Should atheism be illegal?

[Lief_Erikson]

Well he doesn’t strike them dead with a lightning bolt. Perhaps people’s freedom to excercise choice with regards to their own minds and bodies means something…

God rarely exhibits power in that kind of way. But the Western world is already suffering negative consequences for its actions. STDs, negative medical consequences of abortions, demonic hauntings as a result of witchcraft, intense mass delusion as a result of idolatry, crime rates, rape rates, etc. I think the worst is still ahead of us, though, and we’re heading into it with a lot of coal in the engine.

Close enough.

In this culture and society, that’s true. Interestingly, if you lived a few hundred years ago and still had the same beliefs you have now, you would be the maniac and I would be the norm.

Our environments have a massive role in shaping us. The two biggest reasons why you believe what you do is that you were born where you were and when you were. There is no logic or rationality to that. And it’s true of virtually everyone.

I struggled enormously with my cultural assumptions, as I came to the beliefs I hold to now.

We don’t need to demonstrate a supernatural value to human life. I find this statement curious anyway. Christianity basically states that our ‘intrinsic’ value is only found our ability to glorify God. If he commanded everyone to kill left handed people in his name, simply because it pleased him, this would be ‘right’ and ‘just’.

I don’t think this is true. God’s nature is eternal, not arbitrary.

If I acknowledge my desire to live, then I must acknowledge anothers, even if we are all just a collection of atoms and none of it matters.

Why? That may be moral, but morality is all a human construction minus the supernatural, so you can make up your own morality and it’s as valid as anyone else’s.

You will always have a point with abortion. Abortion is not consistent with respecting the lives of others.

I’m glad you see it that way. The liberal and secularist movements in general don’t seem to. In general, Christians are the ones fighting hardest against abortion.

Hard drugs are addictive enough to take away a persons ability to make a free choice, and they are strongly psychoactive/intoxicating. Their use presents a threat to other people. They are illegal because of that, not because it’s ‘immoral’ to get high.

They’re ‘immoral’ because they “are strongly psychoactive/intoxicating,” and “their use presents a threat to other people,” and they “are addictive enough to take away a person’s ability to make a free choice.” Except that I disagree a little with that last, because I don’t think they can possibly take away free choice. They put enough pressure on that choice, though, that it can amount pretty much to torture. Torture doesn’t take away free choice either. Some have resisted it. It puts immense pressure on that choice, however.

Nothing is immoral arbitrarily and then destructive as a side-effect. Immoral actions are always destructive, and it’s because they are destructive that we call them immoral.

Anyway, I’d ban most false religions for many (though not all) of the same reasons you’d ban hard drugs. False religions, like drugs, are destructive to the people that participate in them, and they present a threat to other people, through the example or words of the idolaters. False religions don’t put such heavy pressure on a person’s free choice as drugs do, though, I grant you.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

By the way, cynic, I would like to comment that it’s a pleasure talking with you. You aren’t rude, sarcastic or cutting. You are intelligent and thoughtful, and have very good manners.

Some people have tried to just rip me when I talk with them. So I appreciate the different standard you set.

 

[MerryAtheist]

Anyway, I’d ban most false religions for many (though not all) of the same reasons you’d ban hard drugs. False religions, like drugs, are destructive to the people that participate in them, and they present a threat to other people, through the example or words of the idolaters. False religions don’t put such heavy pressure on a person’s free choice as drugs do, though, I grant you.

Which false religions are you referring to?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

All except Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Oh, and we also would probably allow Judaism, as they don’t seek to convert people at all. Thus they aren’t going to be hurting other people much through their unbelief.

 

[MerryAtheist]

I haven’t the time to read through the whole thread, so pardon me if I’m trudging over ground that’s already been covered…

Just to be clear, you are advocating laws against unbelief in the United States, and laws that make it illegal to believe in any religion other than Catholicism, Orthodoxy (whatever that means), and Judaism.

You also advocate that the punishment for violating these laws should be death, with some concessions to mercy.

Correct?

 

[neat62]

We don’t need to demonstrate a supernatural value to human life. I find this statement curious anyway. Christianity basically states that our ‘intrinsic’ value is only found our ability to glorify God. If he commanded everyone to kill left handed people in his name, simply because it pleased him, this would be ‘right’ and ‘just’.

I am only going to pull this out…simply because it is absurd and demonstrates the lack of understanding of God.

God is ALL GOOD, ALL LOVE, ALL PURE, ALL TRUTH - He doesn’t randomly ask us to “hurt” what He created. That’s something that those who follow FALSE God’s believe. For instance, Muslims who believe that their “Allah” would prefer them to blow themselves up and take as many with them as possible in “his” name. Obviously that’s not correct, as God does not inflict evil upon the world…as He, again is perfection in Truth, Love and Purity.

God asks us to follow His laws, because His laws…will lead us to that same perfection.

 

[neat62]

I haven’t the time to read through the whole thread, so pardon me if I’m trudging over ground that’s already been covered…

Just to be clear, you are advocating laws against unbelief in the United States, and laws that make it illegal to believe in any religion other than Catholicism, Orthodoxy (whatever that means), and Judaism.

You also advocate that the punishment for violating these laws should be death, with some concessions to mercy.

Correct?

NO…that’s not at all what has been stated…or insinuated by most of us throughout the discussion. Perhaps reading the entire thread would be better, rather than assuming…especially when you obviously will take up one side in immediate defense.

As for specific comments by individuals, please don’t try to portray them as representing all the views of those of us here.

 

[MerryAtheist]

NO…that’s not at all what has been stated…or insinuated. Perhaps reading the entire thread would be better, rather than assuming…especially when you obviously will take up one side in immediate defense.

Sorry. I was addressing Leif Erickson directly. I should have quoted him.

I am aware of the overwhelming majority opinion against making atheism illegal, so relax. And I will not make predictions as to your opinions, so please offer me the same courtesy.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I haven’t the time to read through the whole thread, so pardon me if I’m trudging over ground that’s already been covered…

Just to be clear, you are advocating laws against unbelief in the United States, and laws that make it illegal to believe in any religion other than Catholicism, Orthodoxy (whatever that means), and Judaism.

Correct. Though I wouldn’t limit it only to the United States- God’s Law is the best legal framework I know of, no matter what country we’re talking about.

You also advocate that the punishment for violating these laws should be death, with some concessions to mercy.

Correct?

Not quite correct on that last. I’d say that the maximum penalty would be death. The penalty I personally prefer is the one St. Augustine advocated- banishment. But I wouldn’t make the laws, obviously.

Only 2% of the people tried in the Inquisition were condemned to death. The more merciful punishments were the norm. Death was the rare exception. That’s the way I think it should be, because we live in a New Covenant age.

In modern countries, especially, if false religions were ever banned, it would be best if a time of grace was opened up for a long period, because people here have grown up in a different culture and are not as wholly culpable as someone would be who grew up in a Christian environment like the Medieval Ages.

 

[neat62]

Sorry. I was addressing Leif Erickson directly. I should have quoted him.

I am aware of the overwhelming majority opinion against making atheism illegal, so relax. And I will not make predictions as to your opinions, so please offer me the same courtesy.

Well, to be honest, I haven’t actually stated one way or the other as to whether or not it should be “illegal” or not. I have, however, offered my thoughts on the topic of atheism and how I do consider it to be a “bad” thing in particular, because it has directly affected the rest of us and those of us who do believe have had to “give in” to Atheist’s demands that society change to meet their “non-belief”.

Michael Newdow is only ONE example that I have given. Probably one of the biggest however, was John Dewey and his direct influence and impact on the public education system.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Well, to be honest, I haven’t actually stated one way or the other as to whether or not it should be “illegal” or not. I have, however, offered my thoughts on the topic of atheism and how I do consider it to be a “bad” thing in particular, because it has directly affected the rest of us and those of us who do believe have had to “give in” to Atheist’s demands that society change to meet their “non-belief”.

Michael Newdow is only ONE example that I have given. Probably one of the biggest however, was John Dewey and his direct influence and impact on the public education system.

That’s true, and many false religious beliefs, to the extent that they are false, have a negative impact on the society around them. It’s not limited to atheism, as you know.

Wisdom 14 and Romans 1 p(name removed by moderator)oint idolatry as the root of all evil.

 

[MerryAtheist]

…it has directly affected the rest of us and those of us who do believe have had to “give in” to Atheist’s demands that society change to meet their “non-belief”

What forced believers to “give in”? Laws? Morality? A sense of fairness? Why give in when God is clearly on your side?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Because God also clearly calls for submission to authority. Once a law exists, we must bend to it (under protest), unless it requires us to do something evil.

Though we can, of course, try to change the law through legal channels.

 

[MerryAtheist]

Because God also clearly calls for submission to authority. Once a law exists, we must bend to it (under protest), unless it requires us to do something evil.

Though we can, of course, try to change the law through legal channels.

Which law are we talking about? And who passed the law?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I was just referring to unjust laws in general. Whether a king, a dictator, an oligarchy or a democracy formed it makes no difference. My comment holds for believers in any of those cases.

 

[MerryAtheist]

Well it seems to me that if you cannot specifically cite particular laws in which believers have “given in” to atheists (I’m referring largely to the U.S. here), any complaints you might have would appear to be nothing more than general malcontent whining about not getting your way.

But really, the Catholic Church had it’s shot at running things, and did so for over a thousand years. For good or ill, the fact is that it will probably never happen again. You can’t turn back the clock.

However, the fact that there are people like the almost 9% who answered in the affirmative in this thread’s poll, who wish atheism were illegal is enough to prompt me to stay vigilant.

Thanks for the wake-up call.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I wasn’t trying to cite specific laws. I was trying to explain the Christian position on submission to authority.

 

[johnlal]

From the Catechism:

2106 "Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits."34 This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."35

2107 "If because of the circumstances of a particular people special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional organization of a state, the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom must be recognized and respected as well."36

2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,37 but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.38

 

[Lief_Erikson]

** johnlal**, first, the Catechism is not itself infallible. The teachings within it are based on historical Church tradition, teaching, previous councils, and the scripture. So many of the original documents are infallible, or form a part of the composite of Sacred Tradition.

However, the primary historical support for the Catechism’s position on Religious Freedom is Vatican II. According to the NZ Catholic Newspaper, Vatican II’s position on Religious Freedom “was a sharp departure from centuries of Church teaching that complete religious freedom belonged only to the Catholic Church as an institution because it contained the fullness of divine truth.”

The decision came “after ‘vehement debate’ with strong opposition from many Vatican officials and bishops . . .”

Vatican II is only a pastoral council, also, and it presented no new dogma. We need to recognize the root of these statements in the Catechism. And we need to recognize that it has no place in Catholic tradition prior to the 20th century, except for a few of the Early Church Fathers.

nzcatholic.org.nz/viewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=420

The Catechism was written as, “An organic and synthetic exposition of the essentials and fundamental segments of Catholic doctrine in matters of faith and morals, in the light of Vatican Council II and in respect of preceding tradition of the church.”

woodstock.georgetown.edu/church_studies/reese/cat-bib.htm

 

[ribozyme]

I think that you’re talking about something different from what I’m talking about. I was saying that the government has a responsibility to protect adults. I wasn’t saying it should control every facet of their lives.

True, should the government protect people from poverty?

In Sweden the government goes not function to control every facet of people’s lives.