Thoughts on Freedom From Religion

Kiritsugu Emiyah · Mar 24, 2015

What do you guys think about a persons freedom from religion?

Specifically what do you think about this commercial? I'm not so much asking for your view on politics but more so what do you think about a non-believer insisting that they should be free from your ideas and when a non-believer tells you that they don't want to listen to your ideas and want you to leave them alone, what do you do?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7INIhD9P0Pw

dcalling · Mar 24, 2015

Kiritsugu Emiyah said:
What do you guys think about a persons freedom from religion?

Specifically what do you think about this commercial? I'm not so much asking for your view on politics but more so what do you think about a non-believer insisting that they should be free from your ideas and when a non-believer tells you that they don't want to listen to your ideas and want you to leave them alone, what do you do?

It is not our job to force religion onto people. Paul preaches in cities and if people don't listen he just leave.

But if people want to discuss it then that is another matter. Christian fellowships are very friendly. I attended one as an atheist, openly disagreed with them, throwing out all sorts of hard questions, none of them wanted to stone me for that

Christians are followers of God, and God doesn't force people to follow (else the world will be full of followers of God), instead God give us his message, and let us choose. That is what most Christians do.

aiki · Mar 25, 2015

What do you guys think about a persons freedom from religion?

That depends upon whether their freedom from religion requires the silencing and marginalization of my religion.

Specifically what do you think about this commercial?

I think it is patronizing and mocking toward people of faith, and makes false assumptions about the place of religion in society.

I'm not so much asking for your view on politics but more so what do you think about a non-believer insisting that they should be free from your ideas and when a non-believer tells you that they don't want to listen to your ideas and want you to leave them alone, what do you do?

Leave them alone, of course. Can I be equally free from their values and beliefs? No. I see secular, humanistic ideology promoted at every turn in western society. I can't get away from it. And the burgeoning "New Atheism" is not content to "live and let live." The new atheists want to stamp out religion entirely. They have been very explicit about this.

Selah.

Hakan101 · Mar 25, 2015

If all you're talking about it an atheist not wanting to be preached to, then the response would be to leave them alone. There's no point forcing it upon them. Their hearts are hardened and the Word will fall on deaf ears. But should they approach a Christian and inquire of Jesus out of interest, then they are willing to hear it and so you should answer them or direct them to a ministry that can help them.

Joshua260 · Mar 25, 2015

Even the Bible teaches that we are free to choose not to worship God. Unfortunately the ffr is confused about the intentions of the founding fathers. They did not intend for this to be a faithless nation, but only that we would not have a state church. Both the Declaration and the Bill of Rights refer to or imply a divinity. A fact that the ffr routinely overlooks.

Kiritsugu Emiyah · Mar 25, 2015

Thanks for posting guys

graceandpeace · Mar 26, 2015

The commercial was okay until the patronizing, stereotyped bit at the end.

I'm not interested in a theocratic government, & I don't object to a general separation between church & state.

I generally support a person's freedom to be "left alone" if they don't wish to be "preached to" & the like. However, silencing all public religious expressions would be a dangerous precedent to set, much like silencing any different views would be worrisome for the freedoms of all.

1watchman · Mar 26, 2015

Some good thoughts were expressed here! Christians and others should be free to set forth their faith for the benefit of those who might be stirred to inquire further ---maybe its like buying anything from ads and promotions, etc.

We should not try to stamp out religious ideas or other social and political ideas, but there must be restraints on one fighting against people who have different thoughts. God will stir up a heart and conscience about Himself and His Word if He knows that one is a sincere seeker; otherwise, as God told the Apostles: to shake their dust off your feet and move on. We need to live peaceably in this world, and a Christian should always be ready to share with those who show some interest in eternal issues.

Kiritsugu Emiyah · Mar 27, 2015

Thankks everyone

Lukaris · Mar 28, 2015

I do not get it, why is this person singling out Christianity in America? America is not a theocratic Christian nation (never was). If they really mean "freedom from religion" then their "separation of church & state" mantra is an oxymoron or a deceptive intention to single out Christianity for their alleged advocacy of "freedom".

What about separation of mosque, synagogue, ashram etc. & state? One may argue, "well y'know, that's what their gettin' at." Personally I do not trust them and I support freedom of religion in America for any group whose faith system supports a peaceful & civil society.

Kiritsugu Emiyah · Mar 28, 2015

Lukaris

I think the person used Hell as an example and that freedom from does not equal the absence of.

Lukaris · Mar 29, 2015

He points out that religion is threatening secular government and calls specifically for the separation of church and state. I could care less what he believes and support separation of state and church, mosque, synagogue, etc. but he only says "church". I distrust the inconsistency of what they proclaim and doubt that separation from other faiths other than Christianity is implicit in their message.

If they really mean otherwise then they need to clarify because they take an alleged high road stance on freedom of belief. Personally, I do not believe they are sincere.

Kiritsugu Emiyah · Mar 29, 2015

Lukaris said:
He points out that religion is threatening secular government and calls specifically for the separation of church and state. I could care less what he believes and support separation of state and church, mosque, synagogue, etc. but he only says "church". I distrust the inconsistency of what they proclaim and doubt that separation from other faiths other than Christianity is implicit in their message.

If they really mean otherwise then they need to clarify because they take an alleged high road stance on freedom of belief. Personally, I do not believe they are sincere.

The separation of Church and State is a phrase dating back to the founding fathers, it's the word they used when they made the wall of separation between the government and religion systems. The founding fathers were religious men but as Madison clearly said, they very adamantly guarded their wall that they built between the government and the church.

I'm not sure what you feel is deceptive, "church" is the word used by the founding fathers. Christianity is the common occasion because Christianity is the largest religion in the United States and the most active, it's the OCCASION of the larger principle being addressed. It's the example... not the purpose.

The FFRF is a group pf lawyers who specifically bring lawsuits against SOCAS violations. Not all crime.

The FFRF has brought lawsuits against Islamic instances of this as well. Other than Christianity and sometimes Islam what religious system is violating SOCAS?

grasping the after wind · Mar 29, 2015

Kiritsugu Emiyah said:
The separation of Church and State is a phrase dating back to the founding fathers, it's the word they used when they made the wall of separation between the government and religion systems. The founding fathers were religious men but as Madison clearly said, they very adamantly guarded their wall that they built between the government and the church.

I'm not sure what you feel is deceptive, "church" is the word used by the founding fathers. Christianity is the common occasion because Christianity is the largest religion in the United States and the most active, it's the OCCASION of the larger principle being addressed. It's the example... not the purpose.

The FFRF is a group pf lawyers who specifically bring lawsuits against SOCAS violations. Not all crime.

The FFRF has brought lawsuits against Islamic instances of this as well. Other than Christianity and sometimes Islam what religious system is violating SOCAS?

What do you mean by the phrase religious system?

I know of no religion that is capable of violating the Constitution's establishment clause. Only the government is actually capable of violating that clause. It is also only the government that is capable of violating the right to the free exercise of religion included in the First Amendment. The principle of SOCAS was the impetus for both the establishment clause and the prohibition of government interference with the right of free exercise. The fear of a theocratic government i. e. a tyrannical government armed with the power of the gun and the power of self righteousness that accrues to a state run religion was what they feared the most not that religion would overpower government but government would use religion as a bludgeon to make any resistence to government religiously heretical. The founders were afraid of government armed with the trappings of religion not religion itself. If they feared what religion might do they would not have prohibited the government from interfereing with the free exercise of religion. The founder's understood that religion, that by law must compete in the arena of ideas with other religions and philosophies, was not much of a threat, but religion that was tied to the state was possibly the greatest threat of all to freedom. You may recall that the idea of SOCAS was fairly revolutionary when Christ first proposed it by saying "Render unto Caesarthe things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

Kiritsugu Emiyah · Mar 29, 2015

A religious system is a system that is religious, such as Christianity. Christianity is a set of rules or ideas or beliefs that form a system to live by or believe in and it is religious in nature. A religious organization or a church group with a purpose is also a system.

Religious people using government systems to impose their religious ideas upon others is identical to religious systems violating the principle. That's why BOTH are separated from the other. It is not that religion is free to form the government but the government is not free to form religion... they did not intend for religious ideas to be able to form the government and thereby burden and discriminate against the non-religious.

Your ability to be a Christian live your life as you please is free exercise, but you can't use the law to enforce those ideas on me or limit me... that's the simple separation. Now if you think living your life as you please means picking at my life or controlling my rights then that's when you'll have a problem because it's no longer just your free exercise because I'm no longer free from you and your ideas. Yes those men were religious but they also clearly stated that their constitution was not based on the bible or Christianity... it was based on something else, not religion or even their religion.

Anyway... I didn't intend to discuss government policy or law. The people who make up the FFRF are board certified lawyers who went to school to learn what they're doing. Very few people comprehend the nature of the law to the extent that they do. When they begin to lose lawsuits I will begin to doubt their position on it and when I no longer feel like Christians try to invade into non-believers lives with their radical religious ideas I'll stop thinking Freedom from Religion is important.

I want to discuss how you feel about humans being free from your religion.

Albion · Mar 29, 2015

Kiritsugu Emiyah said:
What do you guys think about a persons freedom from religion?

Since you ask...my personal opinion is that this man should get a life. He has made a minor reputation for himself by publicly rejecting just about everything his father is remembered for, and he would be nothing if that hadn't become his career. He has always struck me as being against this and against that, and in a very sarcastic and/or snickering way, but he's rarely for anything important. In other words, this sounds like the latest entry into the 'much ado about nothing' sweepstakes--except that he knows it will offend people, and he likes being the one to do that.

Kiritsugu Emiyah · Mar 29, 2015

Albion said:
Since you ask...my personal opinion is that this man should get a life. He has made a minor reputation for himself by publicly rejecting just about everything his father is remembered for, and he would be nothing if that hadn't become his career. He has always struck me as being against this and against that, and in a very sarcastic and/or snickering way, but he's rarely for anything important. In other words, this sounds like the latest entry into the 'much ado about nothing' sweepstakes--except that he knows it will offend people, and he likes being the one to do that.

I see, thanks for commenting

Lukaris · Mar 29, 2015

In America any belief system group that is peaceful & adheres to civil law should be allowed to seek members from the general public in a non-intrusive manner in principle. There are always particular tensions within freedom of expression.

My main argument with this freedom from religion group has nothing to do with their seeking members for their organization, secular humanist cult or whatever they are supposed to be. My main argument centers on their phrase "separation of church & state" since, as I keep harping on, America is now a religious & philosophical pantheon & not a "Christian" nation (as if it ever truly was). If this organization is so legally precise, then why is their slogan so inadequate, inconsistent, discriminatory, & outdated to the social climate in which they preach?

Kiritsugu Emiyah · Mar 29, 2015

Lukaris said:
In America any belief system group that is peaceful & adheres to civil law should be allowed to seek members from the general public in a non-intrusive manner in principle. There are always particular tensions within freedom of expression.

My main argument with this freedom from religion group has nothing to do with their seeking members for their organization, secular humanist cult or whatever they are supposed to be. My main argument centers on their phrase "separation of church & state" since, as I keep harping on, America is now a religious & philosophical pantheon & not a "Christian" nation (as if it ever truly was). If this organization is so legally precise, then why is their slogan so inadequate, inconsistent, discriminatory, & outdated to the social climate in which they preach?

You are allowed to seek members, you just can't try to shape the government based on religious preference or religious principles because it discriminates against the rest of us. We have to use rules and ideas that everyone, not just Christians can agree on and not just because their religion says so.

America is now a religious & philosophical pantheon

... no it is not.

I don't see anything about their slogan that is what you say. Separating the government and the Church as our fathers intended equals each and every person being free from other people's religion or free to not be or act or be limited by or too religion in general. You just aren't free to take my freedom.

In America any belief system group that is peaceful & adheres to civil law should be allowed to seek members from the general public in a non-intrusive manner in principle.

Just because you act peaceful and even if you really are peaceful, that doesn't mean you have the right or should be allowed to shape the government to your religious preference. Taking the rights or controlling or harassing the non-believers isn't kind or peaceful, now matter how soft and sweet your voice is or how big your smile is or how wide your arms are open. You can't bother me in the name of love.

In short... no law should ever be established based on "because the bible or god says so" and such a method must be kept out of the government, for all our sake. You are free to practice your religion yourself.

Kiritsugu Emiyah · Mar 29, 2015

Thoughts on Freedom From Religion

Kiritsugu Emiyah

Guest

Senior Member

Regular Member

Here I Am

Well-Known Member

Kiritsugu Emiyah

Guest

Episcopalian

Overseer

Kiritsugu Emiyah

Guest

Orthodox Christian

Kiritsugu Emiyah

Guest

Orthodox Christian

Kiritsugu Emiyah

Guest

That's grasping after the wind

Kiritsugu Emiyah

Guest

Facilitator

Kiritsugu Emiyah

Guest

Orthodox Christian

Kiritsugu Emiyah

Guest

Kiritsugu Emiyah

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency