law---major blow to evolution

no evidence nor has there ever been evidence for A bio genesis---major blow to evolution and please do not quote the fraudulent work of Stanley Miller a fraudulent liar as other evolutionists have tried before.

The horrendous mathmatical impossibilities to the randon fromation of amino acids to just form one protein which still wouldnt start life along with the astronomical ridiculous mathmatical impossibilties of mutations to occur let ALONE beneficialy and enough or the fact that this doesnt nor has ever nor is therer any evidence to the claims of it ever occuring.mutations cause a loss of information or disease and please do not give the ridiculous sicklecell malaria circular reasoning story. Thats like saying Oh I lost my right arm protecting my left arm. in other words DUMB!!!! ---major blow to evolution


Natural selection is only within its genes of its kind and nothing more. this is absolute irrefutable fact!!!!---major blow to evolution


Irreducible complexity----major blow to evolution


Also if evolution were so undeniably true there would be no debate, this is why evolutionists fight the whole of the evidence because if it was all presented there would be no debate, this is why evolutionists fight opposing sides. So I say what are they afraid of? you have to ask ones self this!

lets keep going here and keep the evolutionists busy trying to come up with more circular reasonig fairytales with NO evidence scientific or otherwise!

Complexity and stability of the cosmos----major blow to evolution

geologic column? it is an assumption not a scientific evidential contrivance. The actual eveidence shows it to be nothing more than realy bad science because when you make something up with no REAL evidence to support ones claims which the geologic column does, thats flat out BAD science!---major blow to evolution


carbon dating doesnt work beyond a few thousand years even the inventor himself said so and agreed also the countless inaccuracies along with potassium argon dating, just plain junk science! ----major blow to evolution

Polystrate fossils---major blow to evolution

thousands of dino fossils found with tissue still in them ----major blow to evolution


All suppossed vestigials of past now known not vestigials---major blow to evolution

also the absurd mathmatical impossibilties to all of the variables to happen randomly is so laughable its sickening for anyone to claim they know science and beleive such a fairytale as evolution. the mathmatical ridiculous of it is astronomical, even for the smallest of things.---this is a major blow to evolution.

population growths counted backwards---for approx 6 billion people---comes to around the same timeline approx. of the bible around 6 to 8 thousand years old also the same timeline for all known evidential civilisations archaeologicaly known today. WOW!!!! what a cincidence!---major blow to evolution


I could go on for days and the evolutionists will just make up circular reasoning fairytales to rebuttal it its funny! Peace![/quote


While this post is off topic I suggest we place it into it's own topic -

Ignorance - Major Blow to Evolution?

[McCulloch]

While this post is off topic I suggest we place it into it's own topic -

Ignorance - Major Blow to Evolution?

Might I suggest that we already have a number of ongoing debates on the topic of evolution:

• Evolution
• Evolution is stupid
• Questions for Darwinists
• Pre cambrian pools
• Creationist Refutation of Neanderthals
• Should Intelligent Design be taught in public schools?
• Applied Evolution
• Ambiguity about "life" and "evolution"
• Humanity came from around 2000 persons?
• Proof birds evolved from dinosaurs?
• Evolution to the uneducated
• Let's talk evolution
• Regarding disproof of evolution
• Many former evolutionary scientists....the experiment