|
|
Angst
Rabid Doomer
Team Member
Elite
  
Posts: 1011
|
WHAT?!
mere words cannot convey my opinion on this...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Who says a chainsaw isn't a ranged weapon?"
|
|
|
|
ConfusedUs
|
Oh, but they can.
*waits for Pho's post*
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
OoBeY
|
Wha-- I mean... Words cannot describe my utter shock. That must be a sick parody story, or exceedingly false, misinterpreted information. No one could possibly stand to have such a thing. Hell, I'M vehmenently opposed to it. What next? I mean, seriously, what next will people think of? Edit: Oh, this isn't really real, just some whackjob submitting his stuff to the UN... The resolution is being proposed by Antony Last, founder of formulism.org, a site which claims that freedom FROM religion would be of far greater benefit to mankind than freedom OF religion. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2004-01-29, 04:44 by OoBeY »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaxAstro
|
Why am I strangely reminded of the book series Left Behind, in which something almost exactly like this happened???
I agree with ConfusedUs. As soon as Phoenix recovers from the same kind of utter shock I feel, we're likely to hear words express very explicitly how shocking this is.
I mean, normally, I'm not one to get involved in a religious conversation. Let's just say that my views on religion are in the vast minority. In fact, I know two people who hold them, and one is me. However, whatever my views may be, this is just insane. You can't "outlaw" religion. It would result in the total destruction of the UN. They'd be crazy to pass anything like that. They would lose worldwide support.
Of course, some people would say, maybe that's the plan. <_<
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Woodsman
|
guys you know damn well this is never going to happen its just the pipe dream of some bitter group of atheists. Even if it actually made it to the u.n (and it wont) it would never pass.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ConfusedUs
|
Very true, but it's still disturbing.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Actually, I'm not shocked by this at all. I've known that groups like this exist and that there has been a major push against religion for some time now. For a devout believer like myself, who has researched and understands biblical prophecy these things WILL eventually happen. Perhaps not right away, but this push against organized religion becomes stronger and stronger every year. What begins with a few harsh, fringe attempts at laws getting fired off at random will eventually desensitize people to the concept. What is more likely to pass is some kind of compromise law, perhaps even unifying all religions into some more generic conglomerate that's "offensive to none but acceptible to all". If you can't stamp out religion then why not make an official one, right? I've seen suggestions running along those lines too.
Now you may or may not agree with what I believe, but my expectations on events to come so far haven't been too far off the mark from what I'm seeing happen here. Religious persecution has always been something the world has to deal with. It also tends to be a question of who it's ok to persecute and who it's not ok. Christianity gets beat up pretty badly in the universities and intellectual circles right now. We get blamed for everything anymore. After 9/11 we all heard the cries to not lash out at Islam for what happened because it was a few bad men who did it, not the whole religion. Turn the dial on the TV to the scandal with the pedophile priests. Was there a cry not to lash out at all Christians for the sins of a few? In the USA the concept of "separation of church and state" has been taken to an absurd extreme where a kid can't even carry a bible in his backpack. They get hauled to the principle's office if it even LOOKS like they're praying. I find this ironic when over 200 years ago some of the very men who signed the US constitution led prayer services in the halls of Congress at night. Every year Christians are murdered or forcibly converted to Islam by bands of thugs in Africa who raid villages in the night with machetes and AK-47's. This isn't the peaceful side of Islam, this is the same radical sect that's keen on flying airplanes into buildings. Where is the reporting on this? Is this not a real danger?
People also have a tendency to focus on the bad and ignore the good. Christians aren't perfect, and a lot of bad things have been done in the name of God at the hands of very misguided Christians. People bring these up all the time, so I won't number them here. However, think of all the GOOD that religious organizations do. Who feeds the poor, and the hungry? Who runs shelters for the homeless? Who travels around the world trying to bring hope to the hopeless? Who comforts families when their loved ones pass on?
Now imagine a world that is run only be material whims. Imagine a materialism squared, because that's what you'll get without religion. There are some who argue that mankind has grown beyond the need of having some kind of religion, that intellectualy people have surpassed this point, and that morality can be intrinsic. I beg to differ. For those who ARE the intellectual elites, perhaps they do subscribe to some philosophy that has rules governing their behavior, but they're still rules, and someone had to make them. For the common man, this is another story altogether. A society can be judged best by its working class, as they number the most. Look at the average person. Where are their concerns? People are more concerned with making a living day by day and keeping food on the table than any highbrow philosophy. Now look at popular culture. If morality is intrinsic, then why do people slide more and more down the gutter and closer toward the sewer every year? A moral compass needs something to point to. The bible teaches us that sin is a temptation to be resisted, not only because it is wrong but also because we will have to face judgement for what we do later. If people are tempted to do evil, and there is no fear of consequence, what is to stop them? Now take it further and erase the lines of good and evil, as many are seeking to do today. Does this not open the door for justification and rationalization?
People who hate people of faith do not bother to understand us. For those of us who believe in something higher we exist to serve that higher being, but peacefully. We also believe His intentions to be benevolent except to those who deliberatly choose to do evil. Still, that is His role to pass judgement, not ours. We do not seek to harm anyone, nor rule their lives. We only wish to bring hope and peace to people in a very troubled world. If this is something bad, and vile enough that people feel they have to outlaw God, that is of course their choice. We who believe will follow our commandments in spite of this. Christians are no strangers to being thrown in dungeons and fed to the lions for our faith. According to prophecy, during the time known as the tribulation that is yet to come, Christians will be beheaded for their faith, tortured and killed in large numbers. I guess you could say we've been expecting this. I cannot really speak for Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and others as to how they'll react if this kind of law is passed. I'm sure they'll speak for themselves at the apropriate time. Some will speak with violence, others will not. Time will tell.
I would offer this warning though. Mankind did not make this earth, and while some may believe the universe just sprang from nothing, mankind is not above the power that caused this earth to be, whatever name you ascribe to it. Rejecting something does not make it just cease to be, nor does it free you from the consequences of your actions.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
  I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
scalliano
Elite
Posts: 1095
Yup, that's me
|
Even as an atheist myself, I still think that this idea is mental. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs - we're all free, apparently. I can understand the will to eradicate one of the biggest causes of war on this planet, but you can't change what people feel in their hearts and minds. Yes as I said I am an atheist, but that is still my choice. This motion removes that choice. I agree that without that choice money would become the new religion (as if it wasn't already) and we as humans would quite easily find something else to fight over.
The words "fire" and "frying pan" spring to mind.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
PSN ID: scalliano
The Arena knows no gender, colour or creed, only skill.
|
|
|
Angst
Rabid Doomer
Team Member
Elite
Posts: 1011
|
After giving myself some time to think this over, the idea comes to mind that if religion were to be banned, the next item of hatred would be national origin. Then we'd have that wonderful world-state... Not a pretty picture
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Who says a chainsaw isn't a ranged weapon?"
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
Now that you've had the devout's take on this, take the rational nihilist's
I may agree with this in principal (ie. that organized religion is a scurge on humanity) but in practice this honestly has to be one of the greatest examples of doing the wrong thing for the right reason. The same way that killing a religious leader can turn him into a icon of martyrdom, killing a religion will only drive it underground, making the believers more devout and most likely far more violent.
The only real way of ridding ourselves of the scourge of religion peacefully is through diffusion. Unfortunately as Benjamin Barber in his book "Jihad VS McWorld" points out, that American pop culture (aka Consumer Culture) is far from a feasible if even a desirable substitute for religion. Ultimately, you only trade the absolute faith in one God for the faith in another, slightly more greener, paper-er God. So in the end you are only left with the problem of how to eliminate this new civic religion which is just as bad as the one before it.
Furthermore, the logistics behind this would make Orwell turn in his grave. The government would be creating a law that regulates interaction between concenting individuals. This is John Ashcrofts wetdream! The ability to formulate law based not on the violation of rights among individuals but rather to forumate laws based solely on the type of interaction between individuals. This would be disasterous. It would open the floodgates to laws about what you are allowed to say to one another (Newspeak), how you're allowed to say it (Texan accent only) and what you are allowed to do with one another (Missionary only!). The state that implements such precedent setting legislation scares me far more than any religious nut running around in his *insert any of the following = Exploding Rental Car, Israeli tank, Air Force One*
Thankfully the UN, much in the same was as the US Congress only votes on a small amount of bills, since after the barrel rolling I'm sure this will be turned into what they are having for lunch the day of the vote.
I am no fan of religion, as most of you have noticed, but at the moment I really can't think of a way to effectively rid the world of it without massive collateral damage. These guys are just a joke
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tekhead
Elite
Posts: 1110
|
Many people attempt to justify destruction for the benefit of mankind in one way or another. This proposistion looks exactly like the crusades, where everyone and everything that doesn't believe in something specific will be vanquished in the name of a belief. Back then, it was for Christianity. This does it in the name of Formulism. Interesting, that this Formulism proposes this but is a religion in itself by definition: (Source: Merriam-Webster online dictionary - http://www.m-w.com/ ) Main Entry: re?li?gion Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n Function: noun ... 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faithAfterall, to believe in nothing is still a belief - a faith that rejects.So in turn, Formulism would annhiliate itself with such a foolish proposistion, which probably wouldn't be in their best interests. Still, the original intent for this proposistion is "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of organized religion". What if you kill yourselves? What generation is left? The Formulism site recognizes the Holocaust as an example of how people persecute other people for their beliefs that are unlike their own. There's a name for what the Nazis attempted to do: Genocide. I'd like for this 'Anthony Last' to explain exactly how his proposistion to the UN isn't suggesting "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" (another m-w.com reference - definition of genocide). He's no better than Hitler with this ideal he's trying to impose on other people. Religions in my perspective vary greatly, but most of the widely-accepted ones have a consistent theme - the preservation of life, and the quality of living. Even though I'm not really into organized religion, I understand its original intent, and I see what it can do for many people. I personally like the idea of the prosperity of humanity, so I tolerate it even when it seems foolhardy (like my old high school friend who plans on being a Christian missionary in China... I wish her well). Destruction doesn't resolve everything. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaxAstro
|
Wow. Good speeches all around. Specially yours, Phoenix. While I may not inherently agree with all your positions, my own views allow me to accept them, especially in view of the common factor.
Again I am reminded of the Left Behind books, especially by Phoenix's remarks...
Anyway, this is just absurd. And, I must agree to some extent with Phoenix about the direction it's likely to head. We live in a world where 'offending' anyone, person, political group, minority, or whatnot, is a crime almost worse then murder. Society as a whole is quickly conforming to the same hellish unreality proposed by Ray Bradbury in F451. And the only way to stop it is to never stop questioning. It doesn't matter what you question. Question the government, question society, question your life, your friends, and, above all else, question that which your believe most dearly. For soon you may come upon a time when your beliefs are all that you have left; at that point, you had better be able to hold them.
Reality is perseption; life without belief is death. Agreement without questioning is the most binding form of imprisonment ever concieved. Why do you think the Matrix was such a successful tool? No-one ever thought to question it. And look what was discovered, fought for, and won by those who did.
*/dark depressing speech*
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
*nods, and points to his own signature* Main Entry: so?lip?sism Pronunciation: 'sO-l&p-"si-z&m, 's?- Function: noun Etymology: Latin solus alone + ipse self : a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing - so?lip?sist /'sO-l&p-sist, 's?-l&p-, s&-'lip-/ noun - so?lip?sis?tic /"sO-l&p-'sis-tik, "s?-/ adjective - so?lip?sis?ti?cal?ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaxAstro
|
Ah, but what if the self doesn't even exist? What if the self is only a formation of it's own beliefs?
*sound of crickets*
Okay, shutting up now.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
That made absolutely no sense
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
