Should atheism be illegal?

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
You need a genocide that involved the divinely ordered destruction of people that didn’t deserve to die.

Did the children and infants of Jericho deserve to die?

Do you think their dying was a “desert” (justly or unjustly deserved)?

It was the result of the people of Jericho being in the condition that they were, in several severe violations of natural law due to Canaanite worship practices. The city of Jericho was declared an anathema, an “offering ot God”.

Everything living in Jericho was to be killed, to utterly obliterate any reminder of Ba’al and Moloch. The people of Israel were not “strong enough” to be selective in choosing who should live and who should not.

Now, we don’t actually KNOW that this utter genocide took place as stated! The purpose of the story as told is to show that the walls of iniquity (represented by Jericho) can be crumbled by preaching of the word (the trumpets and shouts) which allows for the slaying of evil (the killing of evil-doers and their seed).

Once again, I rather doubt that ALL the people were killed, or all the livestock for that matter, but genocide **was **the “rule of the time” as to how warfare was waged back in those days.

Chalet bound children killed by avalanches probably don’t “deserve” to die, either, per se, but their parents put them in the situation of being subject to the big-white snowy mountain falling on them every now and then.

Now, you will likely say that this proves that God was either cruel (evil) for commanding such a thing, or nonexistent because God would not BE cruel (evil). As with the avalanche victims, God has His reasons for allowing things to happen, and those reasons can not be evil, regardless of how any human being sees those things He allows doing.

Quote:
The problem is that we are never going to be in a position where we have a right to judge the actions of God, because, unlike us, he is both infinitely wise and infinitely good. Morally and intellectually, we are in no position to condemn his actions.

No. What you are saying here is that I am not in a position to judge the God of Abraham, because I do not judge him good and right and just and worthy of worship. You think your judgment of this God as possessing all those qualities is just peachy-keen.

You either accept God as God, or you accept that God is a god representing an idol of some human want.

You can judge the god you see, mistaking that god for God, because the god you see is a god like yourself-gone-sociopath.

This is an unwarranted double standard; this is fallacious; this is far beneath any semblance of civilized debate; this is, in short, total bollocks. Tell me I’m wrong all you like, but don’t you ever tell me I can’t consider the same questions you do.

Since you insist on judging your evil god, rightly I would say, instead of understanding how God is not a god, much less your evil god, we’re not “debating” about the same subject!

I don’t mind if you’d rather talk about your evil god as opposed to God, but don’t get all huffy because we point out that you’re judging the wrong thing in the correct way, while thinking that we’re not allowing you your value judgement of that which you are rightly judging.

 

[captain_serious]

Atheism is quite possibly one of the worst sins in the eyes of the Church. It includes a complete rejection of Jesus, the authority of the Church, the love of God - almost every single Catholic doctrine about the divine. It most certianly is a mortal sin, if the other two conditions for a mortal sin are met.

Other grave sins are illegal, such as murder, rape, theft, etc. Atheism, which is just as bad (if not even worse) than those sins, ought to be illegal too. Also, it would be a deterrant to conversion to atheism and most likely result in significantly fewer atheists.

So, why shouldn’t atheism be illegal? Where is my logic wrong?

You can’t actually be serious. Making atheism illegal would be exactly as immoral as making theism illegal. The “Christian” who would advocate outlawing atheism is morally inferior to the atheist who believes in freedom of thought.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

You can’t actually be serious. Making atheism illegal would be exactly as immoral as making theism illegal. The “Christian” who would advocate outlawing atheism is morally inferior to the atheist who believes in freedom of thought.

Then you’re accusing God of being immoral, for God ordered Israel to punish idolaters with death in Old Testament times, and Tertullian, whose teachings are part of Sacred Tradition, approved of all of those actions. Jesus, also, declared his approval of the justice of the entirety of the Law, which shows that he believed God did right in ordering Israelites to punish those idolaters in court. So you’re accusing both God the Son and God the Father of gross immorality, if you say punishing atheism or idolatry is just as “bad” as punishing Christians for theism. According to Jesus and God the Father, it is just.

I might add that St. Paul, Tertullian and St. Polycarp, Early Church Fathers, made statements expressing approval of punishing idolaters. And in the fourth century, when Christianity had gained political muscle, this became the generally accepted position of the Church. Saints Augustine and Jerome approved of it, among other great thinkers and leaders of that time. In later times, Thomas Aquinas and even St. Francis agreed. This position of the Church has only become challenged in our later days.

Religious Freedom, as an ideology, spread in the Church only after the Reformation and Enlightenment shattered Christendom and made the enforcement of punishments on non-Christians no longer practical. The Catholic Church first accepted religious freedom at Vatican II in the mid-20th century, and only after undergoing immense pressure from secular, liberal and Protestant forces for centuries. Numerous popes and saints throughout our Church’s history rejected religious freedom, because it is the source of moral anarchy. Different religions come to different conclusions than Catholicism does about what is moral, and when they all have an equal right to exist in a state, and the “will of the people” is all that decides which moral values to follow, all morality in law comes becomes subject to the will of humanity, rather than to the will of the one true God. And immorality flourishes as a result, like abortion, homosexual marriage and other things, evils that never existed during the Medieval Ages, when Christian morality, the only completely true morality, was enforced. Murder, sexual immorality, greed, lawlessness and rebelliousness are the children of religious freedom. Religious Freedom has been seen as a barbaric principle throughout Church history (except that a few of the Early Church Fathers supported it, though others also rejected it) until our present day, which is madness, because it is in our day that its wicked results are the most obviously manifested.

 

[captain_serious]

Then you’re accusing God of being immoral, for God ordered Israel to punish idolaters with death in Old Testament times, and Tertullian, whose teachings are part of Sacred Tradition, approved of all of those actions.

Yes, god is credited in the bible with committing immoral actions. Some argue that ANYTHING a god does is by definition “moral”, but I do not agree. If a man told you to kill someone for being an “idolater”, then you would have to refuse, because it would be immoral. But suddenly it becomes moral if a god tells you to?

Jesus, also, declared his approval of the justice of the entirety of the Law, which shows that he believed God did right in ordering Israelites to punish those idolaters in court. So you’re accusing both God the Son and God the Father of gross immorality, if you say punishing atheism or idolatry is just as “bad” as punishing Christians for theism. According to Jesus and God the Father, it is just.

I am stating that it is a fact that making it illegal to NOT believe in a god is equally as immoral as making it illegal to believe in a god. These are both opinions. It is immoral to outlaw opinions. You are sick if you think otherwise. If you think that god approves of men punishing other men for thought crimes, then you are accusing god of being immoral.

I might add that St. Paul, Tertullian and St. Polycarp, Early Church Fathers, made statements expressing approval of punishing idolaters. And in the fourth century, when Christianity had gained political muscle, this became the generally accepted position of the Church. Saints Augustine and Jerome approved of it, among other great thinkers and leaders of that time. In later times, Thomas Aquinas and even St. Francis agreed. This position of the Church has only become challenged in our later days.

It adds nothing to bolster your immoral ideas by naming people who also hold them.

Religious Freedom, as an ideology, spread in the Church only after the Reformation and Enlightenment shattered Christendom and made the enforcement of punishments on non-Christians no longer practical. The Catholic Church first accepted religious freedom at Vatican II in the mid-20th century, and only after undergoing immense pressure from secular, liberal and Protestant forces for centuries. Numerous popes and saints throughout our Church’s history rejected religious freedom, because it is the source of moral anarchy. Different religions come to different conclusions than Catholicism does about what is moral, and when they all have an equal right to exist in a state, and the “will of the people” is all that decides which moral values to follow, all morality in law comes becomes subject to the will of humanity, rather than to the will of the one true God. And immorality flourishes as a result, like abortion, homosexual marriage and other things, evils that never existed during the Medieval Ages, when Christian morality, the only completely true morality, was enforced. Murder, sexual immorality, greed, lawlessness and rebelliousness are the children of religious freedom. Religious Freedom has been seen as a barbaric principle throughout Church history (except that a few of the Early Church Fathers supported it, though others also rejected it) until our present day, which is madness, because it is in our day that its wicked results are the most obviously manifested.

So the church eventually stopped killing and persecuting people for their beliefs. And you think that’s a bad thing? The reason we have a secular form of government is because people are fallible, and that includes all the people you mentioned. That way, one group that considers itself to have the infallible ability to know the mind of god, cannot get in power and destroy the most precious thing on this earth: freedom of conscious. By the way, in your infinite wisdom, what should be the punishment for not believing in your god?

 

[Greg27]

I think the problem lies in a number of areas. I think it is understandable why Canon Law would regard atheism as being incompatible with the life of a believer; whether it is right or wrong to punish someone for unbelief is another question.

I gather you feel that civil law should make atheism (or at least open atheism or preaching atheism) a crime. There are several problems with such a desire, legally speaking. The first is that such a law is likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court in most common law countries (or in Australia, the High Court) because it would be unconstitutional. The Constitutions of most Western countries hold that freedom of religion is a basic human right, and this right extends to the freedom to have no religion. There is also the doctrine of separation of church and state which is well-enshrined in most countries, and it is a basic principle of government that the State does not legislate in favour of, or against, a certain religion.

To legislate against atheism would be like legislating to ban theism or Catholicism. It is the State trying to interfere with a basic civil freedom. People in the U.S. often make a huge show about how bad it is the government is taking away freedom, such as the right to bear guns, but a law banning a certain religious belief (or lack of belief) is just as dangerous to individual freedom, if not more so, than any move to restrict or ban firearm possession.

Atheism should not be illegal, any more than theism.

As for atheism being as bad as rape or murder, perhaps Catholic doctrine regards all as mortal sins. However, it is much harder to make the argument in terms of criminal law, that atheism is as harmful to people as rape and murder. Rape causes evident trauma to the victim, while the harm caused by murder is evident enough to everyone for the action to be deemed a crime. But I don’t think the comparison holds, as Richard Dawkins is not an atheist one moment and happy to rape and murder and steal the next. There is no evidence to suggest atheism totally corrupts people, leads to serious criminal behavour, or is morally equivalent to rape and murder, any more than theism is.