Religious Persecution

[_canpakes]

No one really cares about the attention seeking atheists..."atheists" suffer consequences because they are otherwise tools that most people don't like irrelevant of their lack of theism; just a coincidence that most pr!ck$ are atheists.

Captain Irony once again rises to the occasion. ; )

[_Goya]

most pr!ck$ are atheists.

I don't get it. First you say you're not an atheist and now you claim to be one.

[_Gunnar]

Religious freedom is meaningless, unless it includes the freedom to choose no religion at all, with no adverse legal, political or prejudicial consequences of any kind.

No, it isn't.
No one really cares about the attention seeking atheists..."atheists" suffer consequences because they are otherwise tools that most people don't like irrelevant of their lack of theism; just a coincidence that most pr!ck$ are atheists.

Are you saying that religious freedom should not include the freedom to choose no religion? I think the founding fathers of our country would very strongly disagree with that.

Ammendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing there states or implies that anyone must choose a religion to believe in, or denies the right to choose no religion at all. To deny the right to choose no religion at all would be at least as bad as mandating that everyone join and support only one particular, state established religion.

[_Gunnar]

most pr!ck$ are atheists.

I don't get it. First you say you're not an atheist and now you claim to be one.

[_subgenius]

most pr!ck$ are atheists.

I don't get it. First you say you're not an atheist and now you claim to be one.

cute, but i did say "most", not "all"....but thanks for the affirmation.

[_ajax18]

It takes a real prick to encourage people to be Mormon; that is for certain.

In my most carnal states of mind, I used to see the gospel as a punishment and a thankless burden. My spiritual eyes have been opened again. Honestly Schmo, the people I share the gospel with, I do so out of their own best interests. I'm not saying you should go back to being an active Mormon. But I think you should take a second look at the spiritual world and stop shutting it out. You're missing a huge part of who you are and even your heritage.

[_subgenius]

Are you saying that religious freedom should not include the freedom to choose no religion? I think the founding fathers of our country would very strongly disagree with that.

You can think what you want, but yes - choosing "no religion" is irrelevant to our nation's concept religious freedom. Just like how the right to own a gun is irrelevant to a person who chooses to not own a gun....or how freedom of speech is not exercised by saying nothing.

Ammendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing there states or implies that anyone must choose a religion to believe in, or denies the right to choose no religion at all. To deny the right to choose no religion at all would be at least as bad as mandating that everyone join and support only one particular, state established religion.

Agreed, nothing there says you have to be religious...but that is not the same as religious freedom....that would be just plain ole regular "freedom". What that says is that Congress wont favor a religion or religion in general...neither of which apply to atheists. Atheists simply don't have a dog in that fight, they can rely on free speech and assemble, etc. Again, the right to bear arms does not mean you have to bear arms, it only applies to people who choose to bear arms....the unarmed should just move along, as should atheists- but alas, they are pr!ck$ and can not.

[_canpakes]

Again, the right to bear arms does not mean you have to bear arms, it only applies to people who choose to bear arms....the unarmed should just move along, as should atheists- but alas, they are pr!ck$ and can not.

The right to choose and practice a particular religion does not mean that one has to do so, it only applies to people who choose to do so. And they should then move along. The right to choose one’s religious beliefs does not imply a right to craft legislation based on those views that would impose upon others who may believe differently.

The religious should just move along, “- but alas, they are pr!ck$ and can not”... seems to apply here, as well.

[_canpakes]

most pr!ck$ are atheists.

I don't get it. First you say you're not an atheist and now you claim to be one.

Perhaps he’s just trying to tell us how he feels about Trump.

[_Some Schmo]

I'm not saying you should go back to being an active Mormon. But I think you should take a second look at the spiritual world and stop shutting it out. You're missing a huge part of who you are and even your heritage.

The devil's in the details. It depends what you mean by "spiritual."

If, by spiritual, you mean being moved by the beauty of an infant, a mountain landscape, or a touching scene in a movie, I've never lost that. Everyone has access to those experiences. The problem is confusing them with the god people don't admit they created for themselves.

If, by spiritual, you mean ghosts and angels and heaven and the rest of the made-up woo... that'll never happen. I don't have time for those stories. There are much better ones, more modern stories that don't require you believe they represent objective reality.

As I always say, if religion floats your boat, I have no objections until you try to apply that crap to public policy, when your fantasies affect my family and friends (i. e. abortion laws, disallowing gay marriage, voting for a despot, etc).