Jump to content

Should Religion be banned


Handy andy

Recommended Posts

I am all for the freedom of thought. BUT in light of recent and historic atrocities accreditted to religious people does any one think religion should be banned globally?

 

Does anyone have any idea at all what would be the best way of setting events in motion to ban religions in the developed world.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To ban religion would be to practice one of the very atrocities you are hoping to eliminate.

 

I would hope to eliminate, blowing people up, and torturing people and all other forms of religious bigotry. How is that an atrocity?

No.

If you want to get rid of religion, you have to let it die out on it's own.

Forcing it to stop will not help.

 

So Bombings in Manchester should be allowed to die out naturally. Is this going to happen when all the suicide bombers have committed suicide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think that would help?

 

Why would you think allowing religions to carry on would help.

I am all for the freedom of thought. BUT in light of recent and historic atrocities credited to political people does any one think politics should be banned globally? The military? Chiropractors?

 

Politicians and chiropractors don't walk into crowds of people and blow them selves up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has to be one of the stupidest suggestions I have heard for a long time.

 

For one thing, not all terrorism is religious. Much of it is purely political. Remember the Red Army Faction? Even the Irish troubles were ultimately political; it is just that the political split matched religious divisions for historical reasons.

 

And the sort of people who are willing to bomb in the name of "religion" are hardly going to be stopped by the fact you have said their religion is now illegal. That will just give them another reason to feel aggrieved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politicians and chiropractors don't walk into crowds of people and blow them selves up

 

So we should ban the military as well as religion, right? And nobody ever blew themselves up for politics, right?

This has to be one of the stupidest suggestions I have heard for a long time.

 

5. Reality TV.

4. Deep-fried butter.

3. Murdering abortion doctors because they kill babies.

2. Electing a billionaire businessman POTUS.

1. Banning religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy to point fingers and to just blame Religion. It may not be so much as a religion problem as it is a people problem. Religion may just be the vehicle. If hard science was to be blamed for a people problem where would that land us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dehydrated H2O, just add water.

 

I'm afraid anti-religion laws would drive religion underground; laws don't change beliefs. However, teaching that religions are myths in grammar school would IMO decrease the number of people who believe in religion.

 

On another note: online companies are eliminating jobs for lawyers with AI apps. I expect to see religious AI apps that call people on the phone, preach to them, and charge them $/hr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. You are allowed to hold whatever belief you want as long as you don't actually carry out any of the teachings that could invoke harm. I am fully an advocate of getting rid of religion, but not systemically. You can't legislate religion out of existence. The only hope we have is reasoned-argument and the power of persuasion. Time to hone those debating skills.

Edited by Code42
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

If you want to get rid of religion, you have to let it die out on it's own.

Forcing it to stop will not help.

 

It seems there is a general consensus that people would like the world to carry on has it has done for the last few thousand years embracing religious belief. All extremists start out as moderates. Below is a link of a moslem consoling a jew after the Manchester bombing.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/well-get-through-this-together-touching-unity-as-muslim-comforts-93-year-old-jewish-woman-at-manchester-terror-attack-vigil/ar-BBBuvJ9?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp

 

I find it disgraceful that the politicians and media do not do anything to curtail unhealthy religious belief. Many politicians seem to support religion, or use it as a vote winner.

 

There is nothing more certain in life than death and taxes, unless of course you have religion. Smoking and Alcohol are heavily taxed and has been found to reduce consumption. Is it not about time that religion was taxed as is every other pleasure activity. Would this help religion fade away.

 

WTF -2 points for asking a simple question.

Edited by Handy andy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it disgraceful that the politicians and media do not do anything to curtail unhealthy religious belief.

 

 

I find it disgraceful that people are completely unaware of what is going on int he world around them.

 

 

Many politicians seem to support religion, or use it as a vote winner.

 

And why shouldn't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems there is a general consensus that people would like the world to carry on has it has done for the last few thousand years embracing religious belief.

No. Not at all, but there is a consensus that banning it in an authoritarian/draconian manner is inappropriate. That's not equivalent to supporting the status quo or "embracing religious belief"... not even close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It seems there is a general consensus that people would like the world to carry on has it has done for the last few thousand years...

 

Life expectancy, quality of life, various freedoms have all been increasing over the centuries so what's the problem?

 

 

 

I'm not sure why you shared this. Is it supposed to be evidence that 'all extremists start moderate'? If it is, i can only feel sorry that you see the seeds of hatred even in acts of kindness. It seems the terrorists have won the war for your mind.

 

 

 

Is it not about time that religion was taxed as is every other pleasure activity. Would this help religion fade away.

 

Religion isn't a pleasure activity in the same way a pop concert is, for some people it is an integral part of their existence.

 

However, there might be a case to rescind religious tax exemption. I'm not sure how much of an impact this would make though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing more certain in life than death and taxes, unless of course you have religion. Smoking and Alcohol are heavily taxed and has been found to reduce consumption. Is it not about time that religion was taxed as is every other pleasure activity. Would this help religion fade away.

It would be a heavily regressive tax, and how would you tax it?

 

WTF -2 points for asking a simple question.

It's probably not for asking the question, but rather for apparently not having thought about any answers beforehand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be a heavily regressive tax, and how would you tax it?

 

 

It's probably not for asking the question, but rather for apparently not having thought about any answers beforehand

 

I took the extreme stance of suggesting banning all religions, and asked the question of how it could be done. It seems some people would like to keep it, and think religion should stay. Religion is the route cause of many terrorist attacks. The Manchester atrocity being the latest, it is not only moslem extremists that have exploded bombs in Manchester, the catholic funded IRA have murdered a few people there as well approx. 30 years ago in a city centre shopping centre.

 

I had hoped some one would have taken the stance of perhaps suggesting taxation as a means of reducing the revenue of religious organisations, and hence their influence. Perhaps after every atrocity they could have a taxation increase.

Taxation could be carried out on all donations, like VAT. The revenue could be used to educate people and rehabilitate those indoctrinated or abused by religion and religious leaders. Assets could be seized for none compliance.

 

Charitable status could be removed from religious schools due to teaching non factual things as fact, also child abuse. Taxation could be back dated and religious schools could be closed down, or made to teach the truth as best as it is known, not based on myth and legend.

 

etc

etc

 

The thread is about banning or reducing the influence of religion with the aim of curtailing extremism, it is not about politics, or any other diversionary ideas thrown up above. Neither is it about spirituality or science, the post is about religion, not science or spirituality.

Edited by Handy andy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I took the extreme stance of suggesting banning all religions, and asked the question of how it could be done. It seems some people would like to keep it, and think religion should stay. Religion is the route cause of many terrorist attacks. The Manchester atrocity being the latest, it is not only moslem extremists that have exploded bombs in Manchester, the catholic funded IRA have murdered a few people there as well approx. 30 years ago in a city centre shopping centre.

 

I had hoped some one would have taken the stance of perhaps suggesting taxation as a means of reducing the revenue of religious organisations, and hence their influence. Perhaps after every atrocity they could have a taxation increase.

Taxation could be carried out on all donations, like VAT. The revenue could be used to educate people and rehabilitate those indoctrinated or abused by religion and religious leaders. Assets could be seized for none compliance.

 

Charitable status could be removed from religious schools due to teaching non factual things as fact, also child abuse. Taxation could be back dated and religious schools could be closed down, or made to teach the truth as best as it is known, not based on myth and legend.

 

etc

etc

 

The thread is about banning or reducing the influence of religion with the aim of curtailing extremism, it is not about politics, or any other diversionary ideas thrown up above. Neither is it about spirituality or science, the post is about religion, not science or spirituality.

Religion is also the route cause of a lot of major humanitarian efforts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thread is about banning or reducing the influence of religion with the aim of curtailing extremism, it is not about politics, or any other diversionary ideas thrown up above. Neither is it about spirituality or science, the post is about religion, not science or spirituality.

 

Banning and taxing things are both political acts. How on earth do imagine this is not also about politics (dictatorial politics at that)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I took the extreme stance of suggesting banning all religions, and asked the question of how it could be done. It seems some people would like to keep it, and think religion should stay. Religion is the route cause of many terrorist attacks. The Manchester atrocity being the latest, it is not only moslem extremists that have exploded bombs in Manchester, the catholic funded IRA have murdered a few people there as well approx. 30 years ago in a city centre shopping centre.

 

I had hoped some one would have taken the stance of perhaps suggesting taxation as a means of reducing the revenue of religious organisations, and hence their influence. Perhaps after every atrocity they could have a taxation increase.

Taxation could be carried out on all donations, like VAT. The revenue could be used to educate people and rehabilitate those indoctrinated or abused by religion and religious leaders. Assets could be seized for none compliance.

 

Charitable status could be removed from religious schools due to teaching non factual things as fact, also child abuse. Taxation could be back dated and religious schools could be closed down, or made to teach the truth as best as it is known, not based on myth and legend.

 

 

 

But that lacks context. You can name a few incidents, which make the news because they are rare events. But how many wrongful deaths occur that aren't motivated by religion?

 

Taxing religious organizations will not do very much to quell belief by individuals. It may make things worse, because now these people will feel (more) persecuted. And why would countries that basically theocracies implement this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I took the extreme stance of suggesting banning all religions, and asked the question of how it could be done. It seems some people would like to keep it, and think religion should stay. Religion is the route cause of many terrorist attacks. The Manchester atrocity being the latest, it is not only moslem extremists that have exploded bombs in Manchester, the catholic funded IRA have murdered a few people there as well approx. 30 years ago in a city centre shopping centre.

 

I had hoped some one would have taken the stance of perhaps suggesting taxation as a means of reducing the revenue of religious organisations, and hence their influence. Perhaps after every atrocity they could have a taxation increase.

Taxation could be carried out on all donations, like VAT. The revenue could be used to educate people and rehabilitate those indoctrinated or abused by religion and religious leaders. Assets could be seized for none compliance.

 

Charitable status could be removed from religious schools due to teaching non factual things as fact, also child abuse. Taxation could be back dated and religious schools could be closed down, or made to teach the truth as best as it is known, not based on myth and legend.

 

etc

etc

 

The thread is about banning or reducing the influence of religion with the aim of curtailing extremism, it is not about politics, or any other diversionary ideas thrown up above. Neither is it about spirituality or science, the post is about religion, not science or spirituality.

 

 

Why deny the millions of people who find solace in their religion, because of a few extremists who use it as an excuse to justify there political aspirations?

 

That's like banning cars because a few idiots drive irresponsibly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.